Congrats and reprimands
Baie lekker, South Africa! What a fantastic win. Get that choke out of the way. Fourth innings chases have been demystified, thanks to Chennai and Perth. By the way, you don't need silly fans that say things like the following:
This qualifies for the Gynormously Goofy Thing to Say in the Heat of Victory Award.
Had either of AB de Villiers or JP Duminy finished it off with a six on 413, when the scores were tied, it would even have eclipsed West Indies' 418 for 7 to win against the same Australia in Antigua in 2002-03.Eh? South Africa needed *414* to win. Thats all you can make in order to win. The West Indies needed *418* to win. Gerritt?
This qualifies for the Gynormously Goofy Thing to Say in the Heat of Victory Award.
posted by Samir Chopra at 12:57 PM
11 Comments:
Mate
He wasn't the only guy who said it. I can't remember if it was Mark Taylor or Slater who said the same on - air !! and to think the latter two were ex test cricketers!!
Trust you having a good time down in Desh!
overdosing on the cricket in desh, Samir?
Cheers,
Tifosi: Woah, thats even worse. And yes, Desh is treating me well though I wish the sun would shine a bit more.
Homer: The power cuts aren't helping the watching experience but its great to be able to talk about cricket with folks around you, and ooh-ah over scores or wickets falling!
In their defense, I suppose what they meant is it would have been the highest 4th innings total to win a run chase, not the highest chase. But it was a stupid comment, and as Tifosi guy said, it was Mark Taylor who mentioned it on air, and as much as I can't stand Healy's commentary, perhaps the most sensible thing he did all series was dismiss that quickly.
I've got a polite request; at short of a length we're going to be giving away the Crammies® later this year and we'd love to name one of the categories "Gynormously Goofy Thing To Say" with your permission (and of course we'd credit you for it)?
Achettup: No worries, please go ahead and use it! Spread the meme..
It is sorta goofy.. but I highly doubt the ginormous nature of it. It happens. Come to think of it -- The Aussie commentators would rather have their team "felled" by the highest successful chase than "only" the second highest chase ever!
There was an even more incredulous WTF moment during the NZ- WI ' one over eliminator'.
Suleiman Benn bowled a waist high full toss which Ross Taylor hit for a six. Mark Richardson commented that it should also have been a no - ball and then Tony Cozier came up with this gem - Since he is a spinner, he cannot be called for a no ball!!!!
I almost fainted when I heard this!!!
I don't know how it sounded in the heat of the moment but reading it in hindsight i think i know wat was meant by the statement.. If SA did in fact get 419 that would have been the highest 4th innings total in a win... whether or not the target was lower...
It doesn't really matter but then when a list of highest 4th innings totals to win a test comes out, which one do u put on top - 418-7 or 419-4?
Tiffosi- That I think was Michael Slater's suggestion, to which Healy replied, "that's just commentary box garbage"
Q- To answer your question: the latter. It's always the final score that is counted, and not the target. For example, India's 406 against WI (1971) ranks 3rd in the list of successful run chases , followed by Aus's 404 against Eng (1948) at No. 4, although India's target was 403 and Australia's 404.
With re: tifosi guy's comment that Tony Cozier was wrong about the spinner's no-ball. Tony Cozier was actually correct according to the Laws of Cricket.
Well, according to Law 42.6 (b), reproduced below, for a slow bowler's ball to be a no-ball it must be ABOVE shoulder height. For a fast bowler, it has to be above the waist to be called a no-ball.
(b) Bowling of high full pitched balls
(i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker.
(ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker.
Here's the link to that particular Law:
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html
Post a Comment
<< Home