Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

Cricket 2015

Recommended Posts

Just listened to a few minutes of that and it was hideous Mac lol Who is that woman commentating?!

I couldn't listen to her for any length of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listened to a few minutes of that and it was hideous Mac lol Who is that woman commentating?!

I couldn't listen to her for any length of time.

 

lol Evidently there's no accounting for taste. Rather the Guerilla lot than the stuffed establishment boyos in the Beeb or Sky studios.

 

Which one were you talking about? One's a regular and one's a guest. They have a pretty large team so they change the commentary around pretty regular, perhaps you might find one of the other guys to your liking at some other point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol Evidently there's no accounting for taste. Rather the Guerilla lot than the stuffed establishment boyos in the Beeb or Sky studios.

Which one were you talking about? One's a regular and one's a guest. They have a pretty large team so they change the commentary around pretty regular, perhaps you might find one of the other guys to your liking at some other point.

Sky sports cricket commentary at the minute is superb, how could you possibly knock it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol Evidently there's no accounting for taste. Rather the Guerilla lot than the stuffed establishment boyos in the Beeb or Sky studios.

 

Which one were you talking about? One's a regular and one's a guest. They have a pretty large team so they change the commentary around pretty regular, perhaps you might find one of the other guys to your liking at some other point.

 

I don't know any cricket fan in the World who knocks the Sky Sports team, it's the best commentary team in all of sport imo, can't be calling Botham, Warnie, Bumble and Prior stuffed boyos either! Gower I'll give you! No idea who it was I only listened for a few minutes, she kept saying "errr" every minute, they were also massively exaggerating what was happening on the pitch.

 

Two down and our hopes pretty much rest on this pair making a serious contribution, hopefully we can get to tea where we are in a position to have a go at winning this. I don't see the RR against the spinners being any more than two so hopefully get to tea at something like 160/170-4 and we can have a stab at winning it again in the last session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DRS and Umpire's Call. I understand it for the hitting the wicket bits - Hawkeye is a ball tracking technology so any element of extrapolation to predict the path is going to involve a margin of error. What I don't understand is why "Umpire's Call" exists for pitching/impact. Surely that's Hawkeye's strong point? Tracking where the ball has actually been. There's no "Umpire's Call" in Tennis for line calls, or "Ref's Shout" for goal line technology in football. It's designed to solve those marginal calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky sports cricket commentary at the minute is superb, how could you possibly knock it.

 

Sorry, but I think the establishment stink that Clarke and the ECB (especially when it comes to coverage) makes permeates through to Sky Studios. 

 

I don't know any cricket fan in the World who knocks the Sky Sports team, it's the best commentary team in all of sport imo, can't be calling Botham, Warnie, Bumble and Prior stuffed boyos either! Gower I'll give you! No idea who it was I only listened for a few minutes, she kept saying "errr" every minute, they were also massively exaggerating what was happening on the pitch.

 

Two down and our hopes pretty much rest on this pair making a serious contribution, hopefully we can get to tea where we are in a position to have a go at winning this. I don't see the RR against the spinners being any more than two so hopefully get to tea at something like 160/170-4 and we can have a stab at winning it again in the last session.

 

As above, though I agree their analysis of the game is second to none. 

 

On the match itself, we've really got to hope that Cook and Root get us to at least 150 together and then one of them stays to help everyone else get us over the finish line. Lose them both more than about 50 runs adrift and we're done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DRS and Umpire's Call. I understand it for the hitting the wicket bits - Hawkeye is a ball tracking technology so any element of extrapolation to predict the path is going to involve a margin of error. What I don't understand is why "Umpire's Call" exists for pitching/impact. Surely that's Hawkeye's strong point? Tracking where the ball has actually been. There's no "Umpire's Call" in Tennis for line calls, or "Ref's Shout" for goal line technology in football. It's designed to solve those marginal calls.

