1st Test Sri Lanka v Australia Jan 29-Feb 2 1500hrs @ Galle International Stadium

[sr36]

see i think we batted a session too long but it ultimately didn’t matter. it would’ve been fine if webster/carey went out and plundered runs but they didn’t.

we won regardless, they would’ve been made to follow on regardless

In terms of a one test scenario, would have been better for Webster and Carey to go the hack rather than bat normally and get to the 650 target quicker. But big picture wise, probably better for Webster in particular to have an opportunity to bat the way he's going to bat when scoring runs or not will be significant.

 

[jannissary]

In terms of a one test scenario, would have been better for Webster and Carey to go the hack rather than bat normally and get to the 650 target quicker. But big picture wise, probably better for Webster in particular to have an opportunity to bat the way he's going to bat when scoring runs or not will be significant.

exactly right, well put

 

[sr36]

Did our squad go to Dubai pre series to acclimatize to sub continental like conditions, because CA no longer uses the pitches it built from imported Indian soil a decade ago in Brisbane to replicate Indian/Sri Lankan conditions. Annual spin camps were held there too, then suddenly stopped. I posted about this earlier.

Don't know about the Brisbane situation. Was it just pitches and nets? We've done Dubai a few times now to prepare for the condiitons. With Aussie grounds in use for various levels of cricket - it might be the best place for match play scenarios rather than just net sessions.

 

[troybe]

Did our squad go to Dubai pre series to acclimatize to sub continental like conditions, because CA no longer uses the pitches it built from imported Indian soil a decade ago in Brisbane to replicate Indian/Sri Lankan conditions. Annual spin camps were held there too, then suddenly stopped. I posted about this earlier.

They mentioned it on the coverage that the squad went to Dubai first then on to Sri Lanka

 

[BGman]

You'll enjoy this analysis then: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...-the-greatest-of-all-time-in-a-series-1234824

Smith's the best series of all time. Science says so!

Thanks for that. This also shows his prolific '14-'18 home years, specifically his huge series against England and India. His '21-'23 WTC figures are not too shabby either.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Words out of my mouth too. I am going further by maintaining that Smudge stands out from the rest including those you have listed before him, other than Bradman, for one specific reason. That he dominated innings and won Tests for us almost single handedly during his legend building years '14-'18 then again in '19 Ashes. Did Tendulkar, Sobers, Lara dominate their teams so comprehensively? I'll probably cop some flack over this, but stand by it until stats prove otherwise . There are others that share this view, with some respected former players on record as saying Smudge's '19 England Ashes performance was the best ever, given his quantity of runs compared to the other five Aussie batsmen.

Not that it won anything, but Brian Lara had a series against Muttiah Muralitharan on dustbowl tracks over there where he scored 42 per cent of his team’s runs which is a record to this day so, yeah, he did do that.

688 of them in 3 matches to be precise.


Lara’s 19 per cent of his team’s runs over the course of his career is also 3rd of all time behind the two obvious candidates in Bradman and Headley.

 

[BGman]

Was it just pitches and nets?

Yep. Specially built practice pitches. Often wondered why they did not build one in the centre to replicate actual playing conditions.

 

[Soggy2112]

see i think we batted a session too long but it ultimately didn’t matter. it would’ve been fine if webster/carey went out and plundered runs but they didn’t.

we won regardless, they would’ve been made to follow on regardless

Maybe that argument makes sense in our conditions, but I think Smith and co correctly assessed that a pitch like that will just get progressively worse, so taking advantage of the time when runs are coming relatively easy is crucial.

It obviously became a moot point, but scoring 650 completely removes the possibility of Sri Lanka winning, then it’s just up to the spinners to go to work over 3 and a bit days to get 20 wickets on a deteriorating deck. If they can’t do that then we probably aren’t winning the test anyway.

 

[Lebbo73]

It's what you're dreaming of when you bat first. Bat big, have 15 overs at them at the end of day 2 and skittle a few.

