***Official*** Sri Lanka in Australia 2012/2013

[uvelocity]

he didnt just do a 12th man impersonation he hilariously sung about the first 30 seconds of marvellous word for word

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah but in terms of getting a not-out overturned it was miles away. You could delude yourself into thinking it might be clipping, but crashing into off to the extent the review is successful?

In the context of the match situation it wasn't a bad review. I had a feeling it was closer than it turned out to be at first glance, so I can understand why they reviewed. With the benefit of hindsight, slow mo replays and the technology available to assess a review it was unsuccessful, so yes it looks bad.

 

[uvelocity]

well sing isnt really the right word but whatev

 

[ajdude]

it'd better go on youtube. or do ch9 have somewhere to watch the cricket show online?

 

[howardj]

As magnificent as he has been since taking the helm, I must say I was disappointed with Clarke's captaincy this morning

It's so negative, ludicrous and a proven failed formula, to put everyone back for the better batsman, and just focus on the tailender

He was treating Chandinal as Bradman

 

[Cabinet96]

As magnificent as he has been since taking the helm, I must say I was disappointed with Clarke's captaincy this morning

It's so negative, ludicrous and a proven failed formula, to put everyone back for the better batsman, and just focus on the tailender

He was treating Chandinal as Bradman

I've never fully understood the disliking for doing that. How would having the field up helped them get Chandimal out?

 

[benchmark00]

As magnificent as he has been since taking the helm, I must say I was disappointed with Clarke's captaincy this morning

It's so negative, ludicrous and a proven failed formula, to put everyone back for the better batsman, and just focus on the tailender

He was treating Chandinal as Bradman

Nah you've been brain washed by the commentators. It works far more times than it doesn't, especially when you have a very poor #11 there. You never hear about when it works because its no big deal, but the times when it doesn't work you get a prolonged discussion about it. More often than not, when it doesn't work it's because the bowlers can't bowl to the plan.

 

[howardj]

They weren't trying to get him out

That's the point mate

 

[benchmark00]

I've never fully understand the disliking for doing that. How would having the field up helped them get Chandimal out?

Yep exactly, the rare occasions where it doesn't work (and there have been a few instances) it seems bad because they talk about it for ages. And commentators would say that because it doesn't make for interesting viewing.

 

[howardj]

Nah you've been brain washed by the commentators. It works far more times than it doesn't, especially when you have a very poor #11 there. You never hear about when it works because its no big deal, but the times when it doesn't work you get a prolonged discussion about it. More often than not, when it doesn't work it's because the bowlers can't bowl to the plan.

So them trying to get Chanders out would have resulted in an even bigger partnership?

 

[benchmark00]

So them trying to get Chanders out would have resulted in an even bigger partnership?

Very possibly because there'd be more opportunities for him to pick up boundaries.

 

[Cabinet96]

They weren't trying to get him out

That's the point mate

They still had slips. Just because they're defending boundaries instead of singles it doesn't mean they're not trying to get him out.

 

[benchmark00]

It's just such an Ian Chappellism. All out attack 100% of the time isn't always the best thing.

 

[howardj]

There would have been moe risk

As it was, wtih everybody on the fence, the risk of hitting the ball in the air, was non existant

 

[howardj]

It's just such an Ian Chappellism. All out attack 100% of the time isn't always the best thing.

Setting conventional fields does not equate to "all out attack"

 

[Cabinet96]

Top order batsmen very rarely get out caught in front of the wicket off seamers. Having mid wicket back instead of up doesn't seriously hinder your chances of getting the batsmen out, but it might just save a couple of boundaries.

 

[benchmark00]

Setting conventional fields does not equate to "all out attack"

You set conventional fields for players who are looking to play conventional cricket.

 

[howardj]

No offence, but you're the new Mister Wright

Automatically refute any criticism of players from your state

It's the Australian team

 

[benchmark00]

No offence, but you're the new Mister Wright

Automatically refute any criticism of players from your state

It's the Australian team

It has nothing to do with Michael Clarke. People going on calling it a bad tactic has always been a pet hate of mine. Search this forums and you'll find me posting about it countless times. I defended Yousuf when he did it against Australia (known Wagga boy Mohammad Yousuf) and I'm on record defending Ricky Ponting when he's done it (Newcastle raised Ricky Ponting).

It's just lazy cricket watching and commentating. Yeah let's have the alternative with a 70 over ball and put a ring field and see him swing his head off and get another quick 40, when we can stop that and increase our opportunity to bowl to one of the worst #11's in world cricket. Just lazy and misguided.

 

[Spikey]

hahaha cowan is like wtf