Just to be clear PEWS, is this you expressing your opinion, or a moderator directive to let it go?
EDIT: I now have Idina Menzel/Frozen stuck in my head.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015
- Thread starter Flem274*
- Start date
EDIT: I now have Idina Menzel/Frozen stuck in my head.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
blatantly ignoring moderator instructions to get the last word, can we ban blocky now?
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
More embarrassing as Ishant is not a bad bowler in favourable conditions.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
You've got a morbid sense of fun at times.
I'll expand on the specific example I gave to something more general. When the debate has ceased to be about changing minds and expanding knowledge and is only continuing for the purposes of point-scoring to make the 'winner' feel superior, it's time to let go.
There are two ways to react when you realise the main point of contention was definitions. You can either think "Oh that's good, we actually agreed on the important stuff the whole time", or you can think "Ahh I've got this prick right where I want him, I'll be beating my chest in self-adulation upon reflection of my triumph in no time!".. and if it's the latter, that's when you can wake up in the morning with a seemingly unjust forum atmosphere ban, as that's not what this place is for. Conflict is a means to an end rather than an end upon itself.
I don't know, collapsing to SL pacers is pretty bad, but three England batsmen getting out to Ishant in exactly the same way is a whole new level of inept. Even if this NZ batting is completely brainless in missing straight balls, not Pradeep actually bowling the odd good ball, three guys holing out compulsively hooking is pretty hard to beat.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Blocky
Banned
Oh I get you, but you have to get me - you've seen first hand (mostly because you've been in the thread) every single thing I say has a response by one of four individuals designed to cause an argument, at which point they continue to respond aggressively and make outlandish statements like "You don't watch test cricket" until they're too frustrated to keep a straight hat on, they've invariably made a statement which isn't exactly "right" and they're a dog with a bone in response until either bowing out or one of us gets banned by moderators.
Considering I get banned for even going near a personal slur and spend all day having people throw them my way, I do take a bit of fun out of cricket based discussions where people attempt to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and refuse to review their position when confronted with evidence. I'd also note that in cases such as Dan or Flem, they've made no comment related to the cricket in the past several threads, then play the "woe is me" card around the fact that they're in an argument with me they started.
I continue to talk cricket, in and amongst other discussions, I personally don't see why anyone gets heated over forum debates that don't involve any profanity and rarely have any personal insults attached with exception of "Guffaw, you don't know what you're talking about"
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
As much as I'm disappointed with NZ & particularly the way we've batted & some of the field placements/ bowling tactics yesterday, can't say we've exactly had much luck this test.
Losing another crucial toss (which has just become an inevitability at home), top 3 batsmen all playing-on in the first innings & then arguably the best batsman in the world playing very well, but having a considerable amount of luck in his innings.
As poor as we've been (and we have been poor), you're always going to be playing catch-up when those things have counted against you & we certainly haven't responding to being under the pump.
Losing another crucial toss (which has just become an inevitability at home), top 3 batsmen all playing-on in the first innings & then arguably the best batsman in the world playing very well, but having a considerable amount of luck in his innings.
As poor as we've been (and we have been poor), you're always going to be playing catch-up when those things have counted against you & we certainly haven't responding to being under the pump.
Last edited:
That was the English batsmen getting out hooking when they didn't have to though, while this is sri Lanka bowling uncharacteristically well.
Mostly brought it up because I found the parallels between that comment and the comments in the last England vs Sri Lanka funny.
Maybe the sri Lankan pace attack has finally found their groove?
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Again, you're mis-interpreting the definitions here. The Ball-by-ball commentary is not the same thing as the actual pitch map. The pitch map is what I'm talking about here, and I believe that the pitch map defines good length as being 6M.
Watching the Sky pitch map yesterday, it showed balls on that length going over the stumps.
I believe that the second innings dismissal of Sangakkarra in Christchurch would have been defined by the pitch map (not the commentary, but the actual pitch map) as being full.
Blocky
Banned
They've bowled well and been disciplined but look at the two LBW's in this session - slanted in towards the batsman wide of an angle, both got themselves into a pickle playing around their front pad and both were caught in-front of the wicket. In my view, those are pretty soft dismissals especially considering no real pressure was on McCullum at the time. Neesham on the other hand was looking uncomfortable against Pradeep's pace.
Put another way, if Sri Lanka's batting line up faced their seamers on this wicket, I don't think they'd be 183/5. Our openers gifted their wickets, Taylor was piss poor against a ball from Herath and the two LBW's were good balls, but not world beating balls.
Blocky
Banned
My last statement on the subject.
The pitch map according to Cricinfo comes down to what the match commentator decides to input the scoring application. If the commentator types "good length" in the commentary, that's what the ball will show up as in the pitch map as the guy doing it is one in the same.
i.e in the first innings"
Boult to Sangakkara, OUT, edged and Boult gets the big fish - Sanga! Beautiful away-swinging length delivery outside off making him drive, he does that on the up and thick edge flies to Southee's left at third slips where he takes a good diving catch. Sanga falls short of 12k runs by six runs"
Marked as "Good Length"
And in the second innings
"42.2 Boult has struck, he gets Sanga again with the outside edge! Accurate delivery just outside off on length, Sanga played inside the line again as the ball moved away and the outside edge was flying to first slip's right but Watling got there just in time with both hands for a nice catch 94/2"
Marked as "Good Length"
Oh, just so we're on a level
Source: Duane Pettet - Cricinfo's first employee in NZ and chief ball by call commentator up until 2002.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with Phlegm in that the first-day greentop narrowed the gap between the NZ seam attack and the SL seam attack, while exacerbating the gap between the NZ batting line-up and the ATG batting monster that is Sanga.
That doesn't explain today's performance, obviously, but I think a combination of scoreboard pressure/momentum, having a spud opening the innings (even if he did, weirdly, make two decent contributions this match) and the SL pacers bowling uncharacteristically well has resulted in NZ significantly underperforming in the third innings here.
The SL pace attack hasn't finally found their groove, IMO, but perhaps Pradeep is proving himself to be a not-wholly-rubbish partner to Eranga. SL's best attack still Eranga-Pacer-Herath-Spinner-Matthews, I reckon.
Blocky
Banned
Neither would I - that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. We've been poor, rather than them being great.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Re the comments about Ross Taylor's body language (and supposedly bad attitude), this is nothing new with him and is just part of his make-up imo as opposed to being something intentional.
It's the one thing that I never liked about his captaincy though, that he often came across quite sarcastic and cynical in his body-language when things weren't going well. He may have never actually meant to be perceived that way, but it's often how he came across. Body language and how one carries themselves is a huge factor when you're leading men.
It's the one thing that I never liked about his captaincy though, that he often came across quite sarcastic and cynical in his body-language when things weren't going well. He may have never actually meant to be perceived that way, but it's often how he came across. Body language and how one carries themselves is a huge factor when you're leading men.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Both openers are definitely better than Rutherford, and IMO Chandimal is better than Neesham too.
Direct positional comparisons are way too simplistic for a meaningful comparison anyway though.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
If that is the case then I believe that the cricinfo commentators have varied in their definitions between these two matches.
3:27 for the second innings dismissal of Sangakkarra. That is what I would define as a full length. That would definitely be defined as a full length by the commentator for the Wellington Test.
Last edited: