5th ODI: Australia v Sri Lanka at Hobart Jan 23, 2013

[Hutty1986]

Well you can't say there not consistent.................

Fair point :lol:

 

[8Ball]

You know who wouldn't have wasted a review there? Brad Haddin. Can we get him back please?

Haddin would have murdered the bowling on this pitch.

 

[vvvrulz]

Another maiden
Last 5 ovs 9/1 RR 1.80

 

[Sphagnum]

They're going to see off Malinga and Kulasekera and get into the part timers like Dilshan... :sarcasm:

 

[Dutchy]

You know who wouldn't have wasted a review there? Brad Haddin. Can we get him back please?

Lol serious? I Like Haddin don't get me wrong. But he is an incredibly selfish batsmen.

 

[HevyDevy]

Wish we would hurry up and lose 6 more wickets so we get Mitchell Starc to the crease.

 

[vvvrulz]

More people moaning about the DRS system being flawed, when that was completely the fault of Wade. I fear that they'll blame the technology endlessly and force it to be dropped.

 

[HevyDevy]

If we can just get through these first 50 overs ...

 

[HevyDevy]

More people moaning about the DRS system being flawed, when that was completely the fault of Wade. I fear that they'll blame the technology endlessly and force it to be dropped.

The concept is decent but only one review allowed? No reason why there shouldn't be two or three in a ODI game as well imo.

 

[Earl]

Its amazing how well the system works when you only use it when you 110% know your not out.

IT not f**king there to be used as a tactical tool to overturn a close LBW decision.

 

[Earl]

Players seem to think it must be used by your top 3 batsmen within the first 10 overs.

90% of the time if you are given out, its because you were f**king out. So keep f**king walking.

 

[vvvrulz]

The concept is decent but only one review allowed? No reason why there shouldn't be two or three in a ODI game as well imo.

I think the idea to reduce it 1 was to encourage the players to not use it selfishly for 50/50 lbw calls like Wade today and Clarke the other day. Maybe also to save time.

That said I think you're right and its silly to say that 2-3 reviews chews up too much time in a sport that has 8 hour and 5 day matches. If it was up to me I'd take it away from the players and give umpires full access to the technology. If there is a howler then a third umpire is allowed to intervene. Common sense if you ask me.

 

[Earl]

The Aussies look like they have decided to give themselves 50 overs to take the shine of the ball and then look to increase the scoring rate from then on

 

[Hallatia]

Hughes told Wade to review it

Useless plodder

even without having seen it, I had my concerns that he was in some way responsible

Some more top order failure for us all to enjoy. We support such a consistent, awesome cricket team!

at least your tail can bat (unlike your guys higher in the order

If we can just get through these first 50 overs ...

that's what it's all about. Especially when we all want to start challenging for the associates world cup

 

[HevyDevy]

Its amazing how well the system works when you only use it when you 110% know your not out.

IT not f**king there to be used as a tactical tool to overturn a close LBW decision.

True, but one wrong review is too few.

In this case it was an awful decision to review, however there will inevitably be occasions when we get one of those real borderline decisions in the first over of the day, the review is turned down and all reviews are now gone for the next 49 overs.

And you expect that opening batsman to just walk when he knows it's 50/50?

 

[Canard]

Hughes striving for a strike rate of 45 here.

He really is a plodder.

 

[vvvrulz]

Current partnership 18 runs, 6.0 overs, RR: 3.00 (Bailey 8, Hughes 10)

These two are really plodding along and they've nearly chewed up 20 overs.

 

[Earl]

I think the idea to reduce it 1 was to encourage the players to not use it selfishly for 50/50 lbw calls like Wade today and Clarke the other day. Maybe also to save time.

That said I think you're right and its silly to say that 2-3 reviews chews up too much time in a sport that has 8 hour and 5 day matches. If it was up to me I'd take it away from the players and give umpires full access to the technology. If there is a howler then a third umpire is allowed to intervene. Common sense if you ask me.

No, cause then one of two things will happen;

- The umpires will be crucified for not reviewing a decision which proved to be incorrect.

- The umpires will be crucified for reviewing every decision.

It works now. Players just need to use it properly.

 

[Earl]

And you expect that opening batsman to just walk when he knows it's 50/50?

Hasn't been an issue for the last 120 years.

 

[HevyDevy]

No, cause then one of two things will happen;

- The umpires will be crucified for not reviewing a decision which proved to be incorrect.

- The umpires will be crucified for reviewing every decision.

It works now. Players just need to use it properly.

No because you would place restrictions on it. I wouldn't allow umpires to overturn LBW decisions UNLESS it was a case of the umpire missing an edge onto the pads. Or if the umpire missed a no-ball.