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

[Blocky]

Isn't full usually six meters and less away from the crease (or is it sumps)?. Not really that close the base if you're pitching it 5 and half meters away from the batsman.

Nope - that's Short of a Good Length. Good Length is hitting the top of off.

 

[hendrix]

seriously, 23 full balls, 58 good balls, and 29 short balls.

On a seaming pitch.

Not hard to come to the conclusion that he didn't pitch it up enough.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yup - straight, fast and bowling to hit the stumps will work for you most of the time.

If we try the same we'll get flicked to midwicket and fine-leg with disdain. NZ batsmen are just to rubbish off the pads to punish this kind of bowling.

 

[Dan]

Don't mind Dan, he sometimes forgets he's meant to be an impartial moderator and not take sides of his online friends in pointless arguments that are perpetuated through groups of people responding to what I say, getting more and more frustrated that I simply don't get frustrated by them.

It really frustrates me when people can't get it through their heads that being a moderator doesn't mean I suddenly lose the right to disagree with someone.

 

[Athlai]

**** this would've been an amazing 3 Test series. **** the world cup.

Or just don't play 7 odis. 5 would have been plenty.

 

[Blocky]

seriously, 23 full balls, 58 good balls, and 29 short balls.

On a seaming pitch.

Not hard to come to the conclusion that he didn't pitch it up enough.

"Seaming pitch" - the ball hasn't seamed since Day One. Trent doesn't exactly seam the ball.

They don't have history of lengths, but Trent started bowling full and outside off trying to draw the drive, he was never "short and worked away" for very long as indicated by where the batsman scored runs against him, very few square of the wicket compared to in-front of square.

But keep digging that trench buddy. I'm enjoying it, as much as I enjoy any occasion you claim I don't watch test cricket while stating something completely inaccurate.

 

[Blocky]

It really frustrates me when people can't get it through their heads that being a moderator doesn't mean I suddenly lose the right to disagree with someone.

It really frustrates me when people want to be moderators of communities when they also want to have the right to enter pointless arguments on account of their "friends" and act in a completely partial manner in the way they moderate, but hey, what can you do?

 

[jcas0167]

Feel like a massive traitor but I slipped some money on Sri Lanka after McCullum's dismissal.

 

[hendrix]

Nope - that's Short of a Good Length. Good Length is hitting the top of off.

In the UAE good length is hitting the top of off.

Here it's going over.

Again, you'd know that if you watched.

 

[thierry henry]

Coming into this game I was thinking "I hope Pradeep goes ok, he's a little bit pacey and exciting and probably not as awful as his record suggests"

This is a bit ****ing over the top though

 

[Blocky]

In the UAE good length is hitting the top of off.

Here it's going over.

Again, you'd know that if you watched.

So now we're magically changing the definition of length to suit our world view when we've been proven to be completely wrong in assuming Trent was hit for most of his runs bowling short. One of those "I'll argue even though I'm proven wrong" individuals are we? Short of a good length goes over the top of the stumps, Good Length doesn't. Good Length is also coincidentally where Cricinfo attributes the two dismissals of Sanga to Boult in the first match - but I guess that doesn't count either?

 

[Prince EWS]

When the argument has moved to the definitions of words in the original debate then it's jumped the shark and it's time to stop.

 

[jonbrooks]

This will be an embarrasing loss for us. With all due to the SL pacemen, they haven't exactly set the world on fire. Yet, here they are picking up cheap wickets against our batsmen. We'll be doing some serious soul searching after this loss.

 

[hendrix]

So now we're magically changing the definition of length to suit our world view when we've been proven to be completely wrong in assuming Trent was hit for most of his runs bowling short. One of those "I'll argue even though I'm proven wrong" individuals are we? Short of a good length goes over the top of the stumps, Good Length doesn't. Good Length is also coincidentally where Cricinfo attributes the two dismissals of Sanga to Boult in the first match - but I guess that doesn't count either?

When you're using the length from Cricinfo stats that are purely where the ball lands on the pitch then clearly the amount that the ball bounces is going to influence whether it goes over the stumps or not.

This is not a difficult thing to understand.

 

[Blocky]

When the argument has moved to the definitions of words in the original debate then it's jumped the shark and it's time to stop.

But I'm having fun, he'll next attempt to say "No, they weren't length balls" at which point I post the commentary from Cricinfo that states categorically they were length balls. Then he disagrees with Cricinfo and we go to video, etc etc etc.

 

[Blocky]

When you're using the length from Cricinfo stats that are purely where the ball lands on the pitch then clearly the amount that the ball bounces is going to influence whether it goes over the stumps or not.

This is not a difficult thing to understand.

1. You said "Boult needed to bowl fuller like he did in the first match"
2. You then attempt to state that "Good Length" is "Short"
3. You're now arguing on the basis of what Cricinfo actually deems as good length.
4. You're refuting to answer the fact that Cricinfo deemed both deliveries that got Sanga in the first match to be "Good Length"

This is not a difficult thing to understand. You're wrong.

 

[Dan]

When the argument has moved to the definitions of words in the original debate then it's jumped the shark and it's time to stop.

Yeah, we should really be focusing on whether KW can get to his half-tonne here.

 

[straw man]

Lost five wickets in the first innings with Williamson at the other end, and four so far this innings. Not making it easy for him.

 

[Antihippy]

This will be an embarrasing loss for us. With all due to the SL pacemen, they haven't exactly set the world on fire. Yet, here they are picking up cheap wickets against our batsmen. We'll be doing some serious soul searching after this loss.

More or less embarrassing than getting bounced out by ishant sharma?

 

[Blocky]

More or less embarrassing than getting bounced out by ishant dharma?

Less - Sharma had an average in the 30s. These guys were all 40 plus before this match.