Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Stiff shit for the Kiwis but nobody can claim they have been robbed.
Nobody has.
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Under the system you are proposing, why have umpires on the field at all? You can just appeal to Hawkeye who will tell you whether it was out or not.
They still have to make the call. Every appeal would take forever.
I have said several times it is after a DRS review that umpires call becomes contentious. They don't have the benefit of the replays, etc. AFTER it goes to DRS then there is no "umpires call" from on field, it is done by the 3rd umpire and the technology and must be 1/2 ball to eliminate any ball tracking errors. -
I'd say the lbws are both pretty poor decisions, because when a seamer is bowling it's an absolute howler if the ball is completely missing the stumps on line (not so much if it's going over the top). So Marais is a millimetre away from a howler. Compounds that it's been pretty much our best batsmen in each instance being fired for nothing.
It's more annoying that we've had to review better appeals to get lbws out of him.
I wonder whether we're reaping a cost of being the "nice guys" of international cricket?
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I'd say the lbws are both pretty poor decisions, because when a seamer is bowling it's an absolute howler if the ball is completely missing the stumps on line (not so much if it's going over the top). So Marais is a millimetre away from a howler. Compounds that it's been pretty much our best batsmen in each instance being fired for nothing.
It's more annoying that we've had to review better appeals to get lbws out of him.
I wonder whether we're reaping a cost of being the "nice guys" of international cricket?
It may be a millimetre away from a howler, but it's still not a howler. The ball was likely clipping the stumps. If the NZ bats don't like it they should use their bat next time instead.
And the 'nice guys' thing is pretty ludicrous. I get that you are all frustrated about the shellackings you have copped, but that theory does not have much logical foundation.
-
@barbarian There's no doubt though that we've had the rough end of Marais' decisions.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@barbarian There's no doubt though that we've had the rough end of Marais' decisions.
Sure. You've had a couple of 50/50s go against you. Nothing historically bad though.
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I get that you are all frustrated about the shellackings you have copped,
That is true for sure, but doesn't change anything that we have been saying about the systems, or Erasmus for that matter. He is poor, or corrupt / biased. You decide.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
That is true for sure, but doesn't change anything that we have been saying about the systems, or Erasmus for that matter. He is poor, or corrupt / biased. You decide.
Well it's clearly the latter. As has been thoroughly demonstrated on this thread, he's underpaid and has an easy target - the 'nice guys' of international cricket.
Having acquired his mark, he's set about making millions through a genius scheme where he is giving key batsmen out LBW, but ONLY when the ball is just clipping the outside of the stumps.
While some think he's just not very good, the truth is he's so incredibly good that he can pick the exact part of the stump the ball is hitting. While Latham and Kane trudge back to the pavilion, Marais knows his devious plan has landed him another big sum of cash, presumably from a dodgy indian bookie.
But this conspiracy doesn't stop at cricket. No, my friend, far from it. Marais is in cahoots with a close friend and countryman: Jaco Peyper, who manages to do the same thing in every Bledisloe game he's ever assigned. Does he make howling bad calls? No. But he tips the scales ever so slightly any time he can. This time, though, the shoe is on the other foot and it's Australia who is on the receiving end.
If Marais and Jaco didn't have the global sports media on the payroll we'd know about this in an instance. Winger and I are on the case, though, and will reveal the ugly truth to the world in the coming weeks. Stay tuned.
-
@barbarian Yep - nothing that would have changed any of the outcomes - but, it might have made things a bit more of a contest.
However, I'm sure you're not going to give us anything... I just hope Agent Rennie is watching this!!!
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@barbarian There's no doubt though that we've had the rough end of Marais' decisions.
Sure. You've had a couple of 50/50s go against you. Nothing historically bad though.
It hasn't decided the test series. The aussie quicks have been as good as I can recall for a while, and we helped out with plenty of ill disciplined self inflicted wounds. But when you need everything to go your way to stay in the game these decisions hurt more
-
Everyone is talking as if the series is over and done. I remind you all that the final test is still on and all 3 results are possible.
It is irresponsible to talk about whether umpiring decisions have played a part in the result when we don't even know what that result is.
-
De Grandhomme making runs, when it really doesn't fuckin' matter anymore.
We've been poor this series - if you went through the team, Watling gets a pass as wicket-keeper, Wagner as a bowler, but literally everyone else has absolutely conspired to play some of their absolute worst cricket in a looooong time.
Injuries & illness haven't helped.
I also think Australia stepped it up a notch from their Pakistan series, I really think they set themselves the goal of bringing their A game against us to put us back in our place. Oh an Labuschagne - why can't we find someone like that by accident. -
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Everyone is talking as if the series is over and done. I remind you all that the final test is still on and all 3 results are possible.
It is irresponsible to talk about whether umpiring decisions have played a part in the result when we don't even know what that result is.
um. the series is done. we're down 2-zip in a 3 game series. we lost. by miles.
-
Well that was shit.
Funny looking shot to get out to. Almost looked like he was trying to hit it up. Would have been better to have a real go at the ball rather than the half hearted shot he played.
Astle looked up with our best batsmen in the first innings.
-
Best move is just to declare from here.
-
@westcoastie said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Everyone is talking as if the series is over and done. I remind you all that the final test is still on and all 3 results are possible.
It is irresponsible to talk about whether umpiring decisions have played a part in the result when we don't even know what that result is.
um. the series is done. we're down 2-zip in a 3 game series. we lost. by miles.
Crucial test championship points still up for grabs though.
-
@westcoastie Tim Southee was decent in the first test. Rossco and Kane were bloody brave in that night session on the second day.
Blundell was good in the second test and OK in the first innings here.
Tom Latham's had a couple of decent innings.
But, as a unit we have crumbled badly. In Perth especially and Melbourne, the Aussie pace attack was too hot to handle. But, on this pitch, they have been less of a threat, but we haven't been good enough to make runs.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@westcoastie Tim Southee was decent in the first test. Rossco and Kane were bloody brave in that night session on the second day.
Blundell was good in the second test and OK in the first innings here.
Tom Latham's had a couple of decent innings.
But, as a unit we have crumbled badly. In Perth especially and Melbourne, the Aussie pace attack was too hot to handle. But, on this pitch, they have been less of a threat, but we haven't been good enough to make runs.
A lot of the wickets Southee took were when Australia were 50+ overs deep and very well set. Thats not his job. His is to take wickets early. Any number of our players had 10 or 15 over spells when they might've look the goods, but never good enough for long enough.
The one positive is (so long as we don't put it down as a one-off aberration) is that every single deficiency we have has been exposed.
