Koertzen's century nothing to celebrate!

So I'm not the only one who thinks RK is an anachronism.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/koertzens-century-nothing-to-celebrate/2009/07/20/1247941873698.html

Ah, the daily anti saffie onslaught begins

Doesn't Rudi live in Qld these days?

Which does not explain why Koertzen, his colleague, Billy
Doctrove, and third umpire Nigel Llong have made such a hash of
using the technology that is already available to them during the
prestigious Lord's Test

Did they make a hash of it?

You only refer it upstairs if both of the onfield umpires did not see it clearly.

The trouble with all this moaning about umpiring is that there is a lot of selective memory on display. In 2006/7 Strauss was sawn off about 5 times in the series, and all we heard was how England should "deal with it". A couple go against Australia in a defeat and the whingeing can be heard from Mars.

Meh, Rudi's not the worst going around. He wasn't even the worst in this Test.

skully wrote:Meh, Rudi's not the worst going around. He wasn't even the worst in this Test.

Exactly, this is all about Red's bias.

No point bleating about umpiring. Sure, we got the rough end of a couple, but, all in all, the difference wasn't the umpires, it was the total sh!thouseness of Midge's bowling.

skully wrote:No point bleating about umpiring. Sure, we got the rough end of a couple, but, all in all, the difference wasn't the umpires, it was the total sh!thouseness of Midge's bowling.

Tell that to 64% of randomers polled, apparently Strauss isn't playing 'in the spirit of the game' (otherwise known as England winning)
http://www.theage.com.au/polls/form.html

The point of the thread is not whether of not poor umpiring cost Australia - it didn't. England outplayed us throughout the match and was the dominant team. The point is that Koertzen has outlived his usefulness and should retire. How many other occupations which rely on eyesight to a large degree keep renewing the contracts of sixty year olds? He's known as the seeing eye-dog among listeners to several of our sports programs here. He's been making howlers for a long time now. He even deprived Sangakkara of a deserved double ton a few years back against the Lankans when it was clear to all but him that the ball came off his helmet.

And Strauss being sawn off five times last Ashes series in Australia is a myth. He was the victim of one very poor decision and maybe one or two borderline ones (as were other players during the series) but also played many injudicious shots, especially hook or pulls and was dropped before he reached his only half ton of the series. He was very unconvincing. As he was for long periods of 2008.

They can think what they like, JKL. I prefer to take a more rational look.

Straws thought he caught it, Ponting didn't from where he was standing and told Con to stand his ground. The only person to fark up was Doctrove, who should have used the technology.

Nobody would've argued against a benefit of the doubt to Con after the previous "not out" ruling by the 3rd umpire.

A moot point, as Freddy was all over Con anyway, and it was only a matter of time.

Red wrote:The point of the thread is not whether of not poor umpiring cost Australia - it didn't. England outplayed us throughout the match and was the dominant team. The point is that Koertzen has outlived his usefulness and should retire. How many other occupations which rely on eyesight to a large degree keep renewing the contracts of sixty year olds? He's known as the seeing eye-dog among listeners to several of our sports programs here. He's been making howlers for a long time now. He even deprived Sangakkara of a deserved double ton a few years back against the Lankans when it was clear to all but him that the ball came off his helmet.

And Strauss being sawn off five times last Ashes series in Australia is a myth. He was the victim of one very poor decision and maybe one or two borderline ones (as were other players during the series) but also played many injudicious shots, especially hook or pulls and was dropped before he reached his only half ton of the series. He was very unconvincing. As he was for long periods of 2008.

Sook

There's always plenty around after a loss.

It will force farkin Nielsen, Drunky and the NSP to have a good hard look at themselves.

Dolts.

skully wrote:They can think what they like, JKL. I prefer to take a more rational look.

Straws thought he caught it, Ponting didn't from where he was standing and told Con to stand his ground. The only person to fark up was Doctrove, who should have used the technology.

Nobody would've argued against a benefit of the doubt to Con after the previous "not out" ruling by the 3rd umpire.

A moot point, as Freddy was all over Con anyway, and it was only a matter of time.

[red] It was RK [red]

skully wrote:They can think what they like, JKL. I prefer to take a more rational look.

Straws thought he caught it, Ponting didn't from where he was standing and told Con to stand his ground. The only person to fark up was Doctrove, who should have used the technology.

Nobody would've argued against a benefit of the doubt to Con after the previous "not out" ruling by the 3rd umpire.

A moot point, as Freddy was all over Con anyway, and it was only a matter of time.

Technology doesn't work for low catches. It never has. Not only is it not helpful, it is fundamentally unhelpful because it has been proven to show that low catches are made to look like they bounce. The problem in this test was not the Strauss catch, where they did the right thing, but the Hauritz catch, where they didn't. TV should never be used to judge whether the ball carried.

Hehe.

You can remain deluded Taipan about RK's umpiring prowess.

Maybe The Age readers who voted were influenced by this.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/strauss-style-is-unappealing/2009/07/20/1247941873692.html

Oh, ah Aussie poll. It must be right

Deary me, Red. You are most entitled to your opinion, but it's farkin embarrassing to most fair minded Aussies (IMHO ).

Doctrove is weak and useless.
Koertzen is just useless (and slow and blind).
Both seemed uncertain about when/where to use the techno ...

Their indecisions and howlers throughout this test proved that both of them need to either go back for intensive training therapy or else get TF off the ICC list of Umpires.

Note - hardly a ripple of applause for Koertzen's 100 tests "award" from the packed crowd behind the presentation ceremony yesterday. Not impressive. On the basis that he commits 3 howlers per test, that's 300 victims of his gunning down.
Not impressive....

As sad as it is, Koertzen's century is probably worth celebrating wildly.

While he's still there he makes it harder for the likes of Ian Robinson and Russell Tiffin to get a gig.

The umpiring is as good as it ever was, the problem that the ever improving technology is showing up more and more errors.

If we have the technology, bloody well use it.

Merlin wrote:

Note - hardly a ripple of applause for Koertzen's 100 tests "award" from the packed crowd behind the presentation ceremony yesterday.

That's odd.

Maybe the TV coverage amplified the sound, but it seemed that Koertzen got a massive cheer when he received his award. It sounded like a wry "thanks for helping us win the test" cheer to me.

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:Meh, Rudi's not the worst going around. He wasn't even the worst in this Test.

Exactly, this is all about Red's bias.

A pot just commented on the colour of the kettle.

I wonder if RK came from Australia whether or not you would be defending him with such ardour.

taipan wrote:The umpiring is as good as it ever was, the problem that the ever improving technology is showing up more and more errors.

If we have the technology, bloody well use it.

Technology is only showing up errors if you believe the technology. Sure, there are some definite mistakes, but there are also many occasions where (for example) Hawkeye is viewed as gospel when it isn't.