Aussies v. Black Caps - 3 Tests.

[K]

Smith's was a far worse fail. He got out to nothing balls. I was politely declining to mention that, but now you mention failure...

The ball did burst from the footmarks. The replay clearly showed that.

[Donny]

This Test.

Smith 192 balls.

Williamson 78.

Who failed ?

[K]

Obviously they did not bat together against the same bowlers.

Oz were lucky to win the toss. I don't think it's good when so much depends on the toss. If in the same circumstances England had won the toss against Oz, I would have been furious.

Smith has obvious problems with the short ball. I don't know why, because he plays exclusively off the back foot.

[Donny]

Further to those numbers, Smith's second innings was inconsequential. His first was responsible.

Much hinged on Williamson's innings (plural). Not up to it.

[K]

All of Smith's innings are inconsequential.

Steve Waugh had many limitations as a batsman, but he did produce some great innings, both at Test and ODI level, in his career. Oz would not have won the '99 WC without his century against S. Africa.

There has been no such performance from Smith.

.................................

And, on the topic of ICC/boards idiocy, let me say dumping visiting teams into Test series without even a single warm-up game is obviously ridiculous. Apart from flat pitches, the other big issue facing Test cricket is the performance of sides overseas. (I'm ignoring here issues related to illegality, i.e. match fixing and ball tampering.)

[Donny]

No more from me.

You just don't address any points I bring up.

"All of Smith's innings are inconsequential" At least you make me laugh.

[K]

Well, I gave an example of what I regard as a consequential innings.

[Jezza]

NZ - 2/55.

[Donny]

3/57 as Starc claims Taylor for 22.

[Donny]

Lyon again

Superb ball.

4/57.

[Jezza]

The collapse is on.

[K]

A miracle occurs: Oz correctly review!

Aleem Dar looked unhappy reversing his decision. Maybe he was disappointed in himself for not originally giving it out.

.............................

Did I hear that right? They just said it's the third successful appeal out of 25 this year... I guess that doesn't include reviews they should have asked for but didn't... (This is making me think about the Stokes LBW against Lyon they should have but didn't review, which ended up costing an Ashes series win.)

[K]

Watling is hit in the helmet by Cummins.

He's sort of okay, but there's a delay. The helmet needs replacing.

The umpires chat to Boult, who's one of the NZ contingent to come on to the ground, about what I don't know. Boult looks happy. I'm not sure he should be. Missing a pink-ball Test through injury (when you're another pink-ball expert, like Starc), and then probably returning to a dead-pitch all-day Test at the MCG. Ouch!

[K]

Nicholls reviews an out decision off Lyon's bowling.

It was caught at bat pad.

The ball hit the back of the bat after rebounding forward from the pad (after passing the bat the first time)!

Out.

NZ 5/98. Tea.

[K]

Nice comic piece from Titus O'Reilly on the FTA TV coverage in the tea break, about the MCG pitch.

Not sure if I can reproduce most of it, but the end goes something like:

"The ICC have assured everyone not to worry, because player safety is their 7th-highest priority. They'll allow players to wear full knight armor, which will allow plenty of room for lots of ads, like the F1 Grand Prix, including both gambling ads and anti-gambling ads."