hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
why does that matter? The results weren't available. And he was shown to be chucking anyway.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014
- Thread starter Hurricane
- Start date
As for it being your opinion, WW, my opinion may be that the earth is flat. My opinion may be that vaccines cause autism in young children. My opinion may be that 9/11 was an inside job and Barack Obama is secretly a Communist Muslim Reptilian who is part of the illuminati.
And that's fine. You or I are entitled to any one of those opinions. They're wrong, but we're entitled to them nonetheless. That's the great thing about (relatively) free speech [/Cribb]
But in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, don't expect anybody to accept that opinion. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and hide behind the "it's my opinion" card when you're defending the indefensible. Hawkeye proves that the ball was hitting the stumps. Every other condition of LBW was met. The correct decision was made, whether you like it or not.
Then Coney would have been wrong too. The ball was hitting the stumps and met every single criteria for LBW. Just because it didn't look out doesn't mean it wasn't out. Batsmen have been getting away with that kind of thing for far too long because most umpires don't have the balls to give it out. DRS is now showing that those decisions can be given accurately.
Batsman's game etc.
And the Watling decision was a screw up, no argument from me. But the first rule of umpiring is never play catch-up. Two mistakes to cancel each other out are exponentially worse than one mistake in isolation.
And about bloody time Kane got reported. Looks horrendous, whether he is found to chuck or not. While we're at it, let's nominate Brumby for Chief 'Get That Bloke Tested' Guy so we can once and for all tell where those 4/10 'kinks' stand vis-a-vis those 8/10 'pitches'.
Batsman's game etc.
And the Watling decision was a screw up, no argument from me. But the first rule of umpiring is never play catch-up. Two mistakes to cancel each other out are exponentially worse than one mistake in isolation.
And about bloody time Kane got reported. Looks horrendous, whether he is found to chuck or not. While we're at it, let's nominate Brumby for Chief 'Get That Bloke Tested' Guy so we can once and for all tell where those 4/10 'kinks' stand vis-a-vis those 8/10 'pitches'.
And that's fine. You or I are entitled to any one of those opinions. They're wrong, but we're entitled to them nonetheless. That's the great thing about (relatively) free speech [/Cribb]
But in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, don't expect anybody to accept that opinion. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and hide behind the "it's my opinion" card when you're defending the indefensible. Hawkeye proves that the ball was hitting the stumps. Every other condition of LBW was met. The correct decision was made, whether you like it or not.
Then Coney would have been wrong too. The ball was hitting the stumps and met every single criteria for LBW. Just because it didn't look out doesn't mean it wasn't out. Batsmen have been getting away with that kind of thing for far too long because most umpires don't have the balls to give it out. DRS is now showing that those decisions can be given accurately.
Batsman's game etc.
And the Watling decision was a screw up, no argument from me. But the first rule of umpiring is never play catch-up. Two mistakes to cancel each other out are exponentially worse than one mistake in isolation.
And about bloody time Kane got reported. Looks horrendous, whether he is found to chuck or not. While we're at it, let's nominate Brumby for Chief 'Get That Bloke Tested' Guy so we can once and for all tell where those 4/10 'kinks' stand vis-a-vis those 8/10 'pitches'.
Then Coney would have been wrong too. The ball was hitting the stumps and met every single criteria for LBW. Just because it didn't look out doesn't mean it wasn't out. Batsmen have been getting away with that kind of thing for far too long because most umpires don't have the balls to give it out. DRS is now showing that those decisions can be given accurately.
Batsman's game etc.
And the Watling decision was a screw up, no argument from me. But the first rule of umpiring is never play catch-up. Two mistakes to cancel each other out are exponentially worse than one mistake in isolation.
And about bloody time Kane got reported. Looks horrendous, whether he is found to chuck or not. While we're at it, let's nominate Brumby for Chief 'Get That Bloke Tested' Guy so we can once and for all tell where those 4/10 'kinks' stand vis-a-vis those 8/10 'pitches'.
Last edited:
Nah, rules state Kane can continue to bowl until the results are announced. Pretty much every other bowler tested has continued to bowl until the results have been released before undertaking remedial action. Imagine if Murali stopped bowling every time he was sent for testing and had a delay before the results.
Baz may be slightly more conservative with his use, but tbh if KW doesn't bowl I suspect it's for tactical reasons, not a McCullum-led moral stance against chucking. They still pick Kyle Mills in ODIs, and Andy Ellis has (somehow) got an ODI gig in the past.
If Anderson is unwell and we get Captain Opener...
5. Ronchi
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
If Anderson was injured/sick I legitimately would pick Ronchi for the next Test match. Won't happen though.
Doesn't matter if he's 'better' or not. The question is 'is he likely to perform better than Rutherford or Fulton if selected'. The answer is yes IMO. Ronchi isn't the perfect option, but he's less-bad than Fulton coming back or Rutherford in spinning conditions.
Phlegm to rage IMO.
Phlegm to rage IMO.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I rate them on a very similar level and Rutherford is completely out of sorts right now. I agree with Dan.
Won't happen as there's basically no chance of McCullum opening but I'd be making that move with the squad available.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, definitely -- but after he had to do it last Test anyway, with Rutherford and Fulton in form that would make them unpickable if there was anybody who could potentially open the batting in their place on tour, and with the series in the balance, I reckon this is one time where he may consider it. Doesn't mean he'll do it, or that it will be anything resembling permanent, but I think it'll have to be in consideration.
Or if Hesson's that against it, send Ish or Craig to open.
1. Craig
2. Latham
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. McCullum
6. Ronchi
7. Watling +
8. Neesham
9. Southee
10. Sodhi
11. Boult
The more 'keepers in an XI the better, obviously.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, the Girl Guides like Michael Papps. So there.