 

Me neither, they need to sort this out and decide how much of the ball should be hitting the stumps for it to be out, it's ridiculous we get a different outcome depending on what is given on the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me neither, they need to sort this out and decide how much of the ball should be hitting the stumps for it to be out, it's ridiculous we get a different outcome depending on what is given on the pitch.

 

My confusion can be summarised in three points:

 

  1. Pitching - why is there umpires call on where the ball pitches? It's tracking what has happened
  2. Impact (where the ball hits the bad) - as above. It's tracking what has actually happened.
  3. Stumps - okay, there's going to be some margin of error here so I can understand Umpire's Call. However, why is it always half a ball? Surely if the player is standing pretty much on their stumps their is less predictive element so less margin of error than if they'd danced down the pitch to try and hoik it over the top. Why is it always the same amount?

 

I think the answer to all three is because the ICC didn't really do that much testing (not in the same way we've seen with football for instance) and just rolled it out without thinking about the consequences too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big gutted to be honest, we played far better than a 2-0 defeat there and if we had Swanny I think we probably win that series. I'm giving up on the spinners for the time being, if they can't even hold up an end let alone take wickets on that pitch it's pointless having them in the team.

 

Current team for South Africa is.

 

Cook

Compton (although I expect it to be Hales)

Bell

Root

Taylor

Stokes

Bairstow (wkt)

Broad

Wood

Anderson

Finn

 

Fire with Fire.

 

Quick aside there was an incredible moment at 6.30 this morning, three test matches on the main three sports channels, Australia v New Zealand, India v South Africa and Pakistan v England, despite people's often hatred of Sky that's pretty incredible from just 25 years back when you couldn't even watch live Ashes cricket away from home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big gutted to be honest, we played far better than a 2-0 defeat there and if we had Swanny I think we probably win that series. I'm giving up on the spinners for the time being, if they can't even hold up an end let alone take wickets on that pitch it's pointless having them in the team.

 

Current team for South Africa is.

 

Cook

Compton (although I expect it to be Hales)

Bell

Root

Taylor

Stokes

Bairstow (wkt)

Broad

Wood

Anderson

Finn

 

Fire with Fire.

 

Quick aside there was an incredible moment at 6.30 this morning, three test matches on the main three sports channels, Australia v New Zealand, India v South Africa and Pakistan v England, despite people's often hatred of Sky that's pretty incredible from just 25 years back when you couldn't even watch live Ashes cricket away from home.

 

South Africa is about the only place we'd get away with not having a spinner, so I like the look of that side. That being said, we need to pick a spinner at some point and stick with them, give them some time in the team as we're not going to get away with it anywhere else...but who? There seems to be a fundamental problem with English pitches that stops quality spinners coming through.

 

I'd swap out Bell too - but again, who for? 

 

I do agree a 2-0 reverse looks far worse than our performance merited - 6 overs too few in the first Test and 6 overs too many in the second Test, that's how close it was. 

 

Sky have certainly broadened the amount of cricket coverage going on, but not having (at least) England home Tests available for all is detrimental to the development of the game IMO. If kids can't watch their potential role models now as they could (though to a limited degree) a decade back, then how can we get more of them interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My confusion can be summarised in three points:

 

  1. Pitching - why is there umpires call on where the ball pitches? It's tracking what has happened
  2. Impact (where the ball hits the bad) - as above. It's tracking what has actually happened.
  3. Stumps - okay, there's going to be some margin of error here so I can understand Umpire's Call. However, why is it always half a ball? Surely if the player is standing pretty much on their stumps their is less predictive element so less margin of error than if they'd danced down the pitch to try and hoik it over the top. Why is it always the same amount?

 

I think the answer to all three is because the ICC didn't really do that much testing (not in the same way we've seen with football for instance) and just rolled it out without thinking about the consequences too much.

