5th Test Border Gavaskar Trophy January 3-7 1000hrs @ the SCG

[sr36]

Umpires need to be given more power to instruct players to get on with it. We've all watched cricket for many years, we know all the tricks players pull to waste time, and umpires just stand there allowing it to happen. A simple, "resume play immediately or receive a fine" would suffice.

As a former bowler, the one thing I detested was getting back to the top of my mark and finding the batsman wasn't ready to take strike. There's no excuse for it other than wasting time of just plain annoying the bowler.

Just add the time on with tax, I think. If they waste a minute, set stumps or tea back 2 minutes.

 

[swingdog]

As a fat bowler, I loved it.

In one of my last games, I had a batter who took forever between each ball - no idea why, this is 5th grade and time wasn't a factor, other than to be annoying.

So, I started dropping the ball at the top of my mark, doing a few stretches, wandering over to mid-on for a chat way past the point he was ready, until he started complaining.

"You want to be a campaigner? I can be a campaigner. Let's be campaigners together."

 

[MarcMaverick]

Just add the time on with tax, I think. If they waste a minute, set stumps or tea back 2 minutes.

Or have four sessions in a day. Play from 10am to 10pm. Also 3 inns per team.

 

[sr36]

Pitches made for a great contest, but a worry for spinners. Other than the Melbourne pitch, if everyone is fit you'd be best off with 3 pacemen, Green, Webster and occasional overs from Head with an extra batsman in the line up.

 

[sr36]

Or have four sessions in a day. Play from 10am to 10pm. Also 3 inns per team.

The point is it won't extend anything. Batsmen will stop wasting time in the last 10 minutes of a session if it just gets added to the session.

 

[western royboy]

Just add the time on with tax, I think. If they waste a minute, set stumps or tea back 2 minutes.

Umpires were piss weak but who knows what they are instructed to do. In a common sense world (had the wicket not fallen) you would have liked to see them keep them out there for another over just to prove the point

 

[skipper kelly]

Yeah, you're either trolling or you're a full blown imbecile. I'll leave it to you to decide whichever you prefer.

I'll phone a friend thanks Eddie.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'll own up to my hypocrisy on this: I detest watching it whether I support the team or not but I'm great at using every trick in the book in my B grade sub districts team the moment I see a dark cloud and we're 5 for f*** all chasing lots. I swear my shoelaces are slippery as buggery: they just keep coming undone!

I'll tell you another one. A mate of mine was batting with Eric "Fritz" Freeman (former Test player) in a Grade game for Port Adelaide. There was slight drizzle around and Freeman came out hoping to get the game called off. He usually wore contact lenses but, on this occasion, he was wearing glasses.

Anyway, Freeman proceeded to play down the wrong line, followed by continual wiping of the glasses and complaining about how difficult it was to see. My mate came together with Freeman in the middle of the wicket, and he noticed the glasses frame had no lenses in them

 

[revo333]

Anyway, Freeman proceeded to play down the wrong line, followed by continual wiping of the glasses and complaining about how difficult it was to see. My mate came together with Freeman in the middle of the wicket, and he noticed the glasses frame had no lenses in them

A good time wasting one was walking out to bat and 'forgetting' to wear your box.

 

[PhatBoy]

It really wasn’t that bad I didn’t think.

Equally I don’t think that batsmen don’t have the skill or technique to handle it.

I think Rishabh Pant - a player not noted for his stickability or robust defensive technique (even though it’s solid enough) showed in the first innings that you could get by and so did Webster.

As soon as players get on those pitches though they weigh up the odds though and tend to balance out the ‘ball with my name on it’ probability against the ‘how many can I make beforehand’ philosophy and the wickets start to tumble and you end up with a 3 day test.

That wasn’t an 8 session pitch.

Newlands last January; that was a substandard pitch. It was fascinating to watch, don’t get me wrong, but it was substandard.

This was ok.

 

[caveman72]

There's context to the McGrath Sarwan one. Sarwan made a quip about McGrath's wife, not realising that she was dying of cancer at the time.

