***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[viriya]

Losing another crucial toss (which has just become an inevitability at home), top 3 batsmen all playing-on in the first innings & then arguably the best batsman in the world playing very well, but having a considerable amount of luck in his innings.

I wouldn't say he had a considerable amount of luck.. Some plays and misses yes, but he only started skying balls when he opened up near the end.

 

[Dan]

My last statement on the subject.

The pitch map according to Cricinfo comes down to what the match commentator decides to input the scoring application. If the commentator types "good length" in the commentary, that's what the ball will show up as in the pitch map as the guy doing it is one in the same.

i.e in the first innings"

Boult to Sangakkara, OUT, edged and Boult gets the big fish - Sanga! Beautiful away-swinging length delivery outside off making him drive, he does that on the up and thick edge flies to Southee's left at third slips where he takes a good diving catch. Sanga falls short of 12k runs by six runs"

Marked as "Good Length"

And in the second innings

"42.2 Boult has struck, he gets Sanga again with the outside edge! Accurate delivery just outside off on length, Sanga played inside the line again as the ball moved away and the outside edge was flying to first slip's right but Watling got there just in time with both hands for a nice catch 94/2"

Marked as "Good Length"

I think hendrix is referring to the TV pitch map and Ian Healy's infamous 'salmon zone' more so than Cricinfo's definition of 'good length' (which I suspect are similar-but-different anyway). With something so arbitrary as what length constitutes 'good' (in a normative sense rather that a purely definitional one), insofar as it's dependent upon pitch conditions, overhead conditions, whether or not the ball is swinging, who the bowler is, who the batsman is, what country you're playing in etc., I'm surprised (but thankful) that arguments along these lines don't happen more often.

In Ian Healy Salmon Zone land, a ball pitching on of stump, dead centre of the 'good length' zone, generally bounces over the top of off. Hence why Craig McDermott had to doctor his pitch maps to get all the Australian bowlers to bowl an actual good length (i.e. a ball about a yard fuller, hitting the top of off rather than bouncing over it).

In essence, yet more proof that Ian Healy sucks

 

[Blocky]

If Cricinfo decide their graphics by commentator opinion rather than hawkeye that's ****ing awful.

They don't have access to Hawkeye. They're not part of the TV network, they're a completely separate body. In most cases it's an Indian lad sitting in India watching a live telecast of it too.

 

[Prince EWS]

But I'm having fun, he'll next attempt to say "No, they weren't length balls" at which point I post the commentary from Cricinfo that states categorically they were length balls. Then he disagrees with Cricinfo and we go to video, etc etc etc.

Prophetic.

 

[Athlai]

I wouldn't say he had a considerable amount of luck.. Some plays and misses yes, but he only started skying balls when he opened up near the end.

Scored a good 50+ runs when he started skying balls near the end though.

 

[hendrix]

They don't have access to Hawkeye. They're not part of the TV network, they're a completely separate body. In most cases it's an Indian lad sitting in India watching a live telecast of it too.

On some scorecards there's access to the actual Hawkeye pitch maps - i.e. the current India vs Australia series.

 

[Zinzan]

I wouldn't say he had a considerable amount of luck.. Some plays and misses yes, but he only started skying balls when he opened up near the end.

We certainly disagree there viriya. I was getting so cynical towards the end that I thought no matter where he skied it/miscued it, he wasn't ever going to get out, just seemed like one of those days. I think 'considerable' is accurate. To be fair, most double tons require some luck, but thought he had quite a bit more than the average bear yesterday.

I even recall a smirk on his face at one stage after skying another one into no-mans land indicating it was 'his day'.

 

[Dan]

Also that catch by Watling. Really doesn't have much in the way of classical 'keeping footwork, does he?

 

[hendrix]

Prophetic.

Yeah, particularly when this comes back to myself pointing out that Blocky doesn't actually watch cricket.

 

[Cabinet96]

They don't have access to Hawkeye. They're not part of the TV network, they're a completely separate body. In most cases it's an Indian lad sitting in India watching a live telecast of it too.

They have hawk eye in their match centres.

 

[Dan]

If a ball takes a wicket, doesn't its length almost-automatically become 'good' anyway?
It was certainly a good length for the purpose of getting the batsman out, unless it's a rank full toss slapped to cover.

 

[Blocky]

In essence, yet more proof that Ian Healy sucks

I'll never disagree on Healy sucking.

But the reality is the two balls that got Sanga out would've hit the stumps had they been at the stumps, they were considered "good length" by the commentator and inputted into the system that way. Cricinfo doesn't have the pitch map in terms of a visual representation of where the ball landed on the wicket. They simply have a drop down selector asking you to put what length the ball pitched on and the line the ball pitched on.

Cricinfo use a heat map, rather than a pitch map. The reason we were discussing the Cricinfo definitions was that was the reference point when I disagreed and sought proof to show that Hendrix was wrong saying Boult had bowled short to Sangakkara. That's when he attempted to start the "But Good Length in NZ is over the stumps" - not according to the Cricinfo commentator who marked both dismissals in the first game as "good length"

Salmon is considered back of a length in my view - any thing that would go over the top of the stumps shouldn't be considered "Good length" - "short of a length" is what I'd consider that. It's the same as you teach to kids, Good Length is anything that would hit the top of off stump. Most bowlers around the world bowl one length and struggle when they get into conditions that are either slower or faster than they're used to - pretty much everyone touring India as a pacer or likewise somewhere like Western Australia.

Good length should always mean "Making the batsman play otherwise face having his stump taken out of the ground" - probably why you had McDermott doctoring the pitch map.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

We need to really punish Matthews, we don't want the pacers getting a rest for free.

 

[Prince EWS]

If a ball takes a wicket, doesn't its length almost-automatically become 'good' anyway?

Dan in consequentialising a deontological discussion shocker.

 

[hendrix]

The difference is that I'm talking about where the ball actually lands, not using the adjective "good" to define its length.

I don't even get why Blocky is not conceding that point.

 

[viriya]

Scored a good 50+ runs when he started skying balls near the end though.

Yea but once you get 150 the damage is kinda already done.

 

[Zinzan]

Yea but once you get 150 the damage is kinda already done.

I think he means the skiers occurred after 50, not 150, which I seem to recall as well.

 

[Athlai]

Yea but once you get 150 the damage is kinda already done.

Helped him add a lot of runs with the tail. Add 50-70 to our score and we're a lot closer to being back in this game.

 

[Athlai]

I think he means the skiers occurred after 50, not 150, which I seem to recall as well.

Na he really got loose at around the 150 mark. Before that he was pretty solid overall, a few chances but not what you'd call a chancy innings.

 

[Zinzan]

I think he means the skiers occurred after 50, not 150, which I seem to recall as well.

Edit, maybe just after his century actually.