English cricket thread

Classic fast bowling, two short ones then the fuller one that nipped back in.

I've been disappointed in Jimmy during these Tests, doesn't seem to have his nagging accuracy.
 
I'd love to see how they calculate the bounce & path trajectories on Hawkeye. Seen a fair few now that have been questionable to say the least.
 
YAMS49 said:
I'd love to see how they calculate the bounce & path trajectories on Hawkeye. Seen a fair few now that have been questionable to say the least.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I hardly think that is an example of it. Looked plumb in real time with the only question being impact.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Maybe, but I hardly think that is an example of it. Looked plumb in real time with the only question being impact.
Click to expand...
I was thinking height on that one. Height in general from the quicks when batsman are hit on the front foot seems too low to me. It's like the height trajectory dies off too early. Agree with you on the impact, Ali thought he hit that first though by his reaction.

For the spinners height & turn about are definitely 'out' on occasions.
 
YAMS49 said:
I was thinking height on that one. Height in general from the quicks when batsman are hit on the front foot seems too low to me. It's like the height trajectory dies off too early. Agree with you on the impact, Ali thought he hit that first though by his reaction.

For the spinners height & turn about are definitely 'out' on occasions.
Click to expand...

I'd love to be able to find it, but I've looked in the past and come up a blank, but they did a study with it on a bowling machine firing balls down an empty net and there's not much to suggest that it's significantly wrong (if anything I think the results suggested the margin of error with umpires call is too large).

I'd be inclined to say that the issue is more likely an optical illusion caused by foreshortening and the camera angle on TV broadcasts than a widespread failure by Hawkeye.

In this instance, let's not forget the umpire gave it out on the pitch and England went up for it loudly, too, so I don't think it's particularly indicative of a failing of the technology that it showed it smashing in to the stumps.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I'd love to be able to find it, but I've looked in the past and come up a blank, but they did a study with it on a bowling machine firing balls down an empty net and there's not much to suggest that it's significantly wrong (if anything I think the results suggested the margin of error with umpires call is too large).

I'd be inclined to say that the issue is more likely an optical illusion caused by foreshortening and the camera angle on TV broadcasts than a widespread failure by Hawkeye.

In this instance, let's not forget the umpire gave it out on the pitch and England went up for it loudly, too, so I don't think it's particularly indicative of a failing of the technology that it showed it smashing in to the stumps.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember the powers that be mentioned the onward path of turn was inconsistently projecting. Think I heard that earlier this Summer actually.

My initial reaction to this appeal, as many of that length example have been, was too high (As well as impact in this case). The trajectory of a quick hitting the pad so far forward from that pitching length would take the ball nearer the top of the stumps.

I'd like to see how the batting crease & the batsman position at the time of impact is taken in to account. In theory it doesn't matter where the batsman is when the pad is struck, it's where the ball pitches length wise & the judged trajectory from that length compared to an average trajectory for that same length if required for fuller impacts.

Just a feeling I've had for a while that front foot contact from a good/shorter than good length from the quicks aren't projecting a high enough bounce. Perhaps it's an illusion as you say.
 
Couple of lovely drives from Babar. Need him to get a big score.
 
YAMS49 said:
I seem to remember the powers that be mentioned the onward path of turn was inconsistently projecting. Think I heard that earlier this Summer actually.

My initial reaction to this appeal, as many of that length example have been, was too high (As well as impact in this case). The trajectory of a quick hitting the pad so far forward from that pitching length would take the ball nearer the top of the stumps.

I'd like to see how the batting crease & the batsman position at the time of impact is taken in to account. In theory it doesn't matter where the batsman is when the pad is struck, it's where the ball pitches length wise & the judged trajectory from that length compared to an average trajectory for that same length if required for fuller impacts.

Just a feeling I've had for a while that front foot contact from a good/shorter than good length from the quicks aren't projecting a high enough bounce. Perhaps it's an illusion as you say.
Click to expand...

I really think if you're consistently thinking this, that they're consistently being given out on the pitch, and consistently being shown to hit the stumps form hawkeye then it just suggests maybe you're not a very good judge!

For what it is worth, both wickets in this match (one bowled and one LBW) pitched on the same length according to the pitch maps on cricinfo.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I really think if you're consistently thinking this, that they're consistently being given out on the pitch, and consistently being shown to hit the stumps form hawkeye then it just suggests maybe you're not a very good judge!

For what it is worth, both wickets in this match (one bowled and one LBW) pitched on the same length according to the pitch maps on cricinfo.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right... How high did Archer's delivery hit the stumps? Woakes' LBW was just above the middle.
 
50 up. Looks settled now.

sammsky1 said:
He is truly a proper batsman of the ages
Click to expand...

I love how effortless he makes batting look. It’s the same with the other greats in the game, they just consistently play at their own pace with sound technique. He’s been successful in all 3 formats essentially batting the same way without resorting to slogging or getting flustered too often.
 
ha_rooney said:
I love how effortless he makes batting look. It’s the same with the other greats in the game, they just consistently play at their own pace with sound technique. He’s been successful in all 3 formats essentially batting the same way without resorting to slogging or getting flustered too often.
Click to expand...

In terms of the eye test I have him and Kohli well ahead of everyone else. Seriously gutted that I can't go watch him in person this year.
 
That “Out of Exile” little documentary was fascinating. Enjoyed that.
 
Babar is some player, really enjoy watching this Pakistan side with bat & ball. I feel they will tear through our batting line up.
 
That's a nonsense that, there was no sign of the Pakistani batsmen not being able to pick the ball up. Umpires should only step in if they think someone's safety is at risk.
 
Honestly if Root was told he has to bowl 2 spinners I'd have taken the light if I was him.
 
The absurdity of not picking the best keeper in the country with a better first class average than Buttler continuing to haunt England.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Honestly if Root was told he has to bowl 2 spinners I'd have taken the light if I was him.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Wrong time to let Pakistan get used to spinners.

No that Bess or Root will cause Azam any problems. One of the best player of spin in the world right now.
 
YAMS49 said:
His footwork & balance standing up is pretty poor, it makes him too late to rise to the takes o the ball.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but he still would never have gotten to that bounced ball. It was a full foot above his gloves.
 
Oh feck off, are you serious?

Azam seeing it like a beachball but it's too dangerous to play.

Still, they've bailed Root out.
 
sammsky1 said:
Perhaps, but he still would never have gotten to that bounced ball. It was a full foot above his gloves.
Click to expand...
A Test level keeper should have made a better attempt at it, it basically hit him in the shoulder, there was no reaction to the higher bounce at all. His whole position is too low mainly due to his footwork.
 
sammsky1 said:
Not sure Buttler can be blamed for that missed stumping. No way he or any other keeper could anticipate that bounce.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I think it's pretty routine and he's made it look a lot harder with how bad an attempt he's made at collecting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.