What Sarwan said was quick wit and one of the best come backs ever. The fact McGrath's wife had cancer is irrelevant. Moral of the story is if you can't take it don't dish it out.

 

[caveman72]

Indeed which was understandable, though he probably shouldn’t have made a moderately homophobic slur to begin with.

What would your reply have been in the heat of the moment. Probably not knowing his wifes circumstances. My guess is something similar

 

[sr36]

It really wasn’t that bad I didn’t think.

Equally I don’t think that batsmen don’t have the skill or technique to handle it.

I think Rishabh Pant - a player not noted for his stickability or robust defensive technique (even though it’s solid enough) showed in the first innings that you could get by and so did Webster.

As soon as players get on those pitches though they weigh up the odds though and tend to balance out the ‘ball with my name on it’ probability against the ‘how many can I make beforehand’ philosophy and the wickets start to tumble and you end up with a 3 day test.

That wasn’t an 8 session pitch.

Newlands last January; that was a substandard pitch. It was fascinating to watch, don’t get me wrong, but it was substandard.

This was ok.

Me too. I thought Australia batted poorly in the first innings. Uzzy played back and turned a half volley into a wicket taking delivery. Konstas was a high risk shot. Marnus had a brain fade and just steered it to slip. Head managed to outside edge an inswinger - it wasn't the pitch. Smith and Webster were looking very comfortable until Smith knicked one he shouldn't have.

 

[sr36]

What Sarwan said was quick wit and one of the best come backs ever. The fact McGrath's wife had cancer is irrelevant. Moral of the story is if you can't take it don't dish it out.

I'm not critical of Sarwan at all - just suggesting that McGrath losing it was more understandable considering the emotional events in his private life.

 

[PhatBoy]

What would your reply have been in the heat of the moment. Probably not knowing his wifes circumstances. My guess is something similar

I would have said exactly what Sarwan said if I was quick enough to think of it, or a joke about how many times Shane Warne had copped Brian Lara’s appendage on the field.

He got well and truly owned but obviously given the personal circumstances of his wife at the time I could understand his reaction in some capacity too

 

[Gough]

I would have said exactly what Sarwan said if I was quick enough to think of it, or a joke about how many times Shane Warne had copped Brian Lara’s appendage on the field.

He got well and truly owned but obviously given the personal circumstances of his wife at the time I could understand his reaction in some capacity too

I was never quick witted to be a good sledger, I'd think of a great response when I was taking off my shoes and lighting a *** at the end of the day.

 

[Soggy2112]

It really wasn’t that bad I didn’t think.

Equally I don’t think that batsmen don’t have the skill or technique to handle it.

I think Rishabh Pant - a player not noted for his stickability or robust defensive technique (even though it’s solid enough) showed in the first innings that you could get by and so did Webster.

As soon as players get on those pitches though they weigh up the odds though and tend to balance out the ‘ball with my name on it’ probability against the ‘how many can I make beforehand’ philosophy and the wickets start to tumble and you end up with a 3 day test.

That wasn’t an 8 session pitch.

Newlands last January; that was a substandard pitch. It was fascinating to watch, don’t get me wrong, but it was substandard.

This was ok.

It was borderline, the fact that one team has arguably the greatest fast bowler of all time and the other has the best bowling attack in the world probably exaggerated it. Perhaps if you put NZ v England or something similar it becomes a 300 v 250 test.

That being said though, there were several balls with alarming levels of bounce. There is always going to be a certain level of danger in cricket but if that pitch wasn’t on the edge of being too dangerous it was certainly close.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Soggy2112]

On another note TGC poddy has become Captain Serious all of a sudden. Don't want to upset the Indians it seems.

Did you listen to it? Higgos went on a rant of about 4 minutes straight about how the Indians behaviour has been poor and the ICC is gutless for not doing anything about it.

They also repeatedly take the piss out of their fans for not tuning in when the Indians have had a bad day.

 

[Gethelred]

Methinks Sydney was very, very lucky not to go for another day there. Up down bounce and two paced on day two and arguably worse on day 3 means potentially dangerous on day 4, let alone on day 5.

