***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016

[Hurricane]

Yes, but one would think an inch behind wouldn't be called by a good umpire. It's as much as the width of the actual line on the ground.
He certainly does push it though, and that doesn't help, but for that to be called no ball was some 'bad luck' indeed.

I admire any umpire who can call a no ball. I think it is damn hard. An inch behind or an inch in front means you are in the neighbourhood of a no ball.
The other thing is that Doug pushes the envelope so much is that the umpire is expecting to him overstep.

Doug's no balls have cost us tests before. Remember when he bowled Clarke with an off cutter no ball. And then Clarke went on to some mega score.

If I asked you a question Starfighter before the game like this

"At the end of the 1st day of the test a NZ bowler will take a wicket with a controversial no ball. Who do you think that bowler will be?" Immediately you would have said Bracewell. These things don't happen to Tim and Trent.

 

[Dan]

Of the current round of Shield fixtures, Bracewell comfortably fits into every team. At full strength, he'd be a rotation bowler at a few states, but with Test guys away and the foibles of form and injury, he's playing the majority of Shield games IMO.

 

[Zinzan]

I was sure he'd done so when he famously sealed the victory in Hobart too, it's easy to forget that Lyon-bowled wicket was referred upstairs and was incidentally extremely close.

 

[Hurricane]

I was sure he'd done so when he famously sealed the victory in Hobart too, it's easy to forget that Lyon-bowled wicket was referred upstairs and was incidentally extremely close.

By my count he has taken 4 wickets now off no balls and his average would be a trifle lower (like 2 runs or so) had he not overstepped.*

*Ceterus Perebus

 

[indiaholic]

ceteris paribus*

 

[Hurricane]

ceteris paribus*

Thank you it's been 25 years since first year economics.

 

[Bahnz]

I was sure he'd done so when he famously sealed the victory in Hobart too, it's easy to forget that Lyon-bowled wicket was referred upstairs and was incidentally extremely close.

Not really, it was half and half, pretty much in the ideal spot for a fast bowler to land his foot. Aleem Dar even said to NZ straight off the bat that it was fine, the only reason it was referred was because it was a match deciding delivery and Dar didn't want to risk not referring it and looking like a prat (in the same way that umpires will occasionally refer obviously not out run-out appeals).

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

We should've won it ages ago when Lyon was LBW if not for the dodgy Hawkeye.

 

[Zinzan]

Not really, it was half and half, pretty much in the ideal spot for a fast bowler to land his foot. Aleem Dar even said to NZ straight off the bat that it was fine, the only reason it was referred was because it was a match deciding delivery and Dar didn't want to risk not referring it and looking like a prat (in the same way that umpires will occasionally refer obviously not out run-out appeals).

There was probably an inch in it which is too close to be there or thereabouts IMHO ..the reason he often oversteps. Not too much different from his incorrectly called no-ball in this match actually.

 

[Zinzan]

We should've won it ages ago when Lyon was LBW if not for the dodgy Hawkeye.

Lol that was funny... Hawkeye showed it missing two sets of stumps from memory.

 

[Bahnz]

Bracewell really should be dropped, but I think McHesson will stick with him. The 'eternally unlucky' argument will see him retained.

So I'm hoping that the XI will look like this:
Latham, Gup, KW, Nicholls, BMac, Watling, Craig, Bracewell, Wagner, Soult

Oof, it's gonna take a miracle to level the series with KW, BMac and Watling so out of sorts.

 

[Hurricane]

Oh, just re-reading someone's earlier post. Same team then for the next test??

Oh boy. Yeah, I don't see us winning without Taylor. Unless Nicholls somehow just flukes a double century because the Aussies don't know where to bowl to him yet.

I think the next test is pivotal for Corey Anderson. He has scored many fighting 40s for us out of very difficult situations that have been quality knocks. But once you have done the hard work you must go on to 100. He needs a ton to stave off the competition.

 

[Bahnz]

There was probably an inch in it which is too close to be there or thereabouts IMHO ..the reason he often oversteps. Not too much different from his incorrectly called no-ball in this match actually.

Nah it was a lot further behind the line than the call on Friday, a good 2 or 3 inches for sure. Check it out at 2:21

 

[Dan]

Oh, just re-reading someone's earlier post. Same team then for the next test??

Oh boy. Yeah, I don't see us winning without Taylor. Unless Nicholls somehow just flukes a double century because the Aussies don't know where to bowl to him yet.

I think the next test is pivotal for Corey Anderson. He has scored many fighting 40s for us out of very difficult situations that have been quality knocks. But once you have done the hard work you must go on to 100. He needs a ton to stave off the competition.

...he really hasn't.

He made 48 against Pakistan coming in at 3/47, and the 38 in the first innings here. They're literally the only knocks that can qualify as fighting out of difficult situations, and neither actually got New Zealand out of said difficult situation.

I mean, if 4/180 is a 'difficult situation' then he's made a couple of high 30s too, but that seems like a pretty standard Test match situation tbh. And all his Test match 50s have been downhill skiing or mostly irrelevant.

 

[Bahnz]

...he really hasn't.

He made 48 against Pakistan coming in at 3/47, and the 38 in the first innings here. They're literally the only knocks that can qualify as fighting out of difficult situations, and neither actually got New Zealand out of said difficult situation.

I mean, if 4/180 is a 'difficult situation' then he's made a couple of high 30s too, but that seems like a pretty standard Test match situation tbh. And all his Test match 50s have been downhill skiing or mostly irrelevant.

Yeah, probably his best ever contribution that he managed was that 60 against India in the Eden Park test when he came in with the score at something like 250/4. He also made that 50 at Lord's in a losing cause.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, probably his best ever contribution that he managed was that 60 against India in the Eden Park test when he came in with the score at something like 250/4. He also made that 50 at Lord's in a losing cause.

Still more than Mitch Marsh has ever done

 

[Prince EWS]

Still more than Mitch Marsh has ever done

Mitch Marsh has taken wickets tbf.

 

[Bahnz]

Mitch Marsh can bowl though. Handy to have in a team where you're about 50:50 to lose one of your frontline seamers before stumps of day 2.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mitch Marsh has taken wickets tbf.

they're playing him as a no.6 batsman though

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I like Anderson but I'd rather have one of Ryder, Santner or Neesham at 6