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

[Zinzan]

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.

I think there's also an element of noticing/remembering the playing and missing more when it's an opposition batsman as opposed to your own.

 

[Dan]

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"

I completely agree with you; to me a 'good' length ball, all else being equal, is one that hits the top third of off stump. But if you look at what seems to be a pretty standard pace bowler Hawkeye pitchmap, that delivery falls into the 'full' category and the stuff in the 'Good' zone are all short-of-a-length deliveries:

I think it's pretty obvious to all involved that Boult's ball to dismiss Sangakkara did not pitch in that salmon zone; the salmon 'good length' zone defines a good length as not knowing whether to play forward or back, when an actual good length in NZ is something that detonates off peg two thirds of the way up or induces an edge to second slip.

That's why we're seeing the definitional conflict, not because hendrix actually thinks that short-of-a-length is the right length to bowl, but because broadcasters have decided that short-of-a-length is now good and good is now too full.

Incidentally, since the rise of the Salmon Zone so, so many bowlers have ended up dropping way too short for their stock ball. DAMN YOU IAN HEALY!

 

[Blocky]

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.

Because you're blatantly wrong, you even said "He needs to bowl like he did in the first match" - well, he has. He just got figured out when conditions didn't suit against the worlds greatest batsman, someone who previously you were hell bent on saying "had major issues against left arm seam and wouldn't factor against Boult" when I and others were saying we backed him to adjust and be a force in the second match.

He didn't bowl short in this game, he was worked front of square for the majority of the runs scored against him because once the ball stops swinging, he's not a force. It's that simple.

 

[Athlai]

I think there's also an element of noticing/remembering the playing and missing more when it's an opposition batsman as opposed to your own.

Emotional scarring.

 

[Dan]

Dan in consequentialising a deontological discussion shocker.

Only for the lulz. If I were bothered enough to study ethics, pretty sure I'd be as deontological as they come (assuming a dichotomy between the two since I cbf looking up other schools of thought).

 

[hendrix]

If Kippax can somehow come up with Boult's pitch map to Left Handers from SL's first innings in this match that would help.

 

[Blocky]

I completely agree with you; to me a 'good' length ball, all else being equal, is one that hits the top third of off stump. But if you look at what seems to be a pretty standard pace bowler Hawkeye pitchmap, that delivery falls into the 'full' category and the stuff in the 'Good' zone are all short-of-a-length deliveries:

I think it's pretty obvious to all involved that Boult's ball to dismiss Sangakkara did not pitch in that salmon zone; the salmon 'good length' zone defines a good length as not knowing whether to play forward or back, when an actual good length in NZ is something that detonates off peg two thirds of the way up or induces an edge to second slip.

That's why we're seeing the definitional conflict, not because hendrix actually thinks that short-of-a-length is the right length to bowl, but because broadcasters have decided that short-of-a-length is now good and good is now too full.

Incidentally, since the rise of the Salmon Zone so, so many bowlers have ended up dropping way too short for their stock ball. DAMN YOU IAN HEALY!

On that pitch map, I'd struggle to think of any pitch that a new ball wouldn't bounce over the stumps on "good length"

I'm just brought back to why I feel Curtly Ambrose was so successful everywhere in the world and McGrath not too far behind, he was one of the quickest to figure out the length he needed to bowl on a wicket to bring LBW and bowled into play without being too full. That to me is "Good Length" on any wicket.

The Salmon zone almost requires you to be 4'11 to bring LBW/Bowled into play.

 

[Immenso]

After moving my rug and deck chair 100m further down the bank to get away from the annoying dicks behind me, I've returned as 'dropped my keys', and find they're still at it ...

And, no, I'm not at the Basin.

 

[hendrix]

On that pitch map, I'd struggle to think of any pitch that a new ball wouldn't bounce over the stumps on "good length"

I'm just brought back to why I feel Curtly Ambrose was so successful everywhere in the world and McGrath not too far behind, he was one of the quickest to figure out the length he needed to bowl on a wicket to bring LBW and bowled into play without being too full. That to me is "Good Length" on any wicket.

