Australia vs New Zealand, 3rd Test: the first day/night test

In honour of the legendary Sir Fred Perry this is an attempt to set up a separate thread for this historic test match. Let the comments roll.....

Corporal - I do trust your words about honouring Sir Fred are to do with his thread that never caught on. When I first read your post, I feared our legendary poster had passed away.

Anyway, just had a quick peek at the score. Australia seem in a good position having New Zealand 173/7, three wickets for Starc and a couple for my man Lyon. However, what really caught my eye was that it was the Dinner Time score!!

Yup they had a 20 minute tea break at the end of session 1, then a 40 minute dinner break after session 2. Probably more about maximising food stall revenues with fans than the players though.

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - I do trust your words about honouring Sir Fred are to do with his thread that never caught on. When I first read your post, I feared our legendary poster had passed away.

Anyway, just had a quick peek at the score. Australia seem in a good position having New Zealand 173/7, three wickets for Starc and a couple for my man Lyon. However, what really caught my eye was that it was the Dinner Time score!!

Guildford - I have every confidence that Sir Fred is still dinking his drop shots as well as ever....   I'm with you on Lyon. I think he's getting more recognition now, but for a long time the attitude seemed to be "Oh good, Lyon's coming on to bowl."  He keeps on picking up the wickets....

LondonTiger wrote:Yup they had a 20 minute tea break at the end of session 1, then a 40 minute dinner break after session 2. Probably more about maximising food stall revenues with fans than the players though.

I'm wondering whether the light may also play a factor - a 40 minutes break at twilight to allow a bit more time to cover the transition between day and night.

Though it was very much dusk when they restarted.

Conditions overall seemed to favour the bowlers, butr we shall see.

A fine pitch and good bowling conditions, and the good utilization of the same by the 2 lineups meant the first day of the first day/night test was a success. After the borfests, we've had a 12 wicket day and there was everything, seam, swing in the evening and some help for Lyon's offspin. The batsmen had to earn their money this time around. Hope for more of the same for the rest of the game.
And the evening change of conditions, I liked it, adds a new dimension to the testing aspect of Test cricket. And there were a lot of people watching the game....... They do come and watch their tests in Australia, even then, this was impressive in the final session.......

47000 for a day's Test cricket is pretty good, but Adelaide got 30 000 through the turnstiles last summer on one of the days in the Test vs India, so its a cricketing city

I quite enjoyed the historic first day-night Test too.

I already feel used to the shift in sessions and it works very well here. The 2:30 pm start here is not so different to a Perth (day) match for us easterners. There was a real buzz about the place leading up to the night session. I'm already very impressed with the pink ball too.
It's so easy to see.

Whilst it is being talked up as a great success after the first day, it will be interesting to see how things turn out on those days when there are late afternoon storms, iffy natural light augmented by floodlights, a wet outfield and therefore more juice in the wicket after a relatively hot daytime first session.

I can imagine there will be instances where; after that extra piece of pudding at dinner, a less fit batsman's body clock might already be thinking it's time for getting ready for sleep... and the reaction times might accordingly drop off slightly.

This Test seems very unlikely to go the full distance of 5 days (I would even be twitchy now if I had tickets for day 4) but it's pretty well poised and proving to be an attractive advertising opener for day / nighters.

Into the latter part of day 2 - NZ currently 50/2 and leading by 28 following their first innings score of 202 and Australia's of 224.

Day 4 now looking very unlikely

New Zealand 100 - 5 with six overs to go. Match still moving on apace.

Didn't see Australia's innings today but notice that Peter Nevill was their top scorer. I've been looking out for his performances*.

Less demonstrative and noticeable than some of Australia's past glovemen such as Haddin, Gilchrist and further back Marsh. However, a very tidy and reliable keeper. If he can continue to make some decent scores, I reckon he'll be a valuable fixture in Australia's Test side for some years.

*He's engaged to an English girl, originally from just round the corner to me.

a 3 days result likely....NZ should be kicking themselves that they didn't make the absence of Starc count.

