SA Footy

DOC wrote:Isa Guha saying that the soft call is only relevant if there are no replays available. That being the case, would it be better not to give a signal if it is referred by the umpires?

Yep why is the signal being given then.

whufc wrote:Still interesting our batters seem to struggle at shield level more so than test level.

I think there are a few factors at play here.

International bowlers come to australia and take half the series to find their lengths.
Aussie bowlers bowling in Aussie conditions don't.
Therefore, shield cricket might have less freebees.

A large portion of the international contingent are rubbish.
Sure the big nations are good, but the WA attack for example would be better than a number of international attacks, especially in Australia.

Then I recon there is also a degree of care factor. The aussie test bats just don't care that much when they go and play shield cricket.
If they get out cheap they don't mind, its an opportunity to put their feet up and watch the other guys bat.
Where as at test level, they want to be the ones making the runs.

There would be others as well.

in the modern day when a venue has lights there should be no reason to go off cos of bad light!!! a ******* load of bollocks is what it is

Trader wrote:

whufc wrote:Still interesting our batters seem to struggle at shield level more so than test level.

I think there are a few factors at play here.

International bowlers come to australia and take half the series to find their lengths.
Aussie bowlers bowling in Aussie conditions don't.
Therefore, shield cricket might have less freebees.

A large portion of the international contingent are rubbish.
Sure the big nations are good, but the WA attack for example would be better than a number of international attacks, especially in Australia.

Then I recon there is also a degree of care factor. The aussie test bats just don't care that much when they go and play shield cricket.
If they get out cheap they don't mind, its an opportunity to put their feet up and watch the other guys bat.
Where as at test level, they want to be the ones making the runs.

There would be others as well.

The counter that is its somewhat against trend....one of our greatest sides only Gilchrist had a better test average than FC. Does it say a but a bit about the quality of test cricket at the moment.

NAME / TEST AVERAGE / FIRST CLASS AVERAGE
M.Hayden / 50.73 / 52.57
J.Langer / 45.27 / 50.23
R.Ponting / 51.85 / 55.90
D.Martyn /46.37 / 49.25
S.Waugh / 51.06 / 51.94
M.Hussey 51.52 / 52.13
A.Gilchrist 47.60 / 44.16

Then go back further and random legends....thinking commentary team.
A.Border / 50.56 / 51.38
I.Chappell / 42.42 / 48.35
B.Lawry / 47.15 / 50.90
M.Waugh / 41.81 / 52.04

whufc wrote:

DOC wrote:Isa Guha saying that the soft call is only relevant if there are no replays available. That being the case, would it be better not to give a signal if it is referred by the umpires?

Yep why is the signal being given then.

To give the 3rd umpire a reference point on what he is looking for evidence of to overturn what the onfield umpires think...

If we go back to what the 3rd umpire is for - to get rid of the howlers - I think they should but a time limit on the time for the 3rd umpire to make a decision

If they're having to repeat replays back on forth 1-2 frames at a time ad nauseum to detect a nick, run out/stumping etc where go with what the onfield umpire thinks and get on with game

am Bays wrote:

whufc wrote:

DOC wrote:Isa Guha saying that the soft call is only relevant if there are no replays available. That being the case, would it be better not to give a signal if it is referred by the umpires?

Yep why is the signal being given then.

To give the 3rd umpire a reference point on what he is looking for evidence of to overturn what the onfield umpires think...

If we go back to what the 3rd umpire is for - to get rid of the howlers - I think they should but a time limit on the time for the 3rd umpire to make a decision

If they're having to repeat replays back on forth 1-2 frames at a time ad nauseum to detect a nick, run out/stumping etc where go with what the onfield umpire thinks and get on with game

But if there is no soft call (which apparently there isn't anymore) then there is no such thing as 'overturning' No soft call means what the umpire thinks is completely irrelevant.

The third umpire is now essentially a neutral making their own decision with no preconceived ideas.

I 100% agree regarding a time limit. Like you said if it takes 437 replays from 27 different angles its not a howler.....which is what the third umpire came in for. Watch two replays at most within a minute, if a decision cant be made within that time then its not a howler.

whufc wrote:

Trader wrote:

whufc wrote:Still interesting our batters seem to struggle at shield level more so than test level.

I think there are a few factors at play here.

International bowlers come to australia and take half the series to find their lengths.
Aussie bowlers bowling in Aussie conditions don't.
Therefore, shield cricket might have less freebees.

A large portion of the international contingent are rubbish.
Sure the big nations are good, but the WA attack for example would be better than a number of international attacks, especially in Australia.

Then I recon there is also a degree of care factor. The aussie test bats just don't care that much when they go and play shield cricket.
If they get out cheap they don't mind, its an opportunity to put their feet up and watch the other guys bat.
Where as at test level, they want to be the ones making the runs.

There would be others as well.

The counter that is its somewhat against trend....one of our greatest sides only Gilchrist had a better test average than FC. Does it say a but a bit about the quality of test cricket at the moment.

NAME / TEST AVERAGE / FIRST CLASS AVERAGE
M.Hayden / 50.73 / 52.57
J.Langer / 45.27 / 50.23
R.Ponting / 51.85 / 55.90
D.Martyn /46.37 / 49.25
S.Waugh / 51.06 / 51.94
M.Hussey 51.52 / 52.13
A.Gilchrist 47.60 / 44.16

Then go back further and random legends....thinking commentary team.
A.Border / 50.56 / 51.38
I.Chappell / 42.42 / 48.35
B.Lawry / 47.15 / 50.90
M.Waugh / 41.81 / 52.04

Yup, certainly agree its against the trend.

