Sri Lanka v England, 1st Test, Galle, 26-30 March, 2012

Dello wrote:Some thoughts:


1) Premeditated sweep, though, so I'd have gunned him just for that.

2) Sam Patel thinks he's a batsman who bowls a bit. He's neither.

3) Swann should never bat higher than ten as he's not mature enough.

4) stuck to what he's good at: blunting the f*ck out of bowling attacks with singles and attrition.

1) Yep.

2) Yep.

3) Yep.

4) Yep.

Dello wrote:Some thoughts:

Ian Bell was never out. That was some appalling Hawkeye-ing. How could it possibly predict that a ball which pitched on off stump, hit Bell marginally in line with off stump ("Umpire's call"), having turned to off, was also going to hit off stump after travelling a further eight feet?

Woody will explain it to you. Apparently the rule states that if you are hit wicket to wicket the umpire has to rule that the ball will hit the stumps.

And well played Hampshire's own Rangana Herath.

We learn the good in these parts. Obviously not the batsmen, as Pietersen pissed it away again, but he's Surrey's responsibility now. He could play when he called Hampshire home. Via London.

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:Some thoughts:

Ian Bell was never out. That was some appalling Hawkeye-ing. How could it possibly predict that a ball which pitched on off stump, hit Bell marginally in line with off stump ("Umpire's call"), having turned to off, was also going to hit off stump after travelling a further eight feet?

Woody will explain it to you. Apparently the rule states that if you are hit wicket to wicket the umpire has to rule that the ball will hit the stumps.

For full tosses.

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:Some thoughts:

Ian Bell was never out. That was some appalling Hawkeye-ing. How could it possibly predict that a ball which pitched on off stump, hit Bell marginally in line with off stump ("Umpire's call"), having turned to off, was also going to hit off stump after travelling a further eight feet?

Woody will explain it to you. Apparently the rule states that if you are hit wicket to wicket the umpire has to rule that the ball will hit the stumps.

For full tosses.

I used to think that as well. Refer to page 30.

skully wrote:Here's the full rule.

1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a) The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

Erm, there's your answer folks.

Henry wrote:So they had a rule in place that acknowledged that the technology wasn't 100% accurate. Here, they don't have the 2.5 metre rule, or hotspot. Completely different scenario.

Not surprisingly enough, the 2.5 metre rule was scrapped after that Indian whinge over the Bell not out.

i guess an indian whinge is more valuable than a henry whinge

under the old rule bell would still be out, since hawkeye could not be relied upon beyond 2.5 metres. the original decision would stand. what really is your point? is it that if hawkeye is not reliable the ump's decision should be reversed as well?

skully wrote:Congrats to the Lankans on winning a top Test match.

Also well done to Sammy Herath for the best bowling (12-171) since Chuck took 12-82 v Bangers at Kandy in 2007.

First Test win by SL since Chuck's retirement.

first in lanka. they won a test in saffieland

The One wrote:

skully wrote:Congrats to the Lankans on winning a top Test match.

Also well done to Sammy Herath for the best bowling (12-171) since Chuck took 12-82 v Bangers at Kandy in 2007.

First Test win by SL since Chuck's retirement.

first in lanka. they won a test in saffieland

That doesn't count. It was a Durban test. I have declared all Durban tests null and void

Well, that was ...... errr, disappointing.

Last I heard, the target was under 100 with five wickets left. Pissing it in. Well, carefully widdling it in, at least.

And in the end, it wasn't even close.

I blame the bowlers.



(not really)

Well played to Herath for his sheer persistence.

Look out England - fourth (or fifth) place here we come again at this rate. Fast.

Not many more subcontinental matches... but we seem to have little Test batting method full stop, so I have to agree that we'll take a dip. It's pretty diabolical, but it's what I always thought - collectively as much ticker as someone who has been electrocuted.

Three or four times.

LBW interpretation

The path of the ball at the moment of interception is what the umpire considers not what the ball may have or would have done ...this if it is first intercepted on the full or the first or second bounce

I havent seen the decision so I cant say whether I would have given it out ...Tucker (I assume it was he who gave the Belf out) gave the Barry that saw Hindu get a JAMODI hatrick so he's inclined to give them out ...

"gave the Barry that saw Hindu get a JAMODI hatrick"

Barry, Hindu ?:

= gave the LBW decision that ensured Stuart Clark got a hat trick in a ODI?

Barry Crocker ...rhyming slang

Hindu AKA Fletcher

Thanks for the clearup

Been busy, but had to post to say that we didn't lose because of a harsh decision on Ian Bell, we lost because our batting has been utterly diabolical since the begining of the Pakistan series and is continuing in this series.

Our bowlers must be so thoroughly f**ked off, they've done their job in every test.

Worst bit is they've done their job with the bat as well.

The last couple of wickets is another problem.

embee wrote:

Strauss actually has the second most runs for England this winter. Amazing stat. Just shows what it's come to when consistently getting 20 puts you ahead of nearly all the others.

vilkrang wrote:Been busy, but had to post to say that we didn't lose because of a harsh decision on Ian Bell, we lost because our batting has been utterly diabolical since the begining of the Pakistan series and is continuing in this series.

Our bowlers must be so thoroughly f**ked off, they've done their job in every test.

I beg to differ. That single incident of Belly being utterly sawn off, when he was about to produce a masterly innings of 150, changed the entire course of the winter.

Interesting that Trott is the 15th England player and the 17th instance to get a fourth-innings century in a defeat. Sutcliffe & Gooch achieved the feat twice whilst Sutcliffe and Woolley once achieved the feat together in the same innings - at Sydney in December 1924 when England required 605 and fell 194 short. Most celebrated instance (at least from an England point of view) as well as the highest-scoring must be Arkle's 174 during the Centenary Test.

There are 62 instances of this feat in all Tests - the previous being Warner's 123* against the Snoozers at Hobart. Also Jayawardene achieved this when he scored 105 out of 253 after Sri Lanka had been set 379 to win in the last Test played on this ground last September when the boot was on the other foot and Australia were the victors:

Sri Lanka v. Australia, Galle, 31 August-3 September 2011

Highlights on here KP. Awful shot.

Belf. Premeditated. Was probably a good decision.