Aussies v. Windies - First Test.

Post by **Donny** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:37 pm

Chanderpaul's 100 came from 72 balls. He was particularly attacking against Bichel and Hogg. He hit 15 fours and 2 sixes.

Chanderpaul and Jacobs (54 n.o.) added 131 for the 6th. wicket and stopped a complete rout.

Australia is on 1/120 at stumps with Langer (55 n.o.) and Ponting (46 n.o.) Hayden (10) was run out with the score on 37.

Post by **Donny** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:06 pm

I've just been watching the highlights. Chanderpaul's innings was top drawer stuff.

Batting him at 5 or 6 had some merit when their top six included Hooper, Gayle and Sarwan but why did he bat there yesterday?? Should definitely be at 4.

Post by **Donny** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:23 pm

Chanderpaul's century has been variously given as coming up in 67, 69 and 72 balls. I don't know which is correct. I quoted 72 as it stated in Cricinfo. Here's the comparison. He has either the 3rd. fastest or the 4th.

56 balls IVA Richards West Indies v England at St John's 1985-6
67 balls JM Gregory Australia v South Africa at Johannesburg 1921-2
71 balls RC Fredericks West Indies v Australia at Perth 1975-6
74 balls M Azharuddin India v South Africa at Calcutta 1996-7
74 balls Majid Khan Pakistan v New Zealand at Karachi 1976-7
74 balls Kapil Dev India v Sri Lanka at Kanpur 1986-7

Post by **Donny** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:40 pm

Asoka de Silva clearly looks out of his depth as a Test umpire. He gets it wrong too often.

Rudi Koertzen is considered to be in the top 3 or 4 of Test umpires but he can get it wrong too. The first wicket of the series fell to an 'inside edge' lbw.

The point raised in JLC's post needs adressing. We have the technology to quickly determine if the ball pitches outside the line of leg stump or hits the pad outside the line of off stump. Let's use it !!

Fradam · Post by **Fradam** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 5:19 pm

I think you have to cop the good with the bad with lbw's. The only time video should be used is for runouts and stumpings, nothing else. The experimental rule with LBW's has been tried and failed. Brett Lee in the ICC Champions Trophy last year had a batsman as plum as plum can be and what does the umpire do, he called for the video. I don't like it, it was clearly out and if the umpires can't do the job then they shouldn't be out there.

The LBW law is essential to cricket. You'd have to have 10 day test matches to get a result without it. It's fairly simple, the umpires just have to ask themselves three questions. did it pitch outside leg? did it hit him in line? is it knocking them over? If the batsman didnt play a stroke he can ignore the second question. it's not that hard.

Fradam · Post by **Fradam** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 5:22 pm

Cricket umpiring is a lot easier tha football, it's either out or not. Football has much more grey area and is a lot more open to interpretation. I can't believe I'm saying this but sometimes I feel an empathy towards football umpires.

HAL · Post by **HAL** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 6:58 pm

Thanks for the newsflash.

gobbles21 · Post by **gobbles21** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:28 pm

Chanderpauls 100 was off 69 balls.

Fradam you can actually leave the first 2 out if the batsman is not playing a shot, it only needs to be hitting the stumps.
You have just made a mistake that could have costed a wicket. Possible cause for the 3rd umpire?, but then again these umpires are professionals and are supposed to know the rules thoughouly. It is a difficult question to answer, but I personaly think that you should leave it the way it is. But there are strong points for both sides (ie. the decisions we have seen on day 1) so I'm sorry but I don't have the answer to this one.

MrsTarrant · Post by **MrsTarrant** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:21 am

After reading everyone's point of view I think I have to agree with Fradam, well said mate! You can't start refering everything to the third umpire it will get too out of hand. I can't watch the game because I don't have foxtel grr so I haven't seen these decisions but it's very unfortunate when these things happen but that's life huh! GO AUSSIES!

HAL · Post by **HAL** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:25 am

What was it like before reading everyone's point of view he or she think he or she have to agree with Fradam well said mate ?

Post by **Donny** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:54 am

Gobbles, unless I'm completely misreading you, you'd better check your law book about lbws. Fradam is correct.

If the ball pitches outside leg, the batsman cannot be out, lbw, and that's it!! Doesn't matter if he played a stroke or not.

When I say cannot I mean should not because umpires don't have those superimposed lines to help them and have been known to make mistakes with this one. Like in this Test, for instance.

Post by **Donny** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:56 am

Scores are level.

The Langer/Ponting partnership has reached 200.

Alfie is 122 and Punter, 94.

HAL · Post by **HAL** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:03 am

I think there might be a few exceptions.

Post by **Donny** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:10 am

1/253 at lunch.

216 partnership. Highest 2nd. wicket p'ship for Aust. in the Windies.

Langer is 129 and Ponting, 103.

Northern Pie · Post by **Northern Pie** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:18 am

this could get awefully ugly....

About the LBW decisions....I agree with miss, you just have to take the good with the bad in theses situations....unfortunately the couple of decisions were very bad and costly to the West Indies. I am sure as the series goes on it will even out though. I do think that the umpires should be held accountable though.

I think that the Windies have a bit more to worry about than those decisions as it seems that their bowlers are under some pretty heavy fire early and it could be a pattern for the whole series if they don't get on top of the Aussie batsman early....

cheers

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Aussies v. Windies - First Test.