Nigal Long, with an incredibly stupid decision, ruined the 2nd day somewhat, and helped start another round of discussions on DRS, otherwise another action packed day of test cricket.

yeah msp that decision sucked....some rationalist brigade will come and tell you ( purely on self assumptions) " But DRS was designed to eliminate howlers"

How incompetent can a 'supposed' expert cricket umpire be? The level of incompetence displayed by Nigel Llong is just way too much to be explained. Nigel Llong is either bent or was just gagging to stick his tongue up Australia's butt hole. It was so blatantly the wrong call for it to be anything else. What a c0ck.

Yes, it was not right at all.
The "no clear evidence" remarks were simply baffling when there was a clear deflection and a hotspot on Lyon's bat.

That was a great test LD, really enjoyed it and Australia just too good (again). Excuse my crassness above :/ Played in good spirit and there was tension knowing wickets could fall. Big success I reckon.

DRS.....screws 'em

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - I do trust your words about honouring Sir Fred are to do with his thread that never caught on. When I first read your post, I feared our legendary poster had passed away.

Anyway, just had a quick peek at the score. Australia seem in a good position having New Zealand 173/7, three wickets for Starc and a couple for my man Lyon. However, what really caught my eye was that it was the Dinner Time score!!

I was bit busy to watch the game but as soon as I opened cricinfo the first thing that amazed me was the dinner time. This change is quite a memory in my mind, and I hope I will remember this test match forever, just for this incident.

I remember Banglore Test match in 2007 when India was taking Pakistan. India needed 3 wickets with an hour of play left and bad light interrupted. I was anxiously Switching on my TV set every 10 minutes to get the status. And till the very last moment my excitement and anger for Sun was tremendous.

Quoting the above I just want to say that this excitement of waiting for Sun to come out or more like bad light will now be an over chapter I suppose by now.

Every change is inevitable but something we will miss as we move forward.

ICC admits, DRS screwed them
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/946077.html

KP_fan wrote:ICC admits, DRS screwed them  
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/946077.html

Why are you so pleased with that? - its a mistake, they do happen whatever system is in place. Hopefully the learnings have been taken and it won't happen again

KP_fan wrote:ICC admits, DRS screwed them  

"The ICC has admitted that third umpire Nigel Llong made "an incorrect judgement""

Um....

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:ICC admits, DRS screwed them  

"The ICC has admitted that third umpire Nigel Llong made "an incorrect judgement""

Um....

Duty - yes but he did ''follow the correct protocol''!!!

Some people just don't know when to keep quiet.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:ICC admits, DRS screwed them  

"The ICC has admitted that third umpire Nigel Llong made "an incorrect judgement""

Um....

Duty - yes but he did ''follow the correct protocol''!!!

Some people just don't know when to keep quiet.

Yes, he did Guildford but the process was agonisingly slow and embarrassing. It lasted nearly 5 minutes! Then he got it wrong.

The DRS system is pretty good and is getting better each year. It's just that interpretation differs between umpires when presented with empirical evidence. In this case, it was quite clear (even Blind Freddy would have seen the hotspot mark) but Llong somehow 'saw' otherwise. That's the baffling and frustrating bit which fuels the fire of those opposed to DRS.

Good to see Coulter-Nile in for the ginger-footed Starc for the 1st one against the West Indies in Hobart. That was both painful and comical to watch him hobbling between the stumps with Siddle. Some nice clean hitting in the previous innings. His footwork was a bit unorthodox though. Ouch!

VTR wrote:

KP_fan wrote:ICC admits, DRS screwed them  
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/946077.html

Why are you so pleased with that? - its a mistake, they do happen whatever system is in place. Hopefully the learnings have been taken and it won't happen again

Pleased?
Not really
Its more a "I told you" moment.....if you don't fix it, it can fatally turn around the course of matches like it did here...and ICC had to come out an issue an apology.....

and it's also I knew it moment.....bluffing, bu.ll.shi.tt.ing and word-smitthing the situation... will start from those quarters who unduly feel pressured to respond in defense.....

"Ohh...but it's not a technology problem!" .....yeah rocket-technology malfunction or  technology too complicated for the pilot or pilot incompetent to use the technology.....all means the same for the passenger...fatal air crash.....same here...DRS crash with fatal consequences  

"Ohh all the protocols were followed"......like the old joke surgeon comes out of OT and says..." sir the operation was successful but the patient died"  

Fair enough, and I agree with what you are saying. They really need to look at making sure interpretation is consistent, and that decisions are reached far more quickly