Killer ball from Starc. He has a 5fa.
Just feathered de Grandhomme's glove. Snapped up by Smith.
8/155.
Aussies v. Black Caps - 3 Tests.
Huh?? What do you mean? You are not making any sense.
Are you saying NZ's score somehow means the pitch is fair? That was predicted, including in this thread. NZ suffered two days in 40-degree heat, only to have their top order dismissed in the night session, where the ball moves 40% more, no thanks to the pitch, but simply to how the pink ball behaves at night. Highly predictable, and why they should have the entire Test at night (except, of course, that's not practically possible). Otherwise, there's too much luck who happens to be batting then and whether it's to start the innings.
Maybe you're saying some batsmen cannot bully even on flat tracks, so they are "worse than flat-track bullies". That is probably true, though I don't want to nominate which batsmen can't even cope with flat pitches. (Burns?? In his defence, he has had health problems.)
Or do you think controversial out decisions that should probably be not out (CdG) somehow support your case?
................................................
On the cricketers: Starc is a bit of a pink-ball specialist. Boult a bit too.
Are you saying NZ's score somehow means the pitch is fair? That was predicted, including in this thread. NZ suffered two days in 40-degree heat, only to have their top order dismissed in the night session, where the ball moves 40% more, no thanks to the pitch, but simply to how the pink ball behaves at night. Highly predictable, and why they should have the entire Test at night (except, of course, that's not practically possible). Otherwise, there's too much luck who happens to be batting then and whether it's to start the innings.
Maybe you're saying some batsmen cannot bully even on flat tracks, so they are "worse than flat-track bullies". That is probably true, though I don't want to nominate which batsmen can't even cope with flat pitches. (Burns?? In his defence, he has had health problems.)
Or do you think controversial out decisions that should probably be not out (CdG) somehow support your case?
................................................
On the cricketers: Starc is a bit of a pink-ball specialist. Boult a bit too.
Last edited by K on Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
They can play any way they want to and are able to, within the laws of the game. That's not the point.Donny wrote:...
Yes. But, again, who cares ?
Would you (K, and others) prefer a batsman getting a stylish and technically perfect 30 or a gutsy but technically flawed 80 or 100+ ?
...
The point is: many of the current-day batsmen are only making runs because the conditions are so heavily in the favour of batsmen, so the game has been dumbed down. They would not make runs in bowler-friendly conditions. That's bad for cricket. It's not about one batsman. It's about a problem with the game. If you make fairer pitches, the batsmen (hopefully) will adapt to not being able to succeed with slogathon batting. If you keep making the pitches flatter, it'll encourage the batsmen to degenerate further into slogathon batting.
Last edited by K on Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Interminable waiting over (for another day).K wrote:M. Knox:
"What the Trans-Tasman Test matches really need, after this, is pitches that enhance the contest between bat and ball. ... Pink-ball Test matches were meant to be a wildcard, the evenings supposedly evening up the balance, but here it turned the rest of the game into a kind of interminable waiting."
(SMH)
Let's see if the night session adds some fun! But starting in the night session against a new ball would be a lot worse than playing it after 74 balls (Burns) against an old ball.