Elliot should replace Langer

[deeps]

That catch at short-leg was astonishing. Never seen anything like it.
[/B]

I had the pleasure of watching Akash Chopra's first 2 or 3 tests against NZ... He took a couple of extraodinary catches whilst fielding at short leg... I hope the Aussies noted this, because that guy is the best short leg i've ever seen by far

 

[Eclipse]

That catch at short-leg was astonishing. Never seen anything like it.

Ricky Ponting took one just like it maybe even better from a full blooded pull. It's on classic cathes ATM.

 

[Craig]

Yeah I even voted for it.

I dont think I will win, but I hope to though.

I could use a new phone and the money as it looks pretty cool.

 

[iamdavid]

That catch at short-leg was astonishing. Never seen anything like it.

I have , remember last time England were in Sri Lanka Murali dropped one short to one of the batsman (I cant recall who exactly) they pulled it sqaure (it ame right out of the middle aswell) and Russell Arnold was at short leg , somehow it just stuck in his hands & shirt , he had to go off for the rest of the day & the commentators thought he had a broken rib , still a freak catch.

Ponting did similar off Katich's bowling at Sydney last month , a short ball , pulled & it just stuck in short legs hands.

He also did it a couple of years back to catch Shaun Pollock.

 

[Mister Wright]

So what?

Who selects the team, Steve Waugh or the selectors?

Just because you play in a team doesnt mean you have to be best of friends. If he were to get picked again, or play with some of these players they should just shake hands and get over their problems.

Give somebody a pat on the back when they take a wicket or when they score a ton if batting with them or clap them on if he is not batting.

The only logical replacemtn I can truely see in a replacement for Jason Langer in the opening position is Jimmy Maher and Chris Rogers is more then a decent player.

Yes it does...spending three days in the 'Gabba stands watching the rain I have had plenty of time to read. I read in Inside Edge either the most recent issue or the one before an interview with Trevor Hohns and he mentioned that a player's effect on a team had an influence on selection in other words if they don't get on with other members of the team, in a line-ball selection they are less likely to get picked. I guess if the guy has three or four seasons averaging over 80 they would find it pretty hard to leave him out, but then Elliot is not that good, and he is too old.

 

[Richard]

But isn't a batsman unlucky to get a snorter of a delivery early on considering how infrequent they are?

So you don't rule luck out at all.

No, that is a fair call - so you simply have to remember that the RUD has been received, and take the average in context.

 

[Richard]

What he's saying is that almost no-one cares so it'll never be determined - and it would be utterly impossible to determine anyway.

Even in test matches you get insufficient camera angles to determine with 100% certainty whether the close catch was grassed, whether the ball would have swerved alarmingly in the last 3 or 4 feet if the pad hadn't been there (yes, Even 'Hawkeye' is fallible).

As far as first-class 'first chance' averages, that's a non-starter. Who's going to transport a television studio and a dozen cameras to Derby in may for a county match? Multply that for every game up and down the country - it would have to be done by the ECB because no TV company is going to touch it - and that means another thousand employees or so.

You would have more officials at county games than spectators - and for what? To lower everyone's 'first chance' average by approximately the same percentage as everyone else.

You're quite right that working-out first-chance averages in domestic cricket is not possible to do as accurately as in Test-matches.
For me, Flight-Path schemes (whatever you call them, "Hawke-Eye" seems the most popular) are largely unnecessary. Most of the time you can tell by slo-mos whether the ball would have hit the stumps. I certainly don't believe it's faultless (in fact, it seems to me to have a consistent problem with thinking full, leg-side balls are further towards the off than they are) so the messing around taking 12 cameras around county circuits isn't a neccesary precaution.
Catch-carrying can be told 99.9% of the time by the catcher. Certainly it can almost invariably be told better by players and centre-Umpires than any camera, because they are closer to the incident most of the time. Generally, you don't need cameras and for me they shouldn't be used to judge on catch-carrying.
So, in summary, dropped catches, missed stumpings and the like can always be ascertained without cameras, snickos only rarely prove Umpiring errors, most of the time they prove them correct, lbws are helpful with camera-angles and red-zones but most of the time a bad lbw will be guessed by the players and spectators.
In summary, you can get a fairly accurate first-chance average for any cricket. I dug-up one for all my team-mates last season. Made interesting reading.