 

Completely agree, if they are worried about the number of wickets going down for LBW then they should change the rules to impact and in line being over half the ball, then it makes it easier for an umpire to pick up, I think the main concern is undermining the umpire, if every umpire's call decision was overruled then they would look incompetent, the  frustration is when 2 identical deliveries yield different outcomes depending on the split second decision of a man. With the rate of LBWs reviewed you  might as well do away with the Umpire and just refer them all to Hawkeye, or give the Umpire the option of referring it to Hawkeye without making a call.

 

As for hitting the stumps, I think that how close you are to the stumps should be important and a deviation factor brought in, so for each 10cm from the stumps it can deviate by 1mm from ball tracker, because you can never be 100% certain with ball tracker, but if you are right back in your crease and it is hitting the stumps quarter ball, then it will hit the stumps.

 

When you see ball tracker their would be an area of uncertainty round the ball, the further away from the stumps the bigger the area of uncertainty, so if at the extremes of the area of uncertain the ball is missing and the umpire said not out, then it stays not out, likewise if the umpire calls out and any part of the area of uncertainty is hitting the stumps then it is out. Which means that even if ball tracker is missing, the area of uncertainty means that the umpire can't be 100% proved wrong. Without any sort of area of uncertainty, then the umpire is pointless, and seeing the ball smash 49% into the stumps on Hawkeye and it not being given out just looks stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Africa is about the only place we'd get away with not having a spinner, so I like the look of that side. That being said, we need to pick a spinner at some point and stick with them, give them some time in the team as we're not going to get away with it anywhere else...but who? There seems to be a fundamental problem with English pitches that stops quality spinners coming through.

 

I'd swap out Bell too - but again, who for? 

 

I do agree a 2-0 reverse looks far worse than our performance merited - 6 overs too few in the first Test and 6 overs too many in the second Test, that's how close it was. 

 

Sky have certainly broadened the amount of cricket coverage going on, but not having (at least) England home Tests available for all is detrimental to the development of the game IMO. If kids can't watch their potential role models now as they could (though to a limited degree) a decade back, then how can we get more of them interested?

 

If we have a spinner good enough I'd go with it but we simply don't so I see no point persisting with it, you don't have to play a spinner just because you play on flat wickets if your seamers are still taking more wickets than spinners on the flat wicket.

 

On the flat, turning Karachi deck these are the combined figures in the 1st and 2nd innings.

 

Seamers = 29-19-53-6  /  49-14-96-5 = 78-33-149-11

 

Spinners = 46-7-177-4  /  59-5-248-3 = 105-12- 425-7

 

We can't predict how Plunkett and Wood would bowl and it almost certainly wouldn't have been what Broad and Anderson were but I'm sure their combined figures would have comfortably trumped the spinners, we might even have won the match. If that happens on this surface then I really don't see the point in sacrificing a seam bowler for a spinner even on a pitch that suits. 12 maidens in 105 overs is just so bad, gives the captain no control at all.

 

Bell I agree but with no replacement I might just keep him in.

 

I'd hazard a guess more young kids are watching cricket these days than were when it was on terrestrial TV, barely anyone watched it when it was on the BBC and they wouldn't even pay the paltry 100k for Ashes away rights as it wasn't worth it, they were ripping off the ECB to an amazing extent as they were the only potential buyer with what they paid for it and it if wasn't for Sky and the money they pay to the ECB these days counties like Leicestershire would have gone to the wall a long time ago. No to mention things like the Chance to Shine project, I remember going to a few test matches as a kid at weekends and the grounds were still empty, you would never get that now.

 

I do think you allow your hatred of Murdoch to cloud your judgement on this, Sky Sports has done absolute wonders for cricket in this country, without it we would be looking at a dead county game apart from the test grounds, no competitions like 20/20 to get the kids into the grounds and into Test Cricket. My Dad hated cricket and told me it was a dying sport as it kid, he was right and it was the Sky interest and investment that saved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have a spinner good enough I'd go with it but we simply don't so I see no point persisting with it, you don't have to play a spinner just because you play on flat wickets if your seamers are still taking more wickets than spinners on the flat wicket.

