CRICKET SA vs England

we are very unlucky so far this session. Will take some effort to not let that affect the mind set of the team.

This is what test cricket is all about though. Testing you on all fronts of your game.
 
Well again the decisions start going against us...


ABs catch not given and now this...

Panesar to Amla, OUT, Monty was absolutely certain about this and so was Aleem Dar! He bowls the arm ball on middle stump line, Amla misreads it and goes on the backfoot, the ball skids through, replays showed that the ball may have just sailed over the stumps, that looked a little wrong to the naked eye but England will take it
Click to expand...
 
If you watch the replay, the ball missed the pad completely - it hit him above the pad, let alone the knee-roll. Granted on the back foot, but you do not give that kind of thing out...
 
i suppose we can hardly cry given we have also benefited from some clearly wrong calls.
 
"There's nothing in the laws of the game that make that not out".

It doesn't make it right.
 
it's upto the two lefties to take us through to victory
 
If I were Smith I would refuse to face another ball until they clear that area and cover it with a white sheet. As is done on most other grounds throughout the world...
 
I hope a huge stink is made of this....

Flintoff to Kallis, OUT, another batsman fails to sight the ball properly! This is very dramatic stuff, folks. Flintoff dishes out a full toss and the ball comes into Kallis, he decides to leave the ball but is struck flush on the left thigh, umpire Steve Davis gives him out. Kallis is absolutely fuming, Mickey Arthur too vents his frustration at the pavilion. There has to be some issue with the sightscreen here
Click to expand...


It is taking what should have been a great match and turned it into a farce!!
 
when players can't see the ball does that not create dangerous playing conditions? surely the rules have something against that?
 
It brings about an interesting point, because the umpires can do nothing AFAIK. Although it is dangerous, it is merely a specific ball, not the general playing conditions that are dangerous. Could we land up with a "bouncer" type limitation for yorkers? Or should Edgbaston have its Test status stripped until it improves the ground?

I vote for the latter...
 
milomak said:
when players can't see the ball does that not create dangerous playing conditions? surely the rules have something against that?
Click to expand...

This appeared to be what Boucher was arguing about the other evening but the umpires appeared to say get on with it... usually if you are battling to see certain bowlers are told they can't bowl! This should be the case with Flintoff, unless he swaps ends! Ask England to do this and see their reaction...

If the sight screen is not an issue and he is bowling yorkers, so the pitch is not having an effect, then the end he is bowling from should not make a difference! I bet you'll see his yorker is only effective from the one end!!
 
DJK said:
If I were Smith I would refuse to face another ball until they clear that area and cover it with a white sheet. As is done on most other grounds throughout the world...
Click to expand...

They are not allowed to change any of the "conditions of play" once the game has started.

Lets just believe we will win this game.
 
Are these fscking commentators stupid? It has nothing to do with the bowler. It has to do with the type of ball being bowled, and Flintoff was the one taking advantage of this. Is it such a reach of their mental capacity to consider this?
 
DJK said:
It brings about an interesting point, because the umpires can do nothing AFAIK. Although it is dangerous, it is merely a specific ball, not the general playing conditions that are dangerous. Could we land up with a "bouncer" type limitation for yorkers? Or should Edgbaston have its Test status stripped until it improves the ground?

I vote for the latter...
Click to expand...

It is controversial and detrimental to the game... cricket is all about a fair contest... the batsmen not being able to pick up the ball is far from a fair contest!

And without seeing it it appears that the ball that got Kallis was not a yorker but a full toss!! you telling me someone of his calibre is going to miss a full toss if he could see it?!?!!?
 
DJK said:
Are these fscking commentators stupid? It has nothing to do with the bowler. It has to do with the type of ball being bowled, and Flintoff was the one taking advantage of this. Is it such a reach of their mental capacity to consider this?
Click to expand...

It is a mixture of the two.... it is specific to Flintoff - his height, angle of run etc - but then also only has an effect when he bowls it full, as in yorker or full toss. Obviously if it is shorter the batsmen can pick the ball up on the pitch but if it comes straight down at them they can't!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X