 

[Richard]

I have , remember last time England were in Sri Lanka Murali dropped one short to one of the batsman (I cant recall who exactly) they pulled it sqaure (it ame right out of the middle aswell) and Russell Arnold was at short leg , somehow it just stuck in his hands & shirt , he had to go off for the rest of the day & the commentators thought he had a broken rib , still a freak catch.

It was actually Dinuk Hettiarachchi, his first Test-wicket, Trescothick played his sweep (a proper, big swing, one, not that pre-meditated dab he likes so), the ball billowed in his shirt and stuck under his arm. It never touched the ribcage, but if it had Russel Arnold would have had several broken ribs. When Trescothick hits it it stays hit. Thinking about it that was probably even more extraordinary than the Chopra one, but Chopra actually deserved some credit for his one.

 

[luckyeddie]

You're quite right that working-out first-chance averages in domestic cricket is not possible to do as accurately as in Test-matches.
For me, Flight-Path schemes (whatever you call them, "Hawke-Eye" seems the most popular) are largely unnecessary. Most of the time you can tell by slo-mos whether the ball would have hit the stumps. I certainly don't believe it's faultless (in fact, it seems to me to have a consistent problem with thinking full, leg-side balls are further towards the off than they are) so the messing around taking 12 cameras around county circuits isn't a neccesary precaution.
Catch-carrying can be told 99.9% of the time by the catcher. Certainly it can almost invariably be told better by players and centre-Umpires than any camera, because they are closer to the incident most of the time. Generally, you don't need cameras and for me they shouldn't be used to judge on catch-carrying.
So, in summary, dropped catches, missed stumpings and the like can always be ascertained without cameras, snickos only rarely prove Umpiring errors, most of the time they prove them correct, lbws are helpful with camera-angles and red-zones but most of the time a bad lbw will be guessed by the players and spectators.
In summary, you can get a fairly accurate first-chance average for any cricket. I dug-up one for all my team-mates last season. Made interesting reading.

A few thoughts on recent events

1. My first thought a dozen or so hours ago re Tendulkar's dismissal - 'That's plumb'. Cameras behind the bowler's arm are terribly distorting because they are about 50 feet above the ground - thus foreshortening angles and making height tewrribly difficult to judge. Hawk-eye indicated a ball passing inches over the top of off and middle.

2. Yesterday, Hashan Tillakaratne picked up what looked to be an incredible reaction catch - certainly, every other player on the field and all the TV pundits thought so too - only for the fielder concerned to indicate that it had hit the ground. Slomo after slomo seemed to indicate that his fingers were under the ball. The fielder concerned is probably the LAST person to know with respect to low catches.

Two incidents, one day.

 

[Richard]

A few thoughts on recent events

1. My first thought a dozen or so hours ago re Tendulkar's dismissal - 'That's plumb'. Cameras behind the bowler's arm are terribly distorting because they are about 50 feet above the ground - thus foreshortening angles and making height tewrribly difficult to judge. Hawk-eye indicated a ball passing inches over the top of off and middle.

2. Yesterday, Hashan Tillakaratne picked up what looked to be an incredible reaction catch - certainly, every other player on the field and all the TV pundits thought so too - only for the fielder concerned to indicate that it had hit the ground. Slomo after slomo seemed to indicate that his fingers were under the ball. The fielder concerned is probably the LAST person to know with respect to low catches.

Two incidents, one day.

