Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
Even the 93/94 NZ tourists put a top score on the board that was well above 256.
When you win in Australia your top players front with performances like 188, or 9-52. Our big names this time fronted with nothing.
Who would have picked Tom Blundell to be our one and only centurion of the series?
-
@Snowy @barbarian Re DRS the 1/2 ball thing for me is the key. Which makes the "it's there to eliminate the shockers argument" a bit of a sham IMO. The technology isn't perfect so to have it show the ball barely clipping a stump to me should mean the decision is not out.
This isn't really sour grapes. Our batsmen were shite and the Aussie bowling attack, Cummins in particular, were far too good - but globally umpiring standards are pretty fucking woeful and anything that improves them has to be to the benefit of the game.
In terms of the series - well we certainly had more than our fair share of bad luck with injuries, illness, lack of preparation etc but that doesn't come even close to excusing a woeful performance. I'm the most disappointed by a NZ side I ever have been and I've been watching 50 years.
Yes the Aussie attack was intimidating and relentless. Yes we probably could have rolled them 12 months ago, but yes we were bereft of ideas on how to adjust and showed a serious lack of commitment.
I'm very wary of being a keyboard warrior criticising someone for a lack of fight facing thunderbolts from the safety of my sofa, but I have seen far more limited players over the years stick around for a lot longer simply because they were determined to sell their wicket dearly. This lot seemed to mentally give up way too soon. A bit more of Chatfield's "its the only way he was going to get me out" attitude against Peter Lever would have gone a long way towards making the losses more palatable.
-
@canefan said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12298419
"The former seamer"??? I know he rolled his arm over but he did a few other things too..."the only NZ captain to win a series in Australia" might be better
-
So can we stop pretending this was somehow the best on paper Black Cap side to tour Oz since the 80s?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=12298447
-
@Donsteppa said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
So can we stop pretending this was somehow the best on paper Black Cap side to tour Oz since the 80s?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=12298447
Just because they performed abysmally doesn't change their paper strength.
Latham, Williamson, Taylor, Watling, Boult and Wagner are all-time black cap test team contenders (or a lock in the case of Kane).
Southee, Nicholls and de Grandhomme have all proven themselves to be competent test cricketers.
Raval's lack of form and Santner's lack of threat were the only areas where we had concerns with our squad.
This was a nightmare tour where things kept going wrong and we never managed to pull up.
-
I know some of our top 6 have good averages against the top 3-4 teams, but pretty much everyone folded during this series. There is a harsh but kind of fair article by an Indian writer about us being a shadow #2 as we built that off lower tier wins.
But we can only play what's in front of us so that's a bit of a meh argument. However the point stands that we got to #2 without playing the big 4 (much). Unless we get more tests against Oz, India, Eng and SA we aren't going to be able to build on that body of work. If we'd had some decent warm up games I think we'd have seen at least a 50% improvement on what we delivered (sweet fuck all really), but that Oz attack is going to take any batting top order to task imo - especially at home.I actually think I am sadder about this capitulation than our RWC exit. But in both cases you could say we were outclassed, with the difference being we expect the AB's to do that to others!!
-
@Cyclops I worded it poorly, but I’ll stand by a sentiment that their notional paper strength going into the series makes their capitulation even more abysmal.
I’m also in the camp of feeling more disappointed in this performance than the RWC for some reason.
-
@westcoastie said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@westcoastie said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
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.
Actually, I largely disagree with your last comment. Far too often in our cricket history we've been routed by Australia, come home with our tails between our legs, dropped a bunch of players and replaced them with people who are worse.
So, while the Aussies have exposed our deficiencies when confronted with fairly extreme pace and bounce, I think the selectors should almost totally disregard this series when picking our future teams.
We have some work-ons, but harsh reality is that unless we uncover our own versions of Cummins, Starc et al, we are not going to seriously compete with this Aussie team on Australian pitches.
I didn't say we have to drop a bunch of players - now we know our weaknesses - we need to correct them. Can't handle pace - sort it. Develop some capable spin bowlers. Build our next gen. of pace bowlers. Find a bottle of mental fortitude and drink that stuff!
Sounds like we need Harry Potter on the job!
I think there are probably a few things we could have done better in terms of preparation - playing a couple of warm up games on fast, bouncy pitches, not agreeing to start with a pink ball test in Perth, preparing more lively decks in NZ - though that will disadvantage us at home - but, the improvements we can make to our players are pretty marginal IMO. It's a bit like saying the All Blacks need another Ma'a Nonu or Jerome Kaino - it would be bloody handy, but we can't just whip down to the shop and buy one.
-
@Donsteppa said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Cyclops I worded it poorly, but I’ll stand by a sentiment that their notional paper strength going into the series makes their capitulation even more abysmal.
I’m also in the camp of feeling more disappointed in this performance than the RWC for some reason.
I agree on both counts there. I can't remember when I was last this gutted by a BC performance. This hurts more than both the CWC finals for me too.
I don't think I expected us to win the series, but I thought it would be a hard fought 1-1 or 2-1 for Aussie, with a chance for us to win if things go well.
-
@Siam said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy (whispering)...i don't think there's actually any official mention of benefit of the doubt in any binding laws or documents...
There's not, which is why I called a "tenet":
"a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" in this case a sport.I'm led to believe it's a brilliant rule of thumb dreamt up years ago, probably to adequately school all umpires back in the day.
Yes. So that it had to clear and obvious that a batsman was out. You are removing a player from the contest, so you really need to be sure, not guessing, that it would hit the stumps for an LBW.
