Black Caps v India
-
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@Gunner So Thompson can be roundarm, at pace. And its not a problem. So can Malinga.
But a spinner does it, and suddenly somehow its not kosher.
I don’t recall saying I had a problem with it..????
I’m all for something different.
You may be referring to me saying the ICC won’t look into it because it’s India... which was a nod towards who calls the shots in cricket, nothing else.
And who is Thompson?
-
@shark said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
oh thats completely bullshit
lights going off aren't out. his toe would've been down. and what the fuck happened to benefit of the doubt not a single person in the world can 100% say thats outYep. Just because in the first frame when he absolutely does have his toe squished into the turf the lights were on, doesn't 100% mean thta in the previous frame when the lights were on that his toe wasn't touching the turf. There's no way anyone can definitively see a gap in between.
@shark @westcoastie looked pretty out to me
-
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie I didn;t think Malinga was kosher, and don't think Yadav is. A simple rule like the ball must be released above the head would help. How low does the release point have to be before its at odds with the spirit of bowling?
When cricket was first invented, the bowling was underarm.
As batsmen got better the bowlers sought an edge by bowling roundarm (or sidearm - arm @ 90 degrees to body). Lots of controversy, but eventually it was legalized.
Next stage was overarm - again it was highly controversial, before being legalized.
More recently, strictures on keeping your arm straight have been loosened and underarm bowling has been banned. Evolution I supposed.
Jadhav's the roundarm guy - he's fine - completely legal and adds interest IMO.
Thomson I expect is Jeff.
-
@booboo said in Black Caps v India:
@shark said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
oh thats completely bullshit
lights going off aren't out. his toe would've been down. and what the fuck happened to benefit of the doubt not a single person in the world can 100% say thats outYep. Just because in the first frame when he absolutely does have his toe squished into the turf the lights were on, doesn't 100% mean thta in the previous frame when the lights were on that his toe wasn't touching the turf. There's no way anyone can definitively see a gap in between.
@shark @westcoastie looked pretty out to me
So you could see a gap between Taylors' toe and the turf?
-
@shark said in Black Caps v India:
@booboo said in Black Caps v India:
@shark said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
oh thats completely bullshit
lights going off aren't out. his toe would've been down. and what the fuck happened to benefit of the doubt not a single person in the world can 100% say thats outYep. Just because in the first frame when he absolutely does have his toe squished into the turf the lights were on, doesn't 100% mean thta in the previous frame when the lights were on that his toe wasn't touching the turf. There's no way anyone can definitively see a gap in between.
@shark @westcoastie looked pretty out to me
So you could see a gap between Taylors' toe and the turf?
As desparately as I tried not to, yes.
-
I see where you're going with this so I looked up the laws and it appears I may be less right ...
29.1 Wicket put down
29.1.1 The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,
...
29.1.2 The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.
(My bolding)
-
-
-
@Siam That's who the commentators are talking about.
Alternatives would include pushing Latham up to open, but I don't really like that because it's a tough gig opening and keeping - we tried it with Tom and he fell apart.
We could also just push Little Kane up to open - to hopefully lessen the risk of losing an early wicket - as we did with both Fleming and Crowe on occasion. But then Rossco probably has to bat 3 - unless Nicholls....
Or we try Nicholls or Neesham as openers.
I think I'd give Young his chance, even though I know virtually nothing about him.
Another dismal start by our openers, piling the pressure onto the rest.
-
@Damo said in Black Caps v India:
Is Hamish Rutherford worth another look?
Rutherford, Worker and Young were the top order for NZ A, so one of those three for sure.
I think Young has the inside running because he was in an earlier full NZ squad.
Other interesting feature of today's team in a "must win" game is that Ferguson is playing and Southee (and Henry) is not.
-
Fuck, just back from a meeting and stopped into the local dairy for an update - my shop-keeping bro and I were lamenting yet another failure by our openers, and wondering who is likely to replace Munro. I mean enough is enough and whether it's talent, application or a mix (plus India bowling well) who cares. We are not getting the runs we need and Williamson and Taylor are pretty much opening.
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
@Siam That's who the commentators are talking about.
Alternatives would include pushing Latham up to open, but I don't really like that because it's a tough gig opening and keeping - we tried it with Tom and he fell apart.
We could also just push Little Kane up to open - to hopefully lessen the risk of losing an early wicket - as we did with both Fleming and Crowe on occasion. But then Rossco probably has to bat 3 - unless Nicholls....
Or we try Nicholls or Neesham as openers.
I think I'd give Young his chance, even though I know virtually nothing about him.
Another dismal start by our openers, piling the pressure onto the rest.
Young has never opened in a List A match in his life.
Very good player though.Whatever they choose, its going to involve compromise somewhere.
-
What about the Neesh?
