West Indies v England, 4th Test, Bridgetown - Feb 26-Mar 2

Holy f*ck that was perverse. As limited as England's (and the Windies) bowlers are they don't deserve to have their bodies destroyed flogging dead horses like this. 700-odd is all very well but it gets like the fast show sketch with competitive dad playing cricket.

Dello - do me the honour of embedding this please:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhpnrGBTRc

Since when have I been doing requests?

You're my bitch/England bowler.

IMHO we would not be complaining quite so much about the pitch if Windies had taken their chances and bowled England out for 350 - 450.

Fidel is the only bowler who has made an impression on this wicket, and he is the only express pace bowler in the match (JT is capable of 90mph plus but he isn't 100% fit and didn't really look in the best rhythm).

I think both attacks have been poor and made this very flat track look roadier than it actually is.

Changes needed in T & T for bot bowling attacks.

Crikey, whats going on here. SiBo is 70% fit and still bowled better than Harmison would. He hasn't had a run of games due to his injury for a long time. Put fitness and rustyness together and no wonder he's short of form and pace.

He's far from crocked or gone - the ball that got Sarwan showed that to me. He just needs to recuperate fully, and in English conditions would be a valuable asset when fit.

As for this test. Shambolic really. The pitch has killed the game. I don't understand why grounds cannot just make decks like the Wanderers one. Much more interesting and 5 day cricket to boot.

"The LBW law is about the umpire's opinion. It's not fact. It's not something that can be cleared up once and for all in a single replay. It's an opinion."


The thing is, a lot of the time it CAN be cleared up once and for all in a single replay, as was the case in the Nash incident. After a single viewing no reasonable person would think there was any chance it was lbw.

"This is turning into another wankfest"

Yes.

Is it the pitch or the feeble bowlers?

WIFAN wrote:IMHO we would not be complaining quite so much about the pitch if Windies had taken their chances and bowled England out for 350 - 450.

Fidel is the only bowler who has made an impression on this wicket, and he is the only express pace bowler in the match (JT is capable of 90mph plus but he isn't 100% fit and didn't really look in the best rhythm).

I think both attacks have been poor and made this very flat track look roadier than it actually is.

Changes needed in T & T for bot bowling attacks.

I take your point but hurling down 90 mph plus thunderbolts is an exceptional thing to do. You can't expect to have one or two bowlers like this rocking up every match. The norm is bowlers getting it down in the eighties using swing and seam movement to get wickets and they shouldn't be almost totally removed from the equation on pitches like this.

OP Tipping wrote:"The LBW law is about the umpire's opinion. It's not fact. It's not something that can be cleared up once and for all in a single replay. It's an opinion."


The thing is, a lot of the time it CAN be cleared up once and for all in a single replay, as was the case in the Nash incident. After a single viewing no reasonable person would think there was any chance it was lbw.

But the nature of LBW is that it's a guess. The TV umpire can't overrule the on-field umpire unless there's "compelling evidence", therefore he shouldn't even be adjudicating on LBWs as the only "evidence" he has is his own best guess.

How many LBWs with the benefit of bundles of tv replays have still been hotly debated on this forum ad infinitum? Small target are those stumps (except when Hawkeye's in action and they magnetically attract the ball).

"But the nature of LBW is that it's a guess. The TV umpire can't overrule the on-field umpire unless there's "compelling evidence", therefore he shouldn't even be adjudicating on LBWs as the only "evidence" he has is his own best guess"


Projectiles on this planet behave in ways that are predictable within certain levels of uncertainty.

There's always going to be some grey area, but for instance if the ball is already ten cm over the height of the stumps when it strikes the pad, its trajectory is still over 10 degrees above horizontal and it is moving at >120 kph, then you've got compelling evidence, nay, proof that it would not have hit the stumps if it had not hit the human. It's not going to hit some supersized molecule in the air and be deflected downward over that brief distance.

In a lot of cases, it is a best guess. In other cases, video evidence can be compelling.

BTW, cheers to GPS for his five-for. especially under the circumstances.

Ultimately, though, the system still relies on an umpire showing reasonable judgement, and being able to confidently say "I don't know" in those many cases where the video evidence will not be compelling, and hence allow the field umpire's decision to stand.

Swann is only the second England offie to get a Michelle in consecutive Test matches. The first was Jim Laker in the 3rd & 4th Tests of the 1956 Ashes series at Headingley & Old Trafford. He however took 5 or more wickets in both innings of both matches.

Jaysus, this match has Adelaide written all over it.

PeterCS wrote:Bring back Hoggy.

Last time on a road in Antigua, WI 751

Hoggard 18 2 82 0 econ 4.55
Harmison 37 6 92 1 econ 2.48
Flintoff 35 8 109 1 econ 3.11
Jones 29 0 146 1 econ 5.03
Batty 52 4 185 2 econ 3.55
Vaughan 13 0 60 0 econ 4.61
Trescothick 18 3 68 0 econ 3.77

Send back Hoggy.

Bring back Batty.

I think under the circumstances, Harmison can feel a bit unfairly treated.

MidnightCowboy wrote:
Trescothick 18 3 68 0 econ 3.77

Tres bowling some decent fat pies there...

He bowled better than Hoggard.

And he did all whilst probably being a bit mental too.

All in all, a moral victory.

what are the odds on a pomgolian implosion???

horace wrote:what are the odds on a pomgolian implosion???

About the same as a Saffer WR run chase?

No, Saffers are only paying 3.75 at the moment.

Windies are paying 11.00.

might chuck a few quid on the windies at those odds

I would but I don't want to jinx them...