***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[Bahnz]

And another. Corey doing a brilliant job in this series.

 

[straw man]

West Indies must feel just a little unlucky losing both Edwards and Deonarine by the width of a gnat's pubic hair

 

[Beamer]

IMHO that's a bad decision. Clipping about a mm of leg stump and I thought it looked legside and high live too. The sort of decision that goes against you when you're playing dreadful cricket I guess though.

 

[Flem274*]

The likes of Anderson and Watson really show the "if 4 bowers can't do it, 5 won't (or it's cousin involving 3 seamers and 4 seamers)" is flawed thinking. Both provide valuable wickets and tight overs.

 

[BeeGee]

There is no way this is a 86/5 pitch. The WI are making McCullum look like a genius.

 

[straw man]

IMHO that's a bad decision. Clipping about a mm of leg stump and I thought it looked legside and high live too. The sort of decision that goes against you when you're playing dreadful cricket I guess though.

Yes we're really familiar with that sort of feeling tbh. Just one thing seems to pile on top of another and when you're playing badly you just cannot afford any marginal decisions against you, or it turns into a disaster.

Reminds me a little of when we last toured India; the number of times the umpire made a call against us and every time we reviewed it was 'umpire's call' and upheld - couldn't really complain but we also couldn't afford that.

 

[Flem274*]

IMHO that's a bad decision. Clipping about a mm of leg stump and I thought it looked legside and high live too. The sort of decision that goes against you when you're playing dreadful cricket I guess though.

The line has to be drawn somewhere I guess so fair enough but imo the reviewing team shouldn't lose a review if it's close. DRS should be there to punish the Watson's of the world, not the close calls.

 

[Athlai]

IMHO that's a bad decision. Clipping about a mm of leg stump and I thought it looked legside and high live too. The sort of decision that goes against you when you're playing dreadful cricket I guess though.

Hitting is hitting though. And the technology has backed up that if you removed the player from that scenario it would have hit.

 

[Mike5181]

Yeah, Deonarine was a bit unlucky there

 

[hendrix]

Yeah basically Beamer called it right. Those marginal calls tend to go against you and NZ is certainly familiar with that.

 

[Athlai]

The line has to be drawn somewhere I guess so fair enough but imo the reviewing team shouldn't lose a review if it's close. DRS should be there to punish the Watson's of the world, not the close calls.

Agreed, "Umpire's call" should not be taken away from the team if you referred it. Because effectively it's saying yeah, was worth reviewing if it went the other way we wouldn't have went against you.

 

[Bahnz]

It's really rather surprising that Anderson is bowling this well. Didn't he get about 6 wickets in last season's PS? Must've been working on it pretty hard over the winter. Or maybe it's just the Hadlee-Chatfield effect where keeping it tight is sufficient to take wickets when there's genuine quality coming from the other end.

 

[Beamer]

Definitely unlucky. Agree with Craig McMillan. Ian Gould will look at that and realise he made an error even though he got away with it.

Still, Deonarine should be playing that with a straighter bat, not playing right across the line so early. Awful batting from Powell and Samuels earlier too. We had a chance to put New Zealand under pressure and they have thrown it away to decent but unspectacular seam bowling.

 

[Dan]

If the ball would have hit a mm of the stumps, it's hitting the stumps and is still LBW. The "oh it only would have just clipped them, I'm hard done by" rubbish. It's like getting bowled and saying "oh but it only clipped the bails; all three stumps are still standing".

The only reason Umpires Call exists is because there's a margin of error on the technology. If that margin didn't exist, it's just plain out.

 

[Bahnz]

The only reason Umpires Call exists is because there's a margin of error on the technology. If that margin didn't exist, it's just plain out.

Yeah, but it irritates me that that margin of error doesn't seem to exist when hawkeye shows the ball to be narrowly missing after an out decision. I would've been spitting tacks if Deonarine had had that decision overturned because hawkeye showed the ball to be missing by a mm.

 

[Flem274*]

Well you need a line somewhere, so there will always be outs or not outs just squeaking on one side of the line. It's tough bikkies, but when the decision is close I think the review should be retained.

 

[Dan]

I haven't seen Chanderpaul bat in ages; has his stance got even more ridiculous in recent times, or is my memory failing me?

 

[WindieWeathers]

I've stopped watching to be honest!!..it's a complete embarrassment and the only silver linging has been a bloody 21 year old kid who is playing his first four day game in months!!! (smh)...i'll take this defeat if serious changes in our cricket are made though!!..

1. Sammy should never be in the test side again

2. Gibson's position should be in serious doubt

3. they need to look at replacing the former batting coach (Toby Radford) properly because since he left before the India series the guys have been a shambles

4. and of course changes to our domestic system are badly needed

The board better get off their backsides and get it done!!..because they'll have hell to pay if we lose at home to NZ in june.

 

[Flem274*]

How is this batting performance Sammy's fault?

 

[Prince EWS]

I haven't seen Chanderpaul bat in ages; has his stance got even more ridiculous in recent times, or is my memory failing me?

It's definitely got more pronounced as his career has gone along but it hasn't changed for quite a few years now really. You probably just got used to it so it didn't seem as strange and now it's a shock again because you haven't seen him in ages.