**Official** Pakistan v New Zealand in the UAE 2014

[anil1405]

That looked plumb in front... that was a casual appeal from Pakistanis

 

[Blocky]

So ...

How long does NZ have to bat to save the test? There were around 140 overs to play from the start of their innings, I assume they need to bat 80 overs (= 240 runs @ 3 rpo), leaves Pak 250 to win from 60 overs which isn't beyond the strong Pak middle order. Anything less means Pak will stroll home.

It depends on how long Baz can stay there and hit at near a run a ball. Ideally you'd want a target of around 260-290 from 80 overs but I think that'd be a mistake with our attack the way it is. Keep in mind Pakistan just blitzed Sri Lanka earlier in the year, 306 off 56 overs.

The good thing about Baz is that he will risk losing to win. The bad thing about Baz is that he does that even when the cards don't suit him.

And with that dismissal... I now think it's more about "How long can we last and how many runs can we score" rather than "What can we set them"

 

[the big bambino]

Well I think as soon as the decision is referred ththe TV umpire should make his own mind up with the tools at hand. I have no idea why the on field decision should have any bearing on the decision the tv umpire makes with multiple replays, camera angles and other tools at his disposal. Benefit of the doubt to the batsman makes perfect sense, benefit of doubt to the umpire potentially at the expense of the batsman doesn't.

I don't really think the existing system really leads to any less frivolous reviews anyway.

3rd ump is there to assist those making decns. He's not necessarily a higher authourity. The protocols have an effect to establish the primacy of the on field umpire. Imo a praiseworthy ambition considering the undermining of their authourity over the preceding decades. When he has evidence the 3rd ump can advise a reversal of a decn. But if his evidence is inconclusive he should defer to the authourity of the on field ump as the game intends.

 

[Athlai]

See, revising history just doesn't really work.

Almost everyone and their dog was hankering for Kruger Van Wyk on the back of his domestic form and they all felt he would do much better than Watling, there was even consensus that after Watling had injury (having scored a tonne as keeper) that Van Wyk should be kept there.

The problem you seem to have is the "Woe is me" complex where you make posts about how I've apparently made endless points on Sodhi, when realistically what occured was me saying "Well, Sodhi bowled reasonably" and "Sodhi bowled his best for NZ" which turned into people attempting to create arguments/justification for Sodhi, at which point I pointed out that "reasonable" still meant 46 runs per wicket and was horrible when you consider the conditions he's bowling in, he just happens to be "not as horrible" as Craig.

The other thing that does make me laugh is while you backtrack on your views, you don't seem to think I should be able to adjust mine - i.e "Give Craig a shot." has turned into "Craig is terrible" from me. But according to you, the view first stated should be the one adhered to, in which case, tell us again how Wagner is crap?

What are you even talking about? What has van who got to do with anything? Making a right call doesn't make you right forever.

 

[Blocky]

What are you even talking about? What has van who got to do with anything? Making a right call doesn't make you right forever.

Making a procession of right calls makes you more likely to be right, though.

 

[Blocky]

Taylor going for the vaunted "I'm in **** form due to **** training, I know, I'll try hit myself back into form" despite his team being in a situation where we can't afford his dismissal.

 

[Blocky]

So, tell us again how Anderson is great?

I'm going to bed... pretty sure I'll wake up tomorrow to A: a Pakistan victory and B: A bunch of apologists defending their previous positions.

 

[Athlai]

Making a procession of right calls makes you more likely to be right, though.

Only a **** head sith deals in absolutes.

 

[anil1405]

79-4

 

[Athlai]

So, tell us again how Anderson is great?

I'm going to bed... pretty sure I'll wake up tomorrow to A: a Pakistan victory and B: A bunch of apologists defending their previous positions.

Who are you talking to?

 

[uvelocity]

lol kiwi****s are getting done here

'at least we didnt do as badly as the aussies' hey

 

[straw man]

Oh **** off, I go away for 20 minutes and we lose 3 more wickets.

