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

[hendrix]

Yeah, the point is the prediction software has a margin of error, which they take into account with umpire's call.

the "margin of error" is only applied in the direction away from the stumps, not towards it, which makes no sense.

 

[Flem274*]

Neesham has downhill skied a few classy innings, lets not get too ahead of ourselves.

that pretty much puts him on par with twatto tbf

since he bats at #6 he gets the nicer conditions to bat and he's shown an amazing tendency to kick teams in the ribs when they're on the ground. combine that with the cool head under pressure he showed on that turner in the first windies test and it won't be as hard for him to have a flattering average as it would be for say, latham, who cops the brunt of the conditions pace wise.

craig mcmillan and shane watson at #6 are good examples of this.

 

[Athlai]

the "margin of error" is only applied in the direction away from the stumps, not towards it, which makes no sense.

It does make sense, it's there so you can say "I am 100% certain the batsman is out", it doesn't go the other way because you're already effectively saying that "there is reason to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt".

Umpire's call where it narrowly clips when already given stands with the Umpire because it's a coin flip at that point. There is a lot of doubt there already but the decision stands. Adding more doubt to standing decisions would be ludicrous.

 

[Athlai]

that pretty much puts him on par with twatto tbf

since he bats at #6 he gets the nicer conditions to bat and he's shown an amazing tendency to kick teams in the ribs when they're on the ground. combine that with the cool head under pressure he showed on that turner in the first windies test and it won't be as hard for him to have a flattering average as it would be for say, latham, who cops the brunt of the conditions pace wise.

craig mcmillan and shane watson at #6 are good examples of this.

It's why I only put the qualifier on for Watto, I think the rest are better and Watto is pretty marginal.

 

[viriya]

Yeah, the point is the prediction software has a margin of error, which they take into account with umpire's call.

I'm almost 100% certain that margin of error is not "50% of the ball".. that part sounds like something the ICC decided on after the BCCI bitched about how technology wasn't reliable.. It would've been an understandable compromise if the BCCI actually agreed to DRS, but since that's not the case, why not go by the scientific recommendation the whole way through instead of coming up with some arbitrary judgement call?

 

[Flem274*]

Umpires call is only there for the sake of tradition. We know exactly where that ball is going and hawk eye is better than human eye, but no one wants to admit it.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Well what a day!!..how the f#ck have SL contrived to allow NZ to score 429 ON THE FIRST BLOODY DAY though? for one of the top test sides that's disgraceful tbh. They started ok but the runrate just kept staying high over after over and Mathews somehow didn't see fit to have one guy tie up an end until the damage had been done by Baz and Neesham.

NZ well on top but SL do have the ability to stick in there and overhaul this score!!!..everything is dependent on Boult and Southee turning up basically.

In closing Kane got done during a forward defence stance AGAIN? Roach has done that to him two or thee times already and didn't Benn get him that way aswell? great talent is Kane but i think that's an area of concern.

 

[hendrix]

While it's reasonable to suggest that Neesham might be able to improve his defense, it's not reasonable to assume it will happen. As it stands he's a good strokeplayer who does well on pitches/in situations that suit shot-making.

The likes of Rutherford and Guptill have had 2 years in which to overcome obvious flaws and neither of them have made headway.

 

[Flem274*]

While it's reasonable to suggest that Neesham might be able to improve his defense, it's not reasonable to assume it will happen. As it stands he's a good strokeplayer who does well on pitches/in situations that suit shot-making.

The likes of Rutherford and Guptill have had 2 years in which to overcome obvious flaws and neither of them have made headway.

It's also not reasonable to assume Neesham will fail to improve because two other players did.

Look at how Taylor, Watling and McCullum bat now compared to how they batted in their first few test matches. Lots of change, plenty of improvement.

 

[Bahnz]

It does make sense, it's there so you can say "I am 100% certain the batsman is out", it doesn't go the other way because you're already effectively saying that "there is reason to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt".

Umpire's call where it narrowly clips when already given stands with the Umpire because it's a coin flip at that point. There is a lot of doubt there already but the decision stands. Adding more doubt to standing decisions would be ludicrous.

Source? As I understand It the umpire's call moe are only there due to concerns about the accuracy of the ball tracking software, and not the benefit of the doubt issue. If you are right, then that makes me like the current rules even less. Such an attempt to codify the "benefit of the doubt" rule is pointless and unfair to the bowlers given the generally accepted accuracy of Hawkeye.

