I agree on the second point but not sure why so much focus on it. Even the Saffers have come to accept it. End of, it will assist those with good swing bowlers more and it could actually come back to bite us. It was the closest NZ got to us last summer.
The ball isn't ready yet. It gives too much of an advantage to the team bowling in the final session. Plus, pitches have to be doctored to ensure the ball lasts.
No Avatar wrote:They were, but I wish the umpires could make their own decision instead of having to wait around for one to be made for them.
With the first one, he did make his decision. With the second one, you've said yourself how close it was. Why not use the technology to get more chance of getting the decision right?
Stitch This wrote:Taliban second XI drew the short straw tonight - another eight overs.
I thought it had to be 8 wickets down. Shouldn't be allowed to claim it in a day/night game anyway as conditions favour the bowling side substantially.
Stitch This wrote:Taliban second XI drew the short straw tonight - another eight overs.
I thought it had to be 8 wickets down. Shouldn't be allowed to claim it in a day/night game anyway as conditions favour the bowling side substantially.
Substantially? Apart from one session, the batsmen seemed to have found it quite normal to bat under lights in this test.
Stitch This wrote:Taliban second XI drew the short straw tonight - another eight overs.
I thought it had to be 8 wickets down. Shouldn't be allowed to claim it in a day/night game anyway as conditions favour the bowling side substantially.
Substantially? Apart from one session, the batsmen seemed to have found it quite normal to bat under lights in this test.
Not sure on this test but in previous games (Shield and tests), the wickets per session is substantially higher in the final session. They mentioned this on the coverage prior to the Adelaide test. Commentators have also regularly mentioned the tactical nature of declarations so as to bowl during the final session.
NSW actually declared whilst behind in order to bowl in the final session of the day under lights.
Its all in the head. Many teams, for example, have won batting under lights in a one-dayers for years and years. Tests, should prove little different and these declarations were often done in fading light in day tests too, when the fielding team might be a bit tired and not all that keen to bat anyway.
Bomber wrote:Its all in the head. Many teams, for example, have won batting under lights in a one-dayers for years and years. Tests, should prove little different and these declarations were often done in fading light in day tests too, when the fielding team might be a bit tired and not all that keen to bat anyway.
You can't compare day/night one dayers with day/night test matches. Yes, declarations in fading light can happen but normally you get a few overs before the light meters come out. This is 2 hours of bad light.
Bomber wrote:Its all in the head. Many teams, for example, have won batting under lights in a one-dayers for years and years. Tests, should prove little different and these declarations were often done in fading light in day tests too, when the fielding team might be a bit tired and not all that keen to bat anyway.
You can't compare day/night one dayers with day/night test matches. Yes, declarations in fading light can happen but normally you get a few overs before the light meters come out. This is 2 hours of bad light.
I'd go as far as to suggest that with the good lighting in stadiums these days, they may often be superior to an overcast day.
At least with day/night tests, appealing the light becomes obsolete unless there was floodlight failure of course. Good for the game.
