You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[OverratedSanity]

Pretty convinced myself that the reason why we don't have terms like "outseamer" and "inseamer" is because unlike their swinger and cutter counterparts, most, or virtually all bowlers don't really know which way a ball will seam after pitching.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah agree with that. I still don't think there's any harm in adding the terminology though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Umpires.

https://www.facebook.com/fitzroydon.../?video_source=pages_finch_main_video&theater

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

LOL at that LBW where the ball bounced over the keeper.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How a leg spinning slower ball that clips the top of the pad delivered by a 6'4 bloke is going to hit the stumps is beyond me. Let alone giving it from mid off as the batsman is on his way back for a second...

Not that I take these things personally...

 

[Daemon]

The fact that he walks away and then gives it out just does it for me

 

[NZTailender]

Players writing autobiographies when it's not really warranted.

You're ****ing 25 years old and I'd be surprised if you can read let alone write Stokes you serial-killer-eyed twit. **** off.

 

[Athlai]

Players writing autobiographies when it's not really warranted.

You're ****ing 25 years old and I'd be surprised if you can read let alone write Stokes you serial-killer-eyed twit. **** off.

Holy crap and it's called Firestarter

 

[Burgey]

Is his sister named Carrie?

 

[Athlai]

Is his sister named Carrie?

I can only assume it's a terrible joke based on him being a ginger

 

[NZTailender]

 

[Howe_zat]

they ought to get into writing fiction like Dave Warner

 

[Victor Ian]

I hate players who kiss their logo on their helmet upon scoring a ton. I wish someone would give it a flick so it whacks their face. Slater was ok, because his was spontaneous, but everyone else since deserves a punch.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How a leg spinning slower ball that clips the top of the pad delivered by a 6'4 bloke is going to hit the stumps is beyond me. Let alone giving it from mid off as the batsman is on his way back for a second...

Not that I take these things personally...

He had to be on the take surely. Awful decision.

 

[SteveNZ]

He had to be on the take surely. Awful decision.

The worst part of that decision is the fact there was almost zero appeal from the bowler. The thing that used to ****ing **** me from umpires (and I was a bowler) was when decisions were given to diluted appeals. I know the fielding side only has to ask, and over-appealing is one of the worst things about the game. But bugger me, as in this instance - if the bowler himself doesn't seem sure and nor does the keeper, how the bloody hell can there be no doubt it's out? It's just bewildering. If there's some element of doubt in your mind and the bowler/fielders aren't uproarious, don't give it.

Camberwell seem to cop a couple of bad bits of umpiring, a ball that bowls a guy with lack of pace from a bowler who starts his runup on the circle (and I'm fairly certain it wasn't an intentional slower ball) as well as some wanker-type sendoffs from Fitzroy.

 

[Julian87]

The worst part of that decision is the fact there was almost zero appeal from the bowler. The thing that used to ****ing **** me from umpires (and I was a bowler) was when decisions were given to diluted appeals. I know the fielding side only has to ask, and over-appealing is one of the worst things about the game. But bugger me, as in this instance - if the bowler himself doesn't seem sure and nor does the keeper, how the bloody hell can there be no doubt it's out? It's just bewildering. If there's some element of doubt in your mind and the bowler/fielders aren't uproarious, don't give it.

I could not disagree more with this line of thinking. In an ideal world what the players think shouldn't actually sway an umpire. He believes something is out or not. There is a very high percentage of blokes that play cricket (admittedly that percentage lowers as the grade gets higher) who have very little understanding of some of the basic laws and interpretations of the game. Making decisions based on the vehemence of appealing is essentially the very worst thing an umpire can do. If he subscribes to this he's not making a decision based on what actually happened, he's just being influenced by the players.

* this post is just in response to your opinion, not the decision in the video

 

[Victor Ian]

I've just gotten myself all in a tizz about the lack of test matches played in Australia. Each year they should play 8 tests, Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Cairns, Darwin and Hobart. Heck - even chuck one in in Alice springs. Then we could play a 5 test series against one nation and a 3 test series against another. Why can't this be done? Does gate takings really earn cricket much money, compared to tv rights. With all these virtual tv tools crowds aren't an issue - they could be photo shopped in.

8 tests is 40 days of cricket. We should have this instead of crappy domestic cricket on tv. They could still fit in their big **** and crappy ODI stuff and make a ton in tv rights. Australia needs to play in Cairns and Darwin to make them used to humid hot conditions so we can go over to the sub continent and not be so crappy.

The ONLY negative I can see is 40 days of the channel 9 commentary team. But 40 days might push them over the edge into silence, and commentary the way it was in the old days.

 

[cnerd123]

Something I've seen a lot recently that bothers me.

"X isn't a great bowler, because if you put him to bowl in conditions that absolutely don't suit his bowling, he will fail to run through a side"

This is such a horrid argument. You're stacking all the odds against the bowler, and will only consider him to be Elite or World Class if, in the face of that, he can take a match-winning 10 wicket haul. And even then you add riders on for the modes of dismissal and match situation and all that stuff.

Bowling is the art of making use of your conditions to good effect. No bowler has a perfect style that fits every possible set of conditions and circumstances on the Earth. Every bowler hones his style and method to be extremely effective in the conditions that he plays in the most. When you take a bowler out of those conditions, and put him in the worst possible conditions for his style, and when he returns with figures of 35-2-100-2, that is not a good reason to write him off as a rubbish bowler. Sometimes that's literally the best any bowler of that style/method can possibly accomplish in those circumstances.

I've seen this style of argument used to write off spinners based on their performances in Australia/NZ/England, to write off swing bowlers in batting conditions, and even applied to batsmen who 'only' 'average 30-40 in alien conditions. And its really annoying.

No player hones their game to perform in conditions that they aren't playing in. You want to maximise your effectiveness here and now, in the conditions and situations you play most of your games in. And when you do that, you develop certain strengths and certain weaknesses. There is no perfect 'technique' or 'style'. It's all relevant. A player is naturally going to be less-good playing in conditions that he has not built his game for. To hold that against players, or to use it as some sort of evidence of them being not all that good, is just ridiculous.

 

[Gnske]

lol

if they're good they'll adapt

 

[cnerd123]

lol

if they're good they'll adapt

It's not that straightforward tho.

Some players absolutely dominate in one set of conditions and suck in other ones. They have built their game to be extremely suited to one set of conditions, which leads to them being extremely unsuited to others

Some other players are capable of putting in equal performances all over without really dominating in any one sphere.

To rank the former player below the latter player really bothers me, especially since the first player is likely to be a lot more use to a team who plays atleast half their games in conditions that suits them.

On top of that, there is so many factors that influence how a player adapts. Who does he have with him in the dressing room in terms of coaches/mentors? How much time did he have to adapt? Was he playing 7 tests across 8 and a half weeks, or 3 tests over 10 weeks? How old was he when he visited those conditions? How many chances did he get to perform in those conditions? What role was he given, or what situations did he find himself in? Was he doing a job for the team that is more valuable that the scorecard would eventually suggest? Were his successes/failures down to his skill or being in good form/the lack of skill of the opponents?

Just really troublesome to write off players who have dominated in one set of conditions based purely on failures in other conditions.