 

[Hurricane]

This isn't a serious post right

It sounds like a joke because I wrote it in a rush as dinner was ready. My logic I wrote down doesn't sound good but my conclusion is correct. It is one thing for you to say that he needs to be in the World Cup team to bake the cake but I think what I meant to say is that you can't be one dimensional or there will be plenty of situations where he gets demoted down to number 10. And maybe that is ok but I would prefer to have multi dimensional players. Maybe I am reading to much into this inning but the run rate dropped to 2 an over after Neesham got out and I couldn't fathom why you would dot it out to stumps when we will probably go for quick runs in the morning.

Edit all he accomplished wAs batting the spinner into his rhythm

 

[Maximas]

Sri Lanka has developed a real problem of turning up to overseas tours and playing **** the first day, happened in the UAE when we got rolled for 200, then again in England when we conceeded about 350 and took only 5 wickets and now this, scheduling was tough maybe but it's concerning

 

[Athlai]

Source? As I understand the umpire's call moe are only there due to uncertainties about the accuracy of the ball tracking software, and not the benefit of the doubt issue. If you are right, then that makes me like the current rules even less. Such an attempt to codify the "benefit of the doubt" rule is pointless and unfair to the bowlers given the generally accepted accuracy of Hawkeye.

No such thing as a source when drunk on boxing day.

 

[Athlai]

Well what a day!!..how the f#ck have SL contrived to allow NZ to score 429 ON THE FIRST BLOODY DAY though? for one of the top test sides that's disgraceful tbh. They started ok but the runrate just kept staying high over after over and Mathews somehow didn't see fit to have one guy tie up an end until the damage had been done by Baz and Neesham.

NZ well on top but SL do have the ability to stick in there and overhaul this score!!!..everything is dependent on Boult and Southee turning up basically.

In closing Kane got done during a forward defence stance AGAIN? Roach has done that to him two or thee times already and didn't Benn get him that way aswell? great talent is Kane but i think that's an area of concern.

The pitch was doing a little bit, it's definitely not a total road, regardless of what the scorecard says.

It isn't as green as we imagined but the ball was doing a little bit throughout.

 

[Flem274*]

It sounds like a joke because I wrote it in a rush as dinner was ready. My logic I wrote down doesn't sound good but my conclusion is correct. It is one thing for you to say that he needs to be in the World Cup team to bake the cake but I think what I meant to say is that you can't be one dimensional or there will be plenty of situations where he gets demoted down to number 10. And maybe that is ok but I would prefer to have multi dimensional players. Maybe I am reading to much into this inning but the run rate dropped to 2 an over after Neesham got out and I couldn't fathom why you would dot it out to stumps when we will probably go for quick runs in the morning.

Edit all he accomplished wAs batting the spinner into his rhythm

No comment.

 

[hendrix]

It's also not reasonable to assume Neesham will fail to improve because two other players did.

Look at how Taylor, Watling and McCullum bat now compared to how they batted in their first few test matches. Lots of change, plenty of improvement.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just showing that it's not that was to fix technical and/or mental deficiencies in a batsman's game.

Re: Taylor, McCullum and Williamson: None of them have changed their technique significantly and all of them had good defensive techniques when they were first drafted into the team. They've improved as batsmen, sure, but the fundamental ability to keep out the good ball with solid defense has been relatively constant.

 

[NasserFan207]

Feel like you have to be brave against McCullum and keep the field up when he plays like this. Trying to contain him doesn't work, just have to get him out as quickly as possible.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just showing that it's not that was to fix technical and/or mental deficiencies in a batsman's game.

Re: Taylor, McCullum and Williamson: None of them have changed their technique significantly and all of them had good defensive techniques when they were first drafted into the team. They've improved as batsmen, sure, but the fundamental ability to keep out the good ball with solid defense has been relatively constant.

McCullum didn't, Watling was the worst of the three and did you see Taylor in South Africa?

They are all very different batsmen now.

 

[hendrix]

McCullum didn't, Watling was the worst of the three and did you see Taylor in South Africa?

They are all very different batsmen now.

I'm talking about their defensive abilities.

They have all always been able to a) identify the good ball and b) keep it out with solid defensive technique. That hasn't changed. The improvements have largely come from knowing their game better, having better defined roles (particularly McCullum and Watling) and learning about the mental aspect to scoring a ton of runs when you're middling it (particularly Taylor and McCullum). Sure they'll all work on technique but I don't think you can use any of them as an example of becoming better batsmen by improving defensive abilities.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Perhaps it's because I'm a psychologist, but I think the mental aspect of the game is both underrated by many on here and has made outstanding improvements under McHesson's leadership. If you look at the composure and self-belief that the All Blacks have you can see that this mental aspect wins them a ton of games. The BC's might not be at that mental level yet but you only have to look at the batting and bowling disintegrations of fairly recent years to see that the current set-up is very different in this regard to how it used to be.