Me too. I thought Australia batted poorly in the first innings. Uzzy played back and turned a half volley into a wicket taking delivery. Konstas was a high risk shot. Marnus had a brain fade and just steered it to slip. Head managed to outside edge an inswinger - it wasn't the pitch. Smith and Webster were looking very comfortable until Smith knicked one he shouldn't have.

Movement in the air comes courtesy of moisture rising off the wicket. It's why the ball moves more above a green surface than above one without moisture, or in humid air. To say that movement isn't due in part to the wicket isn't quite correct.

Then, there's the other issue. Khawaja went out to a ball that was absolutely short enough to pull caught behind because the ball came off slower than it should have. Any number of balls leaped off a length over the course of the day, and when they did they went quickly. I'm not one for abandoning a game of cricket (I've always found it the utmost of ironies that the worse the batter is the more likely they are to play on a shit-tip of a turf wicket but the better the batter is the more likely the pitches are to be good for batting; plonk them on some of the old, torn up dustbowls in and around Melbourne and let's see how those excellent talents go against test match attacks on the wickets at park level!) but they're a bit lucky the game didn't go a little longer.

It's not the slow ones that are the problem, although they do cause bats to question their judgement. It's the ones that leap at you from fuller than a good length. Smith faced a ball on day 3 that should've perhaps gotten to bail height, but leaped at him; he took his hand off the handle of his bat and was very lucky not to go out or get hit on the hand as the thing hit the handle of his bat in front of his clavicle. That's borderline dangerous at 130+ clicks.

Imagine Andre Nortje bowling on that deck, in the form he was in in 2018. He'd be hitting blokes every second ball, and there'd be busted fingers everywhere. And that deck was only going to get worse.

 

[Richard Pryor]

What Sarwan said was quick wit and one of the best come backs ever. The fact McGrath's wife had cancer is irrelevant. Moral of the story is if you can't take it don't dish it out.

Just struck me that Sarwan literally pulled a george costanza lol

 

[Gough]

McGrath was one of the most petulant cricketers I've ever watched, great bowler, shit bloke it would seem.

 

[Richard Pryor]

McGrath was one of the most petulant cricketers I've ever watched, great bowler, shit bloke it would seem.

The African hunting happy snaps certainly lowered my estimation of him as a bloke

 

[sr36]

Methinks Sydney was very, very lucky not to go for another day there. Up down bounce and two paced on day two and arguably worse on day 3 means potentially dangerous on day 4, let alone on day 5.

Movement in the air comes courtesy of moisture rising off the wicket. It's why the ball moves more above a green surface than above one without moisture, or in humid air. To say that movement isn't due in part to the wicket isn't quite correct.

Then, there's the other issue. Khawaja went out to a ball that was absolutely short enough to pull caught behind because the ball came off slower than it should have. Any number of balls leaped off a length over the course of the day, and when they did they went quickly. I'm not one for abandoning a game of cricket (I've always found it the utmost of ironies that the worse the batter is the more likely they are to play on a shit-tip of a turf wicket but the better the batter is the more likely the pitches are to be good for batting; plonk them on some of the old, torn up dustbowls in and around Melbourne and let's see how those excellent talents go against test match attacks on the wickets at park level!) but they're a bit lucky the game didn't go a little longer.

It's not the slow ones that are the problem, although they do cause bats to question their judgement. It's the ones that leap at you from fuller than a good length. Smith faced a ball on day 3 that should've perhaps gotten to bail height, but leaped at him; he took his hand off the handle of his bat and was very lucky not to go out or get hit on the hand as the thing hit the handle of his bat in front of his clavicle. That's borderline dangerous at 130+ clicks.

Imagine Andre Nortje bowling on that deck, in the form he was in in 2018. He'd be hitting blokes every second ball, and there'd be busted fingers everywhere. And that deck was only going to get worse.

The bounce wasn't too bad. Melbourne was just as up and down. There was too much seam movement though making it too hard to bat on. Boland was moving it like a spinner with an old ball.

I think they got the rating right. It wasn't a good pitch but it was satisfactory.