 

On the flat, turning Karachi deck these are the combined figures in the 1st and 2nd innings.

 

Seamers = 29-19-53-6  /  49-14-96-5 = 78-33-149-11

 

Spinners = 46-7-177-4  /  59-5-248-3 = 105-12- 425-7

 

We can't predict how Plunkett and Wood would bowl and it almost certainly wouldn't have been what Broad and Anderson were but I'm sure their combined figures would have comfortably trumped the spinners, we might even have won the match. If that happens on this surface then I really don't see the point in sacrificing a seam bowler for a spinner even on a pitch that suits. 12 maidens in 105 overs is just so bad, gives the captain no control at all.

 

Bell I agree but with no replacement I might just keep him in.

 

I'd hazard a guess more young kids are watching cricket these days than were when it was on terrestrial TV, barely anyone watched it when it was on the BBC and they wouldn't even pay the paltry 100k for Ashes away rights as it wasn't worth it, they were ripping off the ECB to an amazing extent as they were the only potential buyer with what they paid for it and it if wasn't for Sky and the money they pay to the ECB these days counties like Leicestershire would have gone to the wall a long time ago. No to mention things like the Chance to Shine project, I remember going to a few test matches as a kid at weekends and the grounds were still empty, you would never get that now.

 

I do think you allow your hatred of Murdoch to cloud your judgement on this, Sky Sports has done absolute wonders for cricket in this country, without it we would be looking at a dead county game apart from the test grounds, no competitions like 20/20 to get the kids into the grounds and into Test Cricket. My Dad hated cricket and told me it was a dying sport as it kid, he was right and it was the Sky interest and investment that saved it.

 

Fair point on the spinner - if the seamers are going to be more effective even if it's a raging turner you've got to use them. I guess the Saffers and the Aussies function reasonably well without a big name one.

 

I think the 2005 Ashes was a critical turning point for cricket in this country. Fans don't really like watching losing sides in a sport that while mainstream isn't pushed as much as football and up to that point all they'd seen on terrestrial TV was England lose again and again. But that one series galvanised a lot of people, and inspired a lot of kids to take up the game and I think a lot of that was due to how it was available for everyone to watch. I'm pretty sure if it had been hidden away on subscription TV the effect wouldn't have been as big. 

 

I have no doubt that the money that Sky have poured into the game has done a fair bit of good at the grassroots level and helped improve things (as well as their coverage being damned good), but if it was even just the home Ashes series being available free to air, I reckon there would be still more interest to allow the game to grow further. It's one series every couple of years - do they really need to watch the pocketbook so much as to not allow that? Hell, if they did it might even encourage more people to get subscriptions to watch England elsewhere with their coverage...

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2015/07/cricket-britain-under-threat-its-own-success 

 

And interesting article about the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well , todays performance was utter bollocks (Cooky excepted) . We had actually competed quite well through the match up to then  but lost the key sessions and as has been recognised  sometimes a 5 day match can turn on just one bad session . The first hour yesterday sunk us. The Pakistan team are tough to beat in these conditions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac that link doesn't work I'd like a read of it as well.

Bob Willis absolutely laying into the team on The Verdict, I'm in stitches.

"You can't play Rashid or Ali in South Africa, Ab De Villiers and Hashim Amla will hit them into the ocean" lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac that link doesn't work I'd like a read of it as well.

Bob Willis absolutely laying into the team on The Verdict, I'm in stitches.

"You can't play Rashid or Ali in South Africa, Ab De Villiers and Hashim Amla will hit them into the ocean" lol

 

Really? Damn, it worked for me. Here, try again. http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2015/07/cricket-britain-under-threat-its-own-success

 

If not, Google 'New Statesman cricket victim success' and it's the first link, that's worked for me too.

 

Agree about the spinners, Amla and and AB would put them both somewhere over Table Mountain. Go with a four prong seam attack and pray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...