Australian Cricket - Crisis, What Crisis ??

[Professer E]

Our bowling was very disciplined as well, but gees we dropped some catches.  We won because we got a very lucky break and didn't end the first dig about 80 behind.

[cimm1979]

Our bowling was very disciplined as well, but gees we dropped some catches.  We won because we got a very lucky break and didn't end the first dig about 80 behind.

Agreed.

Reckon we've looked a bit half arsed all series TBH.

[Professer E]

Neither Voges or the Marshes are particularly good in the field but Smith grassed a couple as well.  I thought our blokes played as if they were mentally and physically exhausted.

[laj]

Our bowling was very disciplined as well, but gees we dropped some catches.  We won because we got a very lucky break and didn't end the first dig about 80 behind.

Wasn't lucky. Snicko showed absolutely nothing. Means there's a good chance he didn't hit it. They'll always take snicko, which could detect a fart from 50m, than hotspot, which on one hand, can often show reflections, or on the opposite end, no even show a mark at all when the batsman smashes it. Camera angles for that decision were awaful. The legside shot wasn't even properly in the frame. No spike on snicko then it means the mark on hotspot could've been anything, as the umpire said.

If hotspot shows nothing but snicko has a spike then the batsman will be given out. Nothing on snicko but a mark on hotspot then the batsman is likely to get the benefit, as happened in Lyon's case.

[Professer E]

Apologies, I'm not 100% up with the nuances of the technology and its interpretations but it looked out to me, the Kiwis and Lyon so weight of probabilities says that it was out.

Anyway, test cricket - as this was - is a game of millimetres and relies on hours of concentration and application.  The Aussies were a wee bit beeta so they won by a slim margin.  Kiwis had the pick of the bowling periods and didn't do enough with it.

[laj]

Apologies, I'm not 100% up with the nuances of the technology and its interpretations but it looked out to me, the Kiwis and Lyon so weight of probabilities says that it was out.

Anyway, test cricket - as this was - is a game of millimetres and relies on hours of concentration and application.  The Aussies were a wee bit beeta so they won by a slim margin.  Kiwis had the pick of the bowling periods and didn't do enough with it.

Neither am I fully. I picked that up only on the weekend reading articles.

If there's nothing on Snicko it creates doubt. That was the process the 3rd umpire went through on the telecast. Once he saw nothing on Snicko he then said that mark on hotspot, which isn't as reliable, could've been anything and gave the batsman the benefit. He spent 6 minutes analysing it trying to be sure.

[ElwoodBlues1]

I think we were lucky to win and Lyon was out but thats test cricket, Santer dropped an easy catch that also could have changed the game but good teams takes their chances when offered....we have a bit more depth in bowling than the kiwis whose attack is built around swing and swing only...if it aint swinging then they are a just a bunch of medium pacers who are very hittable..
If we played three test in NZ where the ball swings a lot then they would probably have won the series...still plenty of holes in the Aussie lineup.....and Voges and the Marsh boys are a very rubbery middle order.

The West Indies are just rubbish and even without Starc I expect a 2-0 result....

[laj]

I think we were lucky to win and Lyon was out but thats test cricket, Santer dropped an easy catch that also could have changed the game but good teams takes their chances when offered....we have a bit more depth in bowling than the kiwis whose attack is built around swing and swing only...if it aint swinging then they are a just a bunch of medium pacers who a very hittable..
If we played three test in NZ where the ball swings a lot then they would probably have won the series...still plenty of holes in the Aussie lineup.....and Voges and the Marsh boys are a very rubbery middle order.

The West Indies are just rubbish and even without Starc I expect a 2-0 result....

Not sure if Lyon was out if there was nothing on Snicko. Hotpsot can is unreliable and was nearly dropped before the 2013 Ashes Series here for that reason. Snicko, much more reliable. Picks up anything. No spike so doubt it hit.

Fortunately for NZ Santner's chance didn't cost too much. Smith though dropped two the night before.

Think it's two Tests in NZ. Starc will enjoy the conditions. Middle order though is a worry. Bat ok dpwn the Voges then it's a worry. Don't have Johnson coming in at 8 to strenghen things.

The two Kiwi opening bowlers are world class. Been the cornerstone of alot more recent success for them, even in the UAE. We're the first to have beaten then for a while in a series. Bracewell is ok but that's where it stops.

[northernblue]

You're sounding more and more like your little mate jimbo... Just keep repeating things and maybe someone will believe it as fact, but for mine it was out.
Very big get out of jail card for Aus.

[laj]

You're sounding more and more like your little mate jimbo... Just keep repeating things and maybe someone will believe it as fact, but for mine it was out.
Very big get out of jail card for Aus.

If Snicko doesn't pick it up it means there's a good chance he didn't hit or at the worst creates doubt. It's it considered by cricket officials to be more reliable than hotspot. No snicko creates doubt, means the batsman gets the benefit.

Hotspot sometimes doesn't pick up an edge when the batsman smashes it, other times picks up reflections. Snicko picks up everything. As i said, hotspot was nearly dropped in 2013 due to unreliabilty once Real Time Snicko come it. Let's face it, Hotspot isn't needed with Snicko.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/cricket/ashes/5...-feel-heat

It's easy to keep repeating stuff when it is right. Try it.