The Salmon zone almost requires you to be 4'11 to bring LBW/Bowled into play.

I agree.

If the cricinfo commentators are using the same definitions as that pitch map, "good length" would not be hitting the stumps and Boult was indeed bowling too short.

Since I've seen the actual Sky pitch map, I can conclude that this is in fact the case.

 

[hendrix]

That's why we're seeing the definitional conflict, not because hendrix actually thinks that short-of-a-length is the right length to bowl, but because broadcasters have decided that short-of-a-length is now good and good is now too full.

FWIW I was the one who claimed Boult had not bowled full enough.

I believe he should have been aiming for about 5M on this pitch, which is about where he took Sanga's wicket in the second innings in Christchurch. It would probably be described as a long half volley in many places.

Since Blocky is now agreeing that "good length" = too short, I think we can agree that Blocky's opinion about Boult's bowling in SL's first innings here was not based on visual evidence.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Prasad definitely has the siddle/wagner factor to him.

 

[Blocky]

I agree.

If the cricinfo commentators are using the same definitions as that pitch map, "good length" would not be hitting the stumps and Boult was indeed bowling too short.

Since I've seen the actual Sky pitch map, I can conclude that this is in fact the case.

The Cricinfo commentators don't though, we proved that by showing the fact that the two balls that got Boult wickets against Sanga in the first match were considered good length. And as for the pitch map, I don't recall seeing it a single time across the last few days, Doull himself would be all over it if he felt the bowlers were too short on this wicket, he lives for that.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

FWIW I was the one who claimed Boult had not bowled full enough.

pretty sure i started that one, the pitch maps confirm it

 

[hendrix]

The Cricinfo commentators don't though, we proved that by showing the fact that the two balls that got Boult wickets against Sanga in the first match were considered good length. And as for the pitch map, I don't recall seeing it a single time across the last few days, Doull himself would be all over it if he felt the bowlers were too short on this wicket, he lives for that.

I do. Vividly. I commented on it at the time to a friend with whom I was watching the match. I agree that Doull would usually point out the problem, but he didn't. I did think it was strange at the time.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I do. Vividly. I commented on it at the time to a friend with whom I was watching the match. I agree that Doull would usually point out the problem, but he didn't. I did think it was strange at the time.

Yeah they just said "excellent grouping from boult" when it was clear he'd bowled literally nothing on the same length as the balls that got his wicket in the last test.

 

[Prince EWS]

Only for the lulz. If I were bothered enough to study ethics, pretty sure I'd be as deontological as they come (assuming a dichotomy between the two since I cbf looking up other schools of thought).

I don't think you would be actually.

 

[Blocky]

FWIW I was the one who claimed Boult had not bowled full enough.

Since Blocky is now agreeing that "good length" = too short, I think we can agree that Blocky's opinion about Boult's bowling in SL's first innings here was not based on visual evidence.

"Evidence" - you mean like the fact that Cricinfo's definitions that you used to argue "Boult had bowled too short" were the same ones that were used to say "Boult bowled full in the first game" by you? It's a special kind of "evidence" here. You'll also notice that Cricinfo have "Short of a Good Length" which is pretty much what Salmon is.

But let's not just take the pitch map for granted - look at the wagon wheel and how many runs were collected infront of square by Sanga.

 

[Dan]

I don't think you would be actually.

Yeah, fair call. Too legalistic for my liking (from the wikipedia snippet I read on google). Far better fit than consequentialism though (hence the assumed false dichotomy) .

 

[hendrix]

"Evidence" - you mean like the fact that Cricinfo's definitions that you used to argue "Boult had bowled too short" were the same ones that were used to say "Boult bowled full in the first game" by you? It's a special kind of "evidence" here. You'll also notice that Cricinfo have "Short of a Good Length" which is pretty much what Salmon is.

But let's not just take the pitch map for granted - look at the wagon wheel and how many runs were collected infront of square by Sanga.

no, I used video evidence.

you do know that back foot shots can be played in front of square, right?

 

[Flem274*]

please keep dropping big daddy kane.