I think in the 'old days' touring countries played many warm up games, meaning bowlers found their lenghts before playing the tests. Now days they don't.

I think there were less tours by lower ranked nations. We had the west indies at the peak of their powers here every second year it seemed through the 80s and 90s. Very few games against Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka (not that we play them a heap these days either, but certainly feels like it was less in the 80s and 90s).

And yes, my last point about the care factor is clearly a change in the times. Guys like Border, Steve Waugh, etc, had a hardness to them. They wanted to show guys at shield level why they are test cricketers and you are just a shield player. They would grind you into the ground. Moddern day players play so much international cricket they see a shield game more like a charity match. A chance to have some time off and show their face and enjoy the day in the rooms with their feet up.

why name lance in the squad, he was never gunna play ffs....

stampy wrote:why name lance in the squad, he was never gunna play ffs....

Net bowling and to be around the group so he isn’t over awed when he gets his opportunity

Players bat to survive and grind out an innings in test cricket where as they bat to score runs at a reasonable rate in shield cricket, they probably place more value on their wicket.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

stampy wrote:why name lance in the squad, he was never gunna play ffs....

Net bowling and to be around the group so he isn’t over awed when he gets his opportunity

A bit like LQ around the girls at work

Lightning McQueen wrote:Players bat to survive and grind out an innings in test cricket where as they bat to score runs at a reasonable rate in shield cricket, they probably place more value on their wicket.

My bigger point was that it goes against the trend of yesteryear a fair bit. You won't find too many (they do exist but certainly the minority) that average more at test level than first class. Complete opposite to our super team of the 2000's who all but Gilchrist average more in first class cricket than tests which is what you would expect.

Yet despite that we currently have 7 in the one side that average more at test level. I can struggle to find 7 players in total from yesteryear who do that. Bradman does but only by 1 run.... Greg Chappell was another but I can't find many more. The likes of Geoff Marsh, Boon, Healy, Blewett, Lehmann, Lawry etc all averaged more at first class.

I definitely think there is something in the fact we play alot more tests against lower nations these days. That would have a big impact, albeit many from the Steve Waugh filled their boots in against weak England sides throughout the 90's. Whats funny as well is we talk about the 90's early 2000's having a real high quality first class cricket yet our test crickets statistically found shield cricket easier than test cricket. These days statistically our cricketers are finding shield cricket tougher.

As mentioned before the fact teams dont play many tour games means the quality of test bowling is a tad diminished especially early on in series.

Could DRS be a factor.

Don't have to be dead to be stiff.

Booney wrote:Don't have to be dead to be stiff.

re: Labuschagne?

He got both ends of the stick today, should have been out imo with the slip catch, got the luck and then got unlucky at the end of the day play with the light.

whufc wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Players bat to survive and grind out an innings in test cricket where as they bat to score runs at a reasonable rate in shield cricket, they probably place more value on their wicket.

My bigger point was that it goes against the trend of yesteryear a fair bit. You won't find too many (they do exist but certainly the minority) that average more at test level than first class. Complete opposite to our super team of the 2000's who all but Gilchrist average more in first class cricket than tests which is what you would expect.

Yet despite that we currently have 7 in the one side that average more at test level. I can struggle to find 7 players in total from yesteryear who do that. Bradman does but only by 1 run.... Greg Chappell was another but I can't find many more. The likes of Geoff Marsh, Boon, Healy, Blewett, Lehmann, Lawry etc all averaged more at first class.

I definitely think there is something in the fact we play alot more tests against lower nations these days. That would have a big impact, albeit many from the Steve Waugh filled their boots in against weak England sides throughout the 90's. Whats funny as well is we talk about the 90's early 2000's having a real high quality first class cricket yet our test crickets statistically found shield cricket easier than test cricket. These days statistically our cricketers are finding shield cricket tougher.

As mentioned before the fact teams dont play many tour games means the quality of test bowling is a tad diminished especially early on in series.

Could DRS be a factor.

One factor, in addition to the ones listed by Trader, that could explain the trend reversal described above is that international teams play far fewer tour matches these days. That is, Border, the Waughs and Greg Chappell would have played a lot more non-Test non-Shield FC games (both when touring overseas, e.g. for Australia v English counties, and for their state sides against international teams touring Australia) than Steve Smith or Marnus. Therefore the 'Shield component' of the current team's non-Test FC matches may be higher than for their counterparts of yesteryear.

But I agree that there is probably a range of factors.

draw into $2.75

stampy wrote:in the modern day when a venue has lights there should be no reason to go off cos of bad light!!! a ******* load of bollocks is what it is

From from I was reading about bad light yesterday it's really to do with the batsmen not being able to pick the red ball in both natural and artificial light more then the venue having lights, seems having the lights on is irrelevant if the red ball still isn't visable and the players can't see it properly.

stampy wrote:in the modern day when a venue has lights there should be no reason to go off cos of bad light!!! a ******* load of bollocks is what it is

Agree Stampy, its why test cricket is dying in the ar$e. There should also be a call early on - before the toss, allowing the pink ball to be used in place of the red ball for this very situation. I would agree that the red ball would be harder to see under lights. Mind you, the ball Marnus got was a cracker and would've got most people out.

According to Cricinfo this Sydney test match is the first Sydney test match since the Australia v World XI Super test in 2005 where both teams are playing two specialist spinners.

The Dark Knight wrote:According to Cricinfo this Sydney test match is the first Sydney test match since the Australia v World XI Super test in 2005 where both teams are playing two specialist spinners.

Who is our 2nd specialist "spinner"