Australia v Sri Lanka, 2nd ODI, Adelaide, 13 January, 2013

Henry wrote:That was a ridiculous challenge from Aus, and would have been an even more ridiculous decision if it was overturned. You can't give a guy LBW when he's charging the spinner and two metres out of the crease FFS.

They had to break that partnership if they were any chance to win the game, turned out there was half a ball in it.

Isn't there a rule where if the batsman is more than two metres out of the crease, hawkeye becomes irrelevant?

Henry wrote:Isn't there a rule where if the batsman is more than two metres out of the crease, hawkeye becomes irrelevant?

I don't know.

Henry wrote:Isn't there a rule where if the batsman is more than two metres out of the crease, hawkeye becomes irrelevant?

3 metres.

...must say that given the carp summer they've had it was good to see the blankans at least have the 'b' removed for one match...

I am still puzzled by smith having any sort of career at State level let alone nationally...despite Arthur's attack on nein re negativity on the rotation policy I still do not understand why Uber Koala got chopped for stevie nix...I absolutely PMSL at his dismissal yesterday...as ever from the time he contemplated chasing a wide one outside off, his feet did not move until he began the trudge back to the pavillion

and even tho the pitch had settled I thought Cutting was very ordinairy and that the jelly boy was not much better...

the other mystery is why the 4 f/t physio blokes get a feed let alone paid for their dubious services

by my count we have played 12 bowlers so far this summer

Patto, Hilf, Sids, Battla, Koo, Midge, Bird, M'kay, Cutting, some jelly bloke, Elmer and X...I don't count Nix - tho I note Nein raved about yesterday

the most odd aspect of Arthur's comments is the concession that Starc has spurs on his ankle that will require an operation but that they hope to keep playing him 12 months before the op...why not have the operation now??????

horace wrote:the most odd aspect of Arthur's comments is the concession that Starc has spurs on his ankle that will require an operation but that they hope to keep playing him 12 months before the op...why not have the operation now??????

Because the operation will likely rule him out for six months, meaning he misses India and the Ashes.

Henry wrote:

horace wrote:the most odd aspect of Arthur's comments is the concession that Starc has spurs on his ankle that will require an operation but that they hope to keep playing him 12 months before the op...why not have the operation now??????

Because the operation will likely rule him out for six months, meaning he misses India and the Ashes.

Any bets on him breaking down in the middle of a test?

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

horace wrote:the most odd aspect of Arthur's comments is the concession that Starc has spurs on his ankle that will require an operation but that they hope to keep playing him 12 months before the op...why not have the operation now??????

Because the operation will likely rule him out for six months, meaning he misses India and the Ashes.

Any bets on him breaking down in the middle of a test?

they would be very short odds

Henry - no point sending him to bannieland - have the op now...

I'm with h. Fix him now.

I agree. Just trying to find a reason as to why he's NOT having the operation now. Ankle spurs are manageable, though. Shaun Pollock and Brett Lee had them for most of their careers. They provide occasional discomfort rather than injury that can rule a player out of a lot of games.

Henry wrote:I agree. Just trying to find a reason as to why he's NOT having the operation now. Ankle spurs are manageable, though. Shaun Pollock and Brett Lee had them for most of their careers. They provide occasional discomfort rather than injury that can rule a player out of a lot of games.

true but favouring it while bowling can cause other probs