Sorry snowy. But I did get umpired by Aleem once....didn't trust him all game mate🤔
Integrity of an umpire doesn't change the flaw in the system, that the guy with the least information gets the final say with "umpires call".
-
@dogmeat said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy @barbarian Re DRS the 1/2 ball thing for me is the key. Which makes the "it's there to eliminate the shockers argument" a bit of a sham IMO. The technology isn't perfect so to have it show the ball barely clipping a stump to me should mean the decision is not out.
Yep. That's why I have mentioned it all of the way through.
The pre match TB show where they explained the process (and where there was human input) was enough to prove that TB producers shouldn't be making the decision either, hence the 1/2 ball rule. It must be clearly out. Not a snick, a clip, a touch but ball hitting stumps. Of course if the umpire hadn't given it and it was reviewed it isn't out, which is the contradiction that Shane Warne has been going on about. Never thought that I would be discussing a point that he made, but here it is:
"I’ve said this for a while re DRS. If there is a review re LBW then take away the original umpires decision. Go through the checklist, hit in line & hitting the stumps. Then out or not out - simple. U can’t have the same delivery being out/not out depending on the umpire decision"
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@dogmeat said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy @barbarian Re DRS the 1/2 ball thing for me is the key. Which makes the "it's there to eliminate the shockers argument" a bit of a sham IMO. The technology isn't perfect so to have it show the ball barely clipping a stump to me should mean the decision is not out.
Yep. That's why I have mentioned it all of the way through.
The pre match TB show where they explained the process (and where there was human input) was enough to prove that TB producers shouldn't be making the decision either, hence the 1/2 ball rule. It must be clearly out. Not a snick, a clip, a touch but ball hitting stumps. Of course if the umpire hadn't given it and it was reviewed it isn't out, which is the contradiction that Shane Warne has been going on about. Never thought that I would be discussing a point that he made, but here it is:
"I’ve said this for a while re DRS. If there is a review re LBW then take away the original umpires decision. Go through the checklist, hit in line & hitting the stumps. Then out or not out - simple. U can’t have the same delivery being out/not out depending on the umpire decision"
Warne making perfect sense. It's a bit like a rugby ref saying try or no try. The DRS should not be clouded by the umpire's on field decision
-
@canefan said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Warne making perfect sense.
Hard to take isn't it.
I have been trying to ignore any rugby analogies from @barbarian as they are such different sports, but if there is one, it is a red card that is overturned by TMO and the on field ref ignores it. The act removes the player from the rest of the contest (for that innings in cricket) and we have all seen batsmen given a life, through a dropped catch or whatever, and go on to score big runs that can change the course of the match, not necessarily the result. A red card usually has a similar affect. They aren't great comparisons though.
-
OK so let's implement the Snowy system, and remove 'umpire's call' from the equation. Is Latham out?
Because the DRS tracker shows the ball hitting the stumps. Sure it's the outside of leg, but still. And while the tech isn't perfect you could logically argue it's just as likely it was hitting the middle of leg as it was missing completely.
So where do you draw the line? The LBW law is pretty clear, and doesn't discriminate on what part of the stumps the ball would be hitting. Are we taking out balls clipping the bails as well?
My broad point is there is no perfect system here, and the one we have makes about as much sense as any other. Your system just creates a different grey area where we decide that the ball would have likely hit the stumps but it's still not out.
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
let's implement the Snowy system
It's the Warne system really, and no, neither of them are perfect but it would be an improvement than leaving the guy with the least information and at full speed from 22 yards away with the final say, rather than the guy who is a qualified umpire with all of the technology and in slow motion. Which makes more sense?
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Are we taking out balls clipping the bails as well?
Yes. Enough doubt is not out, hence the 1/2 ball rule to make sure that it is hitting.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
let's implement the Snowy system
It's the Warne system really, and no, neither of them are perfect but it would be an improvement than leaving the guy with the least information and at full speed from 22 yards away with the final say, rather than the guy who is a qualified umpire with all of the technology and in slow motion. Which makes more sense?
So then I bring you back to the question I asked a while ago - why have the umpires on the field at all? Seriously.
If you believe they have the 'least information' and they are in a sub-optimal position to make decisions, then let's do away with them and empower the third umpire to do everything.
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
So then I bring you back to the question I asked a while ago - why have the umpires on the field at all? Seriously.
I answered that at the time as well - because every appeal can't be reviewed. The match would be unwatchable. It is only reviews, and each team only get two, they decide whether it is worth a look. Then it is taken out of the on field umpires hands.
-
@barbarian The counter argument is also why have a review system if we don't use it to full effect?
-
@Snowy We do. I believe the 'umpire's call' is the best way to navigate the grey areas of the system.
The problem with the Latham/Kane dismissals isn't that the DRS is flawed, it's that the standard of umpiring around the world is poor. The system you want to introduce is trying to solve that problem when the actual answer is just to have better umpires.
I disagree that the umpire isn't well placed to make LBW decisions, and that the technology is in all instances better placed. Clearly DRS is better when it comes to picking up ball hitting bat, but when it comes to the tracking I don't trust it much more than the eye. And by implementing a 'half ball' rule, it's clear you don't trust the tracking much either.
The on-field umpire is in line with the stumps, and can study the movement of the batsman, bounce of the ball and develop a feel for the game. I am entirely comfortable with the benefit of the doubt on LBW decisions going to the on-field umpire, rather than the batsman.
The fact is there is no perfect solution to a rule like LBW. It's always going to be hypothetical. I don't really think your system is any better than the one we have at the moment.
Better umpires solve the problem. Aleem Dar is equally hopeless. His 'running on the pitch' ruling was just bizarre. And don't get me started on Joel Wilson in the Ashes...