 

[OverratedSanity]

3rd ump is there to assist those making decns. He's not necessarily a higher authourity. The protocols have an effect to establish the primacy of the on field umpire. Imo a praiseworthy ambition considering the undermining of their authourity over the preceding decades. When he has evidence the 3rd ump can advise a reversal of a decn. But if his evidence is inconclusive he should defer to the authourity of the on field ump as the game intends.

I'm arguing he should be a higher authority, because he can make a judgement with more evidence in front of him. I cbf about umpires's authority being undermined.

If there was no evidence of an edge, how did the on field umpire give him out? Obviously he thought he did see an edge in that one second he had to make a decision. For me, lack of evidence of an edge=not out, plain and simple. That instantaneous gut call by the umpire should not be higher in the hierarchy than the TV replays. Makes no sense to me, and is stupid, because apparently its only purpose is to make the on field umpires feel a little less useless.

 

[vandem]

3rd ump is there to assist those making decns. He's not necessarily a higher authourity. The protocols have an effect to establish the primacy of the on field umpire. Imo a praiseworthy ambition considering the undermining of their authourity over the preceding decades. When he has evidence the 3rd ump can advise a reversal of a decn. But if his evidence is inconclusive he should defer to the authourity of the on field ump as the game intends.

Good point.

But here I suspect the 3rd ump missed a chance to correct an error by the on-field ump, all he had to do was tell the on-field ump that the ball had definately hit the back armguard, but that he couldn't tell if it brushed the front arm glove band or not, then ask the on-field ump if he had heard two sounds or seen two deflections. I suspect that the on-field ump had heard one sound and seen one deflection.

But unfortunately I don't think that's how the DRS works, instead the 3rd ump needs to give an OK / overrule decision.

 

[smash84]

Had just woken up at NZ 63 for 1. What's this. And sarfaraz wag

 

[Maximas]

Really hurts touring teams when openers don't go on and make decent scores in these conditions

 

[the big bambino]

Hilarious though - you've just made my point.

A: I never said Boult should be dropped, you're trying to imply I didB: I've pointed out Boult needs to learn, but ultimately remains toothless without the new ball.
C: I've reiterated those points by saying Wagner would be a better horse for this course, however they shouldn't play exclusive of one another
D: The only mention of me saying Wagner should be ahead of Boult was me agreeing with someone that "Wagner should be ahead of Boult" which you nicely took out of context.

Internet Arguing 101, you're doing it wrong.

Nah nah I took it you wanted Boult dropped for Wagner too. As did at least one other as well. You didn't clarify at the time so it seemed reasonable to believe that is exactly what you meant. It looks like you're just back filling now bcos you've been caught contradicting yourself.

Never mind we all do it though some wont admit it. So just say who do you think should make way for Wagner, after confirming that you actually want him in the side.

 

[r3alist]

What do people think, how good is Yasir shah?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Making a procession of right calls makes you more likely to be right, though.

What? No it doesn't. It makes people more likely to believe your opinion, but it doesn't make you more likely to be right.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm arguing he should be a higher authority, because he can make a judgement with more evidence in front of him. I cbf about umpires's authority being undermined.

If there was no evidence of an edge, how did the on field umpire give him out? Obviously he thought he did see an edge in that one second he had to make a decision. For me, lack of evidence of an edge=not out, plain and simple. That instantaneous gut call by the umpire should not be higher in the hierarchy than the TV replays. Makes no sense to me, and is stupid, because apparently its only purpose is to make the on field umpires feel a little less useless.

It doesn't matter whether you cbf about it. No one cares about that. The game wants to establish the primacy of the on field umpire for the very good reason someone has to be respected for the conduct of the game. A vital goal for any organisation whether you recognise it or not. The 3rd umpire had no evidence to say the on field ump was wrong. Benefit of the doubt doesn't always have to go to the batsman and in this case it runs a poor second to upholding the dignity of the on field umpire.