Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

what ? i thot obrien looked better than martin !

Agree. And he got the big ones ...earned all of them too!

Except SRT

That was a gifted wicket because SRT was trying to manufacture a non existent shot to steal a single and keep strike for the next over.

[keep-it-cool]

what ? i thot obrien looked better than martin !

Agree. And he got the big ones ...earned all of them too!

Except SRT

That was a gifted wicket because SRT was trying to manufacture a non existent shot to steal a single and keep strike for the next over.

yeah, but SRT said he misjudged the bounce ...so, in that sense, the bowler should get it

[kban1]

yeah, but SRT said he misjudged the bounce ...so, in that sense, the bowler should get it

Even at that, SRt still played a shot to a short ball way way outside off stump and attempted it to turn it to leg for a stolen single in order to maintain strike. Its a shot that was neither required, nor forced by the ball in question.

This is a batsman error / predetermination to hit a prticular shot. So while the bounce may have been greater (going by SRT's version), I wouldnt give credit to the bowler for this simply because the shot was not needed / redundant or forced on the batsman by the properties of the delivery.

Had this been a snorter that forced the batsman to play the ball and then took his glove or bat as he was defending, I would have agreed, but in essence this ball would not have taken a wicket under any circumstance unless the batsman reached out for it in some shape or form --thats my POV.

[gouravk]

not the ball per se ... but the overall spell was such that he deserved that wicket

[keep-it-cool]

yeah, but SRT said he misjudged the bounce ...so, in that sense, the bowler should get it

Even at that, SRt still played a shot to a short ball way way outside off stump and attempted it to turn it to leg for a stolen single in order to maintain strike. Its a shot that was neither required, nor forced by the ball in question.

This is a batsman error / predetermination to hit a prticular shot. So while the bounce may have been greater (going by SRT's version), I wouldnt give credit to the bowler for this simply because the shot was not needed / redundant or forced on the batsman by the properties of the delivery.

Had this been a snorter that forced the batsman to play the ball and then took his glove or bat as he was defending, I would have agreed, but in essence this ball would not have taken a wicket under any circumstance unless the batsman reached out for it in some shape or form --thats my POV.

you have a fair point but that way most deliveries require some mistake from the batsman ...defeating a batsman or should i say deceiving a batsman (w.r.t. extent of bounce) batting on 160 odd on that pitch does deserve some credit in my view ...and gourav is right ..that was a very good spell.

[kban1]

you have a fair point but that way most deliveries require some mistake from the batsman ...defeating a batsman or should i say deceiving a batsman (w.r.t. extent of bounce) batting on 160 odd on that pitch does deserve some credit in my view ...and gourav is right ..that was a very good spell.

I dont deny that it was a very good spell.

And yes, it takes something to defeat a well set batsman.

My point was this -- a good spell does not deserve a wicket per se, especially when the dismissal is a result of the batsman's self inflicted harm. Its not as if SRT was at sea against oBrien --SRt was playing him well.

And while it takes a bit to get a well set bat out, it does boil down to whether he got the batsman out or did the batsman throw it away. In this case, SRT did throw it away.