Virtually two long days in the field and all you have to look forward to is an hour of trying to survive until the end of play.

 

[Lunchtime]

I am a massive Steve Smith fan, so I am biased. But he's now a top-5 batsman all time for me. 1. Bradman, 2. Sobers, 3. Tendulkar, 4. Lara, 5. Smith, 6. Sir Vivian Richards. I know that will be very controversial to a lot having him higher than Sir Vivian, and there are people who probably have numerous players still ahead of him, but Smith to me just encapsulates so much about the allure of cricket. His ability to dictate a ball in excess of 140kmh to wherever he wants so effortlessly, no matter where it's pitched, is just about the best I've seen. He has become a very accomplished player of spin by not just current standards but historic. And his resilience under pressure or to take a game by the horns and bat the other side out of it is by far the best of the current era, if you ask me.

But what solidifies Smith as an all-time great and legend and separates him from even the greatest of greats is that he is constantly adapting himself to whatever issue he is faced with. Most greats at his age just continued what they had always done, as is evident these days by Kohli, but Smith has continually adapted to his age and natural unbalance that creeps into the body's actions/reactions. And he continues to adapt to whatever new big threat or issue he is facing from a bowler or other team.

Like you, Smith is an All Time Great. Where he goes in terms of ranking...thats up to each individual. No right or wrong answer....all opinion.

I have Smith in the top 10 gor Test batsman. I have him behind Lara and Tendulkar.

 

[Lunchtime]

Not that it won anything, but Brian Lara had a series against Muttiah Muralitharan on dustbowl tracks over there where he scored 42 per cent of his team’s runs which is a record to this day so, yeah, he did do that.

688 of them in 3 matches to be precise.


Lara’s 19 per cent of his team’s runs over the course of his career is also 3rd of all time behind the two obvious candidates in Bradman and Headley.

This is why I have Lara ahead of Smith. When he (Lara) scored...he scored big. Lara scored 34 Test hundreds.....55.8% of them were 150+ scores.

It's much more difficult to go from 100 to 150 and beyond.

 

[Lunchtime]

You'll enjoy this analysis then: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...-the-greatest-of-all-time-in-a-series-1234824

Smith's the best series of all time. Science says so!

Interesting article. Mark Taylor...839 Runs in the 1989 Ashes series....outstanding considering he was an Opening batsman against the new ball on at times juicy decks.

 

[allrighty]

Once I’m at the weight I want I will scale it back a bit, I spend a lot of time on the treadmill. I’ll get some equipment at some point later in the year once I’ve moved house

WHAT IS THE F**KING GO WITH PHONES.

My mate that has given me a bit of advice with how to structure a visit if I’m doing weights and machines etc has basically said just do as much as you can as quickly as you can with no rest, and if that means doing lower weights than do it: okay no problem, and it seems to work.

While I’m doing it, all I see is these dudes with ‘(insert local town here) Weights and Supplements’ singlets on, sitting looking at their phones on benches for 10 minutes at a time.

I hear you.

 

[sr36]

Not that it won anything, but Brian Lara had a series against Muttiah Muralitharan on dustbowl tracks over there where he scored 42 per cent of his team’s runs which is a record to this day so, yeah, he did do that.

688 of them in 3 matches to be precise.


Lara’s 19 per cent of his team’s runs over the course of his career is also 3rd of all time behind the two obvious candidates in Bradman and Headley.

Lara scoring 350 runs in a match in a losing side is just so ridiculous.

 

[grumbleguts]

Don't know what the rules actually are. To me that's not out batsman gets the benefit of the doubt if going just by the technology, but out if the 3rd umpire has to be sure to overturn the decision.

Edit. Another look and the ball changed its rotation. He hit it.

There is no such rule as "benefit of the doubt"

 

[grumbleguts]

After Murali there is no such thing as throwing.

