Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
Isnt the time limit only 2 minutes The time frame from a wicket falling until the next batter must be ready to face up is two minutes in international cricket (Tests, ODIs, and T20Is).
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
You're too nice to them Booney. It's expected that wickets will fall throughout the match.
19 was excessive, yes, but given 8 should fall anyway, it's really only 11 extra, at 2 minutes each, is 22 mins, not 57.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
Isnt the time limit only 2 minutes The time frame from a wicket falling until the next batter must be ready to face up is two minutes in international cricket (Tests, ODIs, and T20Is).
Traditional laws of cricket it's 3 minutes, international matches ( Test / ODI ) use 2 minutes and IT20 uses 90 seconds.
I'll keep an eye on the Brisbane Test because I'd be amazed if any batter is facing up within two minutes of the previous wicket with all the faffing around they all do.
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
You're too nice to them Booney. It's expected that wickets will fall throughout the match.
19 was excessive, yes, but given 8 should fall anyway, it's really only 11 extra, at 2 minutes each, is 22 mins, not 57.
I agree that 2 minutes is the rule but in reality it would be closer to 3 the way they arse about and with some reviews taking 5 or 6 minutes that blows out pretty quickly. I'm all for umpires giving all of them the hurry up.
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
am Bays wrote:Lyon is 3rd on the list of pink ball wickets (played the most with Starc)
His average is five runs better (25) than his career (30) and at a slightly better strike rate.
Not sure why you would want to drop your best spinner
He is also the leading wicket taker at Perth Stadium..
Numbers mean eff all at the moment, play to the situation / conditions... if England aren't going to bat long periods, then a spinner becomes almost obsolete.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
Isnt the time limit only 2 minutes The time frame from a wicket falling until the next batter must be ready to face up is two minutes in international cricket (Tests, ODIs, and T20Is).
Traditional laws of cricket it's 3 minutes, international matches ( Test / ODI ) use 2 minutes and IT20 uses 90 seconds.
I'll keep an eye on the Brisbane Test because I'd be amazed if any batter is facing up within two minutes of the previous wicket with all the faffing around they all do.
Brodlach wrote:How bad was the over rate. Only 72 overs day one.
Will always maintain the umpires are in charge of this. Mind you 19 wickets fell and if you allow 3 minutes per wicket > +/- 57 minutes lost so that's about 15 overs so not too bad in modern day terms.
Wasn't there a couple of hits too?
Yep, I reckon Green dodged the concussion protocols on one.
whufc wrote:There is a slight bit of irony in the critism of bazball from the first test.
For the most part it had England front of the test for nearly all of the game. Obvious come back is that 'but they didn't win it'. True.
Irony being it was the prototype bazball innings that won Australia the game. Further to that it wasn't necessarily by design from the Aussies and more because of Khawaja injured forcing their hand.
Not saying England couldn't have been more intelligent with the bat in the hand but it also wasn't the complete disaster many are making it out to be.
I thought Stokes captaincy and the bowling plans for that hour when Head got on top was more of a disaster than their batting.
Ultimately that test was decided by the one batsman that got away......just happened to be a brilliant Head innings for the Australian win.
Went from 5/160 to all out 172 in the first innings losing 5/12 and in the second innings went from 1/65 to 6/88 losing 5/23 in the second innings.
If you don't think losing 10/35 with some of the most insane batting cost them the test you were watching the wrong game.
Not saying it didnt hurt them BUT.......................Australia batting in a traditional manner hurt them just as much as the first innings deficit suggests.
If it wasn't for a bazball style innings who knows what result we would have got. Even Labuschagne went half bazz ball thanks to much help from the english bowling lengths and field settings.
I would buy the argument if Australia went on to hit 300 in the first innings batting in a traditional manner or it was Khawaja with a patient 100 that won Australia the game but it wasnt.
The guys with the highest strike rates this test performed the best..........
Head 123 @ 148.19 Brook 52 @ 85.25 Labuschagne 51 @ 104.08 Pope 46 @ 79.31 Atkinson 37 @ 115.62 Smith 33 @ 150 Carey 26 @ 100.00
Infact Australias three highest scorest all went at over 100 strike rate. Maybe you could argue England didnt go bazball enough.
England bat more aggressively, Trav went out there with intent and just kept finding the middle of his bat, Marnus cashed in on Head demoralisng the Poms, he'd never bat like that in a first innings or with a 300+ chase.
England had a plan to throw Boland off his game, it worked in the first dig, at the end of the day, we won the game, they didn't lose it. We took a risk, thought outside the square and it paid off, they controlled most of the game.
