Australia v India
-
-
@Donsteppa said in Australia v India:
At first glance I don't think that was Virat's call...
Definitely the striker's call.
Kohli turned to watch the ball instead of getting into gear
-
-
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
Send another Night Watchman, you cowards
That's the third or fourth time in recent times, I've seen a team send out a nightwatchman with about 20 minutes to play.
I don't think any of them have survived.
I don't know what they're thinking! A nightwatchman (MAYBE!) if there's ten balls or less left in the day. Because you don't want a specialist batsman to get out facing three or four balls. But four or five overs - that's ridiculous.
And even worse, the commentary teams appear to have invented a new role, where the nightwatchman is also apparently supposed to dominate the strike and protect the set batsman. That's bollocks IMO. The one thing you don't want is for the nightwatchman to get out and have to have your new batsman come out anyway - so if anything I'd want the set specialist batsman to farm the strike. After all, you don't trust your bunnies at the end of the innings.
And in Akash Deep's case - following this theory, he came out with five overs to play so ideally he faces all 30 balls.
Problem being he's had 8 innings in test cricket and faced 138 balls - so on average he only lasts 17 balls.
Edit: Maybe in the last over of the day, when a new batsmen doesn't have to come out anyway - the nightie might turn down a single to protect the set batsman.
-
-
-
@Chris-B said in Australia v India:
@NTA said in Australia v India:
Send another Night Watchman, you cowards
That's the third or fourth time in recent times, I've seen a team send out a nightwatchman with about 20 minutes to play.
I don't think any of them have survived.
I don't know what they're thinking! A nightwatchman (MAYBE!) if there's ten balls or less left in the day. Because you don't want a specialist batsman to get out facing three or four balls. But four or five overs - that's ridiculous.
And even worse, the commentary teams appear to have invented a new role, where the nightwatchman is also apparently supposed to dominate the strike and protect the set batsman. That's bollocks IMO. The one thing you don't want is for the nightwatchman to get out and have to have your new batsman come out anyway - so if anything I'd want the set specialist batsman to farm the strike. After all, you don't trust your bunnies at the end of the innings.
And in Akash Deep's case - following this theory, he came out with five overs to play so ideally he faces all 30 balls.
Problem being he's had 8 innings in test cricket and faced 138 balls - so on average he only lasts 17 balls.
Edit: Maybe in the last over of the day, when a new batsmen doesn't have to come out anyway - the nightie might turn down a single to protect the set batsman.
I reckon.
Someone supposedly in the team as a batsman gets protected from actually batting by a guy who is very likely tired from bowling heaps earlier on. It’s pretty ridiculous
As @NTA alludes to if it comes to it Australia might not enforce the follow on and instead bat again and set a huge 4th innings total.
It’s the modern way it seems
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
@Chris-B like the follow-on, I don't think it's a thing any more unless it's the circumstances you describe
Shouldn't be - but, India and NZ are both still using it - and both guilty of sending in early nighties.
Steve Waugh got rid of it altogether and I think was probably correct - except in exceptional circumstances.
-
-
Think I want this tail to wag to ensure follow on is out of the equation purely from my own selfish wish to watch Konstas have another bat
-
@Rapido Indians have probably made four or five errors that will cost them this test.
Picking Rohit instead of Shubman - but, a bit like Timmy that was always happening. No country for old men, Rohit.
Not finding a quick solution for Konstas.
Jaiswal runout. Which probably cost them Kohli, as well.
Nightwatchman - which might have contributed to Kohli.
Pant!
-