Within 2 months of Muralichuckeran retired, the ICC banned 4 bowlers who were fine until their big elephant in the room left the building.

 

[grumbleguts]

He’s supposed to acknowledge that there are ‘spikes’ all throughout the audio deeming that method of overturning the wicket not usable and say the video shows a deflection instead.

You know, like a competent 3rd umpire would?

You are conversing with a person with the intellect of a kitten. There is no point.

 

[Neese]

Ashes series in England with the footy at the same time are my nirvana. I have to introduce myself to the family every few days at times

I solve that by just having a cat.

 

[sr36]

There is no such rule as "benefit of the doubt"

Not a rule, but it's an accepted principle that umpires have historically used when making decisions. What I meant was in terms of third umpire decisions about edges, I'm not sure if the principle is batsman gets the benefit of the doubt or if it's like lbws where 3rd umpire adjudications are more along the lines of umpire's decision gets the benefit of the doubt.
Whether or not it was caught seems to still be batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[grumbleguts]

Not a rule, but it's an accepted principle that umpires have historically used when making decisions. What I meant was in terms of third umpire edges, I'm not sure if the principle is batsman gets the benefit of the doubt or if it's like lbws where 3rd umpire adjudications are more along the lines of umpire's decision gets the benefit of the doubt.
Whether or not it was caught seems to still be batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

The point of the system is there is supposed to be no doubt. And in this instance there was no doubt. The stump mic wasn't working, but there was a clear deviation. The person receiving the benefit of the doubt is the on field umpire. The third umpire needs to find clear evidence that the decision can be overturned. And there was in this instance, but not from the source Joel Wilson cited.

 

[PhatBoy]

You are conversing with a person with the intellect of a kitten. There is no point.

You still haven’t worked out the throwing rule despite it being a simple matter of being able to read.

FOI

 

[sr36]

The point of the system is there is supposed to be no doubt. And in this instance there was no doubt. The stump mic wasn't working, but there was a clear deviation. The person receiving the benefit of the doubt is the on field umpire. The third umpire needs to find clear evidence that the decision can be overturned. And there was in this instance, but not from the source Joel Wilson cited.

But there is regularly doubt and catches do get overturned when doubt is present. And even with runouts and stumpings if he's most likely out when the bails are dislodged but there isn't a frame that confirms it, batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. And using a noise as evidence of an edge when other factors also produce noise is inherently doubtful.

I think he hit it so no qualms with that decision - more discussing process and principle which seems to me to vary for different mode or factor of dismissal.

 

[Soggy2112]

Like you, Smith is an All Time Great. Where he goes in terms of ranking...thats up to each individual. No right or wrong answer....all opinion.

I have Smith in the top 10 gor Test batsman. I have him behind Lara and Tendulkar.

Smith over Lara for me. Obviously when you look at any player who has scored 10,000 runs, they’re all amazing who have had dominant periods. The thing that separates the very best of the best is away performances and whether they mastered all conditions. Smith’s away record is much better than Lara’s.

 

[Soggy2112]

The point of the system is there is supposed to be no doubt. And in this instance there was no doubt. The stump mic wasn't working, but there was a clear deviation. The person receiving the benefit of the doubt is the on field umpire. The third umpire needs to find clear evidence that the decision can be overturned. And there was in this instance, but not from the source Joel Wilson cited.

I’m not sure the “no doubt” thing is correct. There needs to be conclusive evidence to overturn is the terminology the umpire uses.

E.g. the Jaiswal nick, the snicko didn’t register, which created some doubt. However the slow mo replays showed conclusive evidence to overturn.

 

[grumbleguts]

I’m not sure the “no doubt” thing is correct. There needs to be conclusive evidence to overturn is the terminology the umpire uses.

E.g. the Jaiswal nick, the snicko didn’t register, which created some doubt. However the slow mo replays showed conclusive evidence to overturn.

You know what conclusive means yeah?