The Roar
The Roar

David Thorman

Roar Rookie

Joined July 2013

0

Views

0

Published

11

Comments

Published

Comments

David Thorman hasn't published any posts yet

One in a million! Let me know when you open a casino.

One-in-a-million bat flip scenes before BBL Challenger wows the crowd

It is true that no LBWs were given against Australian batsmen in the 1970/71 Ashes. This is the series where there were six completed Test matches, plus the wash-out in Melbourne. A single English batsman was given out LBW in Tests #2, #4, #5, #6 and #7, making 5 in total for the series.

The case for neutral umpires is clearer than ever

I am not sure where you are getting the figure of 19 LBWs given against England batsmen in the series. My quick check of the scorecards shows that 5 LBWs were given against England in the Test matches. Maybe you were including the LBWs given in French cricket games played in the hotel corridors.

The case for neutral umpires is clearer than ever

While in theory it should be possible to build a ship from 11 sheet anchors, Justin Langer and the Australian selectors have got this decision badly wrong. Melting the anchors and shaping the steel would be relatively simple tasks. However, my calculations indicate the resulting vessel would sink beneath the waves unless its total volume exceeded 75 cubic metres. Although the keel could be up to 5mm thick, the shipbuilders would be forced to use 2mm gauge steel for the vast majority of the hull. Taking a ship such as this into battle at the World Cup would be courting disaster. Sure, it could withstand a Gayle, but the hull would be easily pierced by an Archer, a Boult, or even a Hardik Pandya.

The Liebke Ratings: Australia vs Bangladesh

No, the third umpire should not get involved. These decisions should be made by the on-field umpire. You do not need to waste time checking for minor things. Otherwise, we will turn the game into something like American Football, where seemingly every decision is checked.

Blatantly wrong no ball decision prompts call for more third umpire power

It is ludicrous to punish no-balls with a free hits in Test cricket for several reasons. Firstly, it will probably slow the game down, as commentators will start to point out the times when a no-ball of only a centimetre or so has been missed by the umpire. The whole idea of the no-ball law was to set a point at which the bowler would deliver the ball; it does not matter to the batsman if the bowler oversteps by a very small margin. Secondly, a fast bowler bowling the “free hit” delivery will likely bowl a wide yorker or bowl a bouncer. I am particularly concerned about the increased chance of injury when a batsman tries to hook a bouncer delivered as a free hit. For example, tail-enders who are normally quite happy to duck a bouncer will feel pressured to swing at the ball, and may be hit in the process. There are also many top-order batsmen who do not play the hook shot well; these players may also be injured when they swing at the free-hit delivery.

An open letter from a concerned fan of Test cricket

It is incorrect to say there is a clear inside edge. From front on, there is no visible deflection. From side on, a small horizontal white line appears on the edge of the bat before the ball reaches the bat. You can see this white mark if you freeze the Hot Spot vision one frame before the ball reaches the bat. It could be that the bat clipped the knee roll on the batsman’s right pad during the shot. I therefore believe there is not enough evidence for the third umpire to overturn the original decision.

Major DRS howler as third umpire talks himself out of seeing Hot Spot mark

Bradman was given out LBW five times in Australia. Any suggestion he was favoured by in relation to LBW decisions at home is discredited by the figures: 5 times LBW in Australia (about 11% of his dismissals) compared to once overseas (about 4%).

My 2014 World Test XI

I agree with the article. We need more broken play to make the game more exciting. Defensive lines are too well organised, with the result that teams often play for field position, hoping to get close enough to their opponent’s try line to either crash through the defence or put up a cross-field bomb. As the author says, the interchange rule makes it more difficult for a team to break the line of defence. The interchange rule works against smaller, fleet footed players, as the bigger blokes do not tire so quickly. It would improve the game immensely if there were more opportunities for nimble players around the 80kg mark. In that way you are opening the game up to a far wider range of body types, encouraging more skilful players to play the game.

Wrestle in the tackle is NRL's biggest issue

I agree 100% with Glenn Mitchell. A quick game is a good game. The last thing Test cricket needs is further slowing down. We are supposed to get 90 overs in 6 hours, but on most days we are lucky to get 85 in that time. One referral every hour is tedious enough, let alone one every couple of overs. It is a mistake to believe that in sport every decision needs to be checked in detail. I am sure that fans of Australian Rules football would not want every decision regarding “push in the back” and “holding the ball” to be referred to an umpire sitting in a booth. It is far better for the umpire(s) on the ground to make an immediate decision and get on with the game. The recent introduction of video replays for goal-line decisions in Australian Rules has only created more controversy than before the technology was introduced. The same goes for cricket. Get on with the game.

Never hand over the sole right to invoke DRS to umpires

I agree 100% about the stupidity of reviewing no-balls after a batsman has been dismissed. The game should just go on. The crowd has already either celebrated or groaned with disappointment. It simply does not matter if the bowler has overstepped by a few centimetres. The batsman can only blame himself for getting out, not the umpire for allowing the bowler to get a fraction of a percent closer to the stumps before releasing the ball. Using video to review possible no-balls is like using GPS tracking in rugby to determine whether a forward pass has been thrown. As Adam Gilchrist wrote recently, using video replays takes away from the spontaneity and drama of Test cricket. When it comes to no-ball decisions, the immediate decision made by the on-field umpire should stand.

ASHES: Talking points from Lord's day three

close