For me, I saw slomo after slomo indicating it had clearly bounced.
I won't go making cruel comments about your ancient eyes as mine are unlikely to be any better, and I didn't have my contacts in the first few times I watched it.
In 1998 I saw Daryll Cullinan given lbw to Angus Fraser. On the camera behind the arm it looked plumb. There was a casual look at the sidecam, which no commentator commented on, which showed it was clearly going over. I had seen many similar incidents in the 1998-2000 period (the pre-FlightPath era), and noticed two things: many balls that the behind-arm cameras make look like they're hitting the top are in fact going over when viewed from the sidecam; and commentators seem very reluctant to comment on these sidecam views. In 2001, HawkeEye showed what I had been thinking for 3 years. Commentators finally noticed it.
Not attempting to "nyur-nyur, I saw what no-one else did" or anything, just saying I had noticed what you point-out ages ago.
Incidentally, my first thoughts on Tendulkar were "too high". I was as astonished as he was when Steve put the digit up.

 

[Mister Wright]

For me, I saw slomo after slomo indicating it had clearly bounced.
I won't go making cruel comments about your ancient eyes as mine are unlikely to be any better, and I didn't have my contacts in the first few times I watched it.
In 1998 I saw Daryll Cullinan given lbw to Angus Fraser. On the camera behind the arm it looked plumb. There was a casual look at the sidecam, which no commentator commented on, which showed it was clearly going over. I had seen many similar incidents in the 1998-2000 period (the pre-FlightPath era), and noticed two things: many balls that the behind-arm cameras make look like they're hitting the top are in fact going over when viewed from the sidecam; and commentators seem very reluctant to comment on these sidecam views. In 2001, HawkeEye showed what I had been thinking for 3 years. Commentators finally noticed it.
Not attempting to "nyur-nyur, I saw what no-one else did" or anything, just saying I had noticed what you point-out ages ago.
Incidentally, my first thoughts on Tendulkar were "too high". I was as astonished as he was when Steve put the digit up.

I've always wondered why umpires don't consult with their square-leg partners to determine if the ball is going over more often.

 

[Rik]

I had the pleasure of watching Akash Chopra's first 2 or 3 tests against NZ... He took a couple of extraodinary catches whilst fielding at short leg... I hope the Aussies noted this, because that guy is the best short leg i've ever seen by far

Best short-leg I've seen: Mark Ramprakash. Fantastic close fielder. Nass ain't bad at point either.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I remember one of the 1991 West Indians being very good.

Gus Logie? Either him or Dujon.. one was the keeper.

I was 5. I can't remember too well :P

 

[luckyeddie]

Best short-leg I've seen: Mark Ramprakash. Fantastic close fielder. Nass ain't bad at point either.

For me, Brian Close was the greatest in that position.

I remember him in a test against the West Indies in 1966.

John Snow dropped the ball a bit short to Gary Sobers - and the King went for the hook.

Close was at short square leg, no more than 4 yards from the bat. He never flinched at all when he could have had his block knocked off (no helmets in those days) - and Sobers gloved it straight into his hands for a golden duck.

 

[age_master]

lol, noone is Australia likes fielding at short leg, you will see half the team rotated through there - whimps

 

[Neil Pickup]

Don't think you'll find many disputing Close's greatness.

I like the story of his being hit on the forehead and the ball rebounding to be caught at slip

"What if it hit you between the eyes?"

"Then 'e'd 'ave been caught at point!"

 

[iamdavid]

lol, noone is Australia likes fielding at short leg, you will see half the team rotated through there - whimps

Langer didnt mind & he took some good ones there , but now he's been advised by Erroll Allcott not to feild there again as he was hit so many times.

 

[marc71178]

I remember one of the 1991 West Indians being very good.

Gus Logie? Either him or Dujon.. one was the keeper.

I was 5. I can't remember too well :P

It was Logie.

 

[Richard]

I remember one of the 1991 West Indians being very good.

Gus Logie? Either him or Dujon.. one was the keeper.

I was 5. I can't remember too well :P

It was Logie

Yes.
Jeff Dujon was certainly the wicketkeeper.

 

[Richard]

Best short-leg I've seen: Mark Ramprakash. Fantastic close fielder. Nass ain't bad at point either.

Definately Ramprakash is the best short-leg I've ever seen.
Close, meanwhile, is legendary and if he's ever been bettered I'll be very surprised.