-
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* West Indies in Sri Lanka 2010
- Thread starter Beamer
- Start date
WindieWeathers
International Regular
I know!!.. but when it's dark it's a different matter!!
.
Migara
International Coach
Your OPINION is based on WRONG FACTS. Umpires don't offer light to batsmen any more. If they think it's not fit to play, even if batsmen wants it, they'll go off. Surely, Sangakkara on 133 and PJ on 12 would have wanted to bat out another hour against tired WI bowlers and put 60 runs more, than coming out again next morning fresh. First day no difference would have happened because within 5 minutes of stopping play it started to rain heavily.It's just my opinion, i don't give a damn if you and others don't agree with it!!, they offered the light so fast the day before when SL were in serious trouble at 36/3 even though it wasn't that dark, yesterday the umpires were lingering around our batsmen with the light meters and they knew it was too dark but nah they gave SL every opportunity to take a couple of wickets and low and behold as soon as that happened they stopped play, i'm watching the replay right now and you could see the bloddy moon in the sky it was so dark!!
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.It's just my opinion, i don't give a damn if you and others don't agree with it!!
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
Has been posting much better until this last page implosion IMO
WindieWeathers
International Regular
And maybe you should get YOUR FACTS right next time because Sangakkara wasn't even on 133 when SL came off the pitch!!..i think it was 36/3 on the first day when the bad light was taken!!, and like i said even the commentators said SANGA WAS OFFERED THE LIGHT!!, so i'm not the only one with that opinion, my argument remains that the umpires made our batsmen bat in the dark!!..and to me that's biased in favor of the home side, it's as simple as that.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
I think it's best you get some "work" done in your little "office" Mr whether man!!..your frivolous comments mean not a jot to me!!
.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
I'm not a one dimensional poster GS!!..i have my own opinions and i ain't afraid to share them!!, if people get upset that's their problem, not mine, i've got no real issues with Migara, we just disgaree on this subject that's all.
Migara
International Coach
get YOUR FACTS straight, because on first day play would have anyway been stopped, because it started raining just after stopping play, where light becomes IMMATERIAL. On second day, there was only a light drizzle when play was stopped and it rained only after one and half hours. If light was not brought in to the equation, on 1st day RAIN would have anyway stopped play, which was not the case on day 2 and 3. Once more batsmen are NOT offered light according to new regulations, and I have never heard that batsmen were offered light anywhere in the commentary. That part is purely hypothesised by WW. Your argument is plainly wrong, because it was SL who got the rough end of the light decisions, First when Sanga was going well on day 2, secondly when WI was against the wall on day 3. It's quite amusing that you have got selective amnesia not to talk about light decisions on day 2.
Last edited:
WindieWeathers
International Regular
I'm not saying we would have won the test match if Bravo and Nash would have stayed in, heck even if play had have resumed today the draw was still looking likely!!, but what i didn't like was how the umpires reacted to the two situations!!..we were well on top and the conditions suited us down to the ground but the umpires stepped in quickly, with us though they waited and waited for us to lose a wicket!!. even Sammy was standing up wondering why they wasn't stopping the play before we lost the wickets,
Last point about Bravo, him losing his wicket is the least of our problems imo, that was just inexperience, it was his own doing that lost the wicket, not the bowler outdoing him so as long as Darren learns from that he's gonna be a megastar!!..his class was clear to see imo.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
And where were you wachting the game then? because IAN BISHOP AND TOM MOODY both said Sanga was offered the light!!.. that's what i blatantly heard so i don't know what feed you were looking at!!
, and how on earth is my argument "wrong" when we DID have to bat in the dark? the gist of my argument is the umpires gave SL extra time to get wickets while we struggled in the dark!!.. THAT'S A FACT!!, whether the rain came after SL came off the pitch on the first day makes no difference, it was lighter when SL came off than it was when we did yesterday anyway.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
It looked dodgy Hurricane!!.. Sanga was batting and then the innings finished, the umpires walked up to him and started talking and all of a sudden Sanga nods his head and they were all walking off the pitch like a bunch of school friends!!.. that's when Ian Bishop said "yes they've been offered the light and they've taken it".. and Tom Moody said "i understand why he's taken the light because SL have struggled badly today and the ball is swinging all over the place"!!.. that's what i heard but if others didn't have the same commentators then that's not my fault.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Yeah. I agree with you. IIRC the rules have been changed. Here's the link.
Umpires won't offer light to batsmen | Cricket News | Marylebone Cricket Club | ESPN Cricinfo
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
I think it's best you get some "work" done in your little "office" Mr whether man!!..your frivolous comments mean not a jot to me!!
First you accuse me of bias and next you dont care what I say. Are we back in 5th grade?
I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.
Not sure if an office with 1500 people can be considered "little", but sure, call it whatever you like. There are definitely larger offices around.
Migara
International Coach
WW taking a dub desicion looking at the TV picture to decide when it was darker. this is hilarious. WW do you know that video camera has a knob to adjust the brightness, contrast and lightness? How can you be so sure that the adjustments of the camera was exactly the same?
Himanavv who was just away from the groud has a better judgement on light than you who see it on the TV. And umpires used the light meters to decide when to go off. Stop whinging. Bravo lost the wicket due to a **** shot, not because of light. Over earlier he hammered a six off Herath, and did see it very well. Get over it that your boys played **** shots and got their backs against walls.
Himanavv who was just away from the groud has a better judgement on light than you who see it on the TV. And umpires used the light meters to decide when to go off. Stop whinging. Bravo lost the wicket due to a **** shot, not because of light. Over earlier he hammered a six off Herath, and did see it very well. Get over it that your boys played **** shots and got their backs against walls.
smash84
The Tiger King
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
So by your own admission, it was finished then they started talking to the batsman, doesn't sound like offering the light to me.
As for the commentators getting it wrong, I'm sure that doesn't ever happen - I mean it's not as if only yesterday at the Ashes they got the time of the close of play wrong is it?!