• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

[3rd Test] England v Pakistan (Rose Bowl)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mackembhoy said:
Interesting this. For all of us criticising umpires for taking players off. The players are unhappy they stayed on.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

I think more transparency in the light meter readings will definitely help frustration. Rather than just pulling it out and saying we're off.

If they set a 'dangerous' range for the reading, and say what the reading is when they go off then fans would be more understanding of the decision.
 
dixonsafc said:
I think more transparency in the light meter readings will definitely help frustration. Rather than just pulling it out and saying we're off.

If they set a 'dangerous' range for the reading, and say what the reading is when they go off then fans would be more understanding of the decision.
Click to expand...
I’ve called for that for years. If they showed the readings then it would help the crowd and viewers to understand.

do you remembee the old five lights they had on the scoreboard, to show light closing in?

used to get up to three when it became dodgy. Now the viewers and crowd have no idea what that meter is showing

i sent an email to sky about this. They have shown everything involved but there is no in depth of what the umpires think is dangerous light
 
Last edited:
Ghfd said:
I’ve called for that for years. If they showed the readings then it would help the crowd and viewers to understand.

do you remembee the old five lights they had on the scoreboard, to show light closing in?

used to get up to three when it became dodgy. Now the viewers and crowd have no idea what that meter is showing

i sent an email to sky about this. They have shown everything involved but there is no in depth of what the umpires think is dangerous light
Click to expand...
Guess they can't really apply a blanket approach as being dangerous needs to take into account the ability level of the batsman Vs the particular type of bowling being faced. Also got to remember that it looks brighter on TV. I'm happy that the umpires explain it to the players and the public take it on trust, it's going to happen and it's not that often you hear the players complaining about the decision.
 
mikemanc said:
Guess they can't really apply a blanket approach as being dangerous needs to take into account the ability level of the batsman Vs the particular type of bowling being faced. Also got to remember that it looks brighter on TV. I'm happy that the umpires explain it to the players and the public take it on trust, it's going to happen and it's not that often you hear the players complaining about the decision.
Click to expand...
I agree with this mike. I just would like to see the equipment , the readings taken and how the decisions are made.

at present for the viewers and when they are back, the crowd are kept out of the cycle of information.
 
mikemanc said:
Guess they can't really apply a blanket approach as being dangerous needs to take into account the ability level of the batsman Vs the particular type of bowling being faced. Also got to remember that it looks brighter on TV. I'm happy that the umpires explain it to the players and the public take it on trust, it's going to happen and it's not that often you hear the players complaining about the decision.
Click to expand...

If the meters are accurate then 4.0 darkness (whatever units they use) should be the same in Pakistan, Australia or England. Therefore surely you can define an arbitrary “safe” zone to play in and all tests outside of that zone are abandoned. Not convinced that they should be taking into account player ability tbh, at least not at the elite level. If you’re playing international cricket then expect to handle yourself properly. Is it fair that an opener for England should be expected to play 20 minutes at the end of the day, but then the night watchman number 11 not have to because he’s “shitter than the other guy”?
 
TravellingMackem said:
If the meters are accurate then 4.0 darkness (whatever units they use) should be the same in Pakistan, Australia or England. Therefore surely you can define an arbitrary “safe” zone to play in and all tests outside of that zone are abandoned. Not convinced that they should be taking into account player ability tbh, at least not at the elite level. If you’re playing international cricket then expect to handle yourself properly. Is it fair that an opener for England should be expected to play 20 minutes at the end of the day, but then the night watchman number 11 not have to because he’s “shitter than the other guy”?
Click to expand...
The ruling isn't about fair, it's about being dangerous. There are still some bowlers who are crap at batting and more likely to get hit/hurt by a short ball but you'd not expect them to be sent out as a night watchman. You can't say we go off at 4 because that might be dangerous to a quick but not a couple of spinners.
 
mikemanc said:
The ruling isn't about fair, it's about being dangerous. There are still some bowlers who are crap at batting and more likely to get hit/hurt by a short ball but you'd not expect them to be sent out as a night watchman. You can't say we go off at 4 because that might be dangerous to a quick but not a couple of spinners.
Click to expand...

It’s professional sport it is about fairness. Let’s just send in our bunny after 16:30 to get play cancelled? If you can’t cope playing elite sport then you shouldn’t be out there batting tbh. Further down the tree I’d agree, but not at the very top. They should be out there maximising time at the crease until it’s too dangerous for anyone to play, but the sports integrity must remain paramount
 
Looking like fuck all chance of play today..... :-(
That said, Met Office foecast looks far more positive

You must be logged on to see external links
Logon or register to see this image
 
Last edited:
TravellingMackem said:
So you genuinely believe that we don’t have any player that is a better keeper than Buttler? That would take more catches than him? Think it’s widely accepted he isn’t the best keeper and the balance argument between keeping and batting is whats keeping him in the side
Click to expand...
We had better keepers than Alec Stewart, Matt Prior, Geraint Jones, Johnny Bairstow etc. Foster, Read, Russell were the best glovemen in the country. So your argument about Buttler is exactly the same as it was for Prior, Stewart etc. Buttler may drop a catch that costs us a test but in fact his keeping and batting in the last two will have helped us win them and that’s why he’s in.
 
rentaghost said:
We had better keepers than Alec Stewart, Matt Prior, Geraint Jones, Johnny Bairstow etc. Foster, Read, Russell were the best glovemen in the country. So your argument about Buttler is exactly the same as it was for Prior, Stewart etc. Buttler may drop a catch that costs us a test but in fact his keeping and batting in the last two will have helped us win them and that’s why he’s in.
Click to expand...

Prior averaged a lot more than Buttler did, and made a lot less mistakes than he does as well. If Buttler averaged 60 with the bat fair enough, but he’s just made his second hundred in 50 odd tests, having spent the ashes batting like a child at the crease. One good knock against a Pakistan team that have been beaten before the game started won’t change that.

And how did his keeping help us win the first test? He wouldn’t have even been out to bat in the second innings if he didn’t drop Mahood on 30/40 or whatever it was and cost us 120 runs. Not to mention the other drops.
 
Eventually get some time to watch and it's a rainfest.....

rentaghost said:
We had better keepers than Alec Stewart, Matt Prior, Geraint Jones, Johnny Bairstow etc. Foster, Read, Russell were the best glovemen in the country. So your argument about Buttler is exactly the same as it was for Prior, Stewart etc. Buttler may drop a catch that costs us a test but in fact his keeping and batting in the last two will have helped us win them and that’s why he’s in.
Click to expand...

All four of those keepers were quite a bit better with the gloves than Jos mind, and they all improved over time. Buttler is turns 30 next week and in his career has lost the gloves at two counties, and doesn't seem to have improved his glovework at all in that time. Maybe it's a confidence thing and now that he's secure in the squad for the forseeable, he might knuckle down and sort it out. We'll see.
 
mackembhoy said:
Interesting this. For all of us criticising umpires for taking players off. The players are unhappy they stayed on.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

crawley said the same in teh cricket paper. about not picking it up fielding etc.

HOWEVER for me the criticism is justified - just not at the umpires. floodlights, pink balls, there are solutions for having to stop playing cricket due to a bit of bad light. a blight on the game with a simple solution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top