The Cricket Thread

[midoshairband]

OK, the depth in our one day batting is utterly insane.

Jacks, Duckett and Brook all looking very good. Hales back in. Moeen firing.

all this before you add Stokes, Buttler and Bairstow.

 

[midoshairband]

fair to say that Harry Brook is some player.

 

[PCozzie]

fair to say that Harry Brook is some player.

Looking forward to seeing him in the longer form very soon. That lofted drive was ?‍??

 

[midoshairband]

Looking forward to seeing him in the longer form very soon. That lofted drive was ?‍??

also looks like he has just the right amount of arrogance. seriously impressive. as was Duckett.

on the bowling front, great to see Wood and Topley back and firing. Wood 97mph ?

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Controversial end to the 3rd ODI at Lords. Not a fan of that Mankad business.

 

[Yid-ol]

Controversial end to the 3rd ODI at Lords. Not a fan of that Mankad business.

Not a fan of it also, but also they should stay behind the line until it's bowled also, stupid way to get out.

 

[Spurslove]

Not a fan of it also, but also they should stay behind the line until it's bowled also, stupid way to get out.

I agree, but let's face it, we got outclassed again, so no complaints about the end result, just the way it was achieved was a bit naff.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

Controversial end to the 3rd ODI at Lords. Not a fan of that Mankad business.

Shows where we are as a civilisation these days. It is just not cricket

 

[southlondonyiddo]

Not a fan of it also, but also they should stay behind the line until it's bowled also, stupid way to get out.

They do stay behind the line but then some **** fakes bowling the ball

Absolute nonsense. If you can’t get the fuckers out in the other 10 ways, don’t bother!

 

[Yid-ol]

They do stay behind the line but then some **** fakes bowling the ball

Absolute nonsense. If you can’t get the fuckers out in the other 10 ways, don’t bother!

I agree it's shit, but even as she was bringing her arm over she was heading out.

And even after she stopped she kept going down the wicket and didn't even notice the ball wasn't there!

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

In almost 50 years of ODI cricket it's only ever happened four times previously. So while it's in the rules, it's widely accepted as not the done thing.

In this instance, she clearly wasn't seeking to take advantage or to put it another way, to take the piss. This was purely down to their not taking the final wicket using 'legitimate' means so we'll Mankad her instead. And that leaves almost as much of a bad taste. If that's how some teams want to win games of cricket then that's up to them but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

Yes, it's within the rules but nobody is disputing that. Thankfully, it doesn't happen that often, it's rank poor sportsmanship, it sits alongside Paul Collingwood in an ODI against New Zealand in 2008 and the Alvin Kallicharan incident in a test match in 1974. These are little 'glitches' in the game, thankfully, most of the time, common sense prevails.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yea that’s not cricket. Even at my lads u13’s level they’ll fake a run out and warn the oppo batsmen, it’s all mind games.
To have the ‘culprit’ being hoisted up on shoulders really leaves a sick taste in one’s mouth.

 

[Spurslove]

It's true, the manner in which the match and the series whitewash was finally settled stank to high heaven, but I'm afraid all this controversy hides the truth, that we were completely outplayed and that's an inescapable fact. Of course, there were mitigating circumstances behind the manner of the defeat. We were missing Brunt, Sciver and Knight and of course, with the recent retirement of Anya Shrubsole, our squad was more than a little depleted, and we had some young players standing in. Freya Kemp is only 17 years old, Alice Capsey is barely 18 and was making her ODI debut, Issey Wong is still a teenager...so it was a bit of a baptism of fire to those players, who I've no doubt will be fine players in the years to come, but they got found out by an excellent Indian side wo are well experienced at this level.

Everything in context.

 

[Finchyid]

View attachment 117252

I agree it's shit, but even as she was bringing her arm over she was heading out.

And even after she stopped she kept going down the wicket and didn't even notice the ball wasn't there!

go back a frame she is in her ground. The Indian bowler stopped on purpose. It’s a disgrace and just not part of the game, it’s only in the rules because it caused controversy in the past.

 

[Yid-ol]

go back a frame she is in her ground. The Indian bowler stopped on purpose. It’s a disgrace and just not part of the game, it’s only in the rules because it caused controversy in the past.

That's as she started to bowl, as her arm is coming up she is already out of the crease.

There is nothing in the rules to say it can't be done, it's more an unwritten one to say most people won't do this. Simple way to fix it, keep something grounded inside the crease until you see the ball left the bowlers hand! Don't give them that chance to do it.

Standing right Infront of where the bowler is looking and walking out of the crease this was before the arm was about to come up to bowl.

I agree and said in each post I don't like it or agree with it but then we also can't have players half way down the pitch to try and steal a single also.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

I agree and said in each post I don't like it or agree with it but then we also can't have players half way down the pitch to try and steal a single also.

Not sure what you're arguing here? We all agree you can't have players halfway down the pitch but this wasn't anything like that, in any way at all.

All of that 'batsman was here, bowler was there' stuff is irrelevant. We all know the rule and we all know that there can be cases where it's obvious the batsman has advanced way too far. This wasn't one of them.

And when that does actually happen, the widely accepted 'spirit of cricket' thing is, in the first instance, for a bowler to stop make a motion with the ball toward the stumps as a warning when a player is trying to steal a run. The Captain also has the option of withdrawing the appeal.

What happened here wasn't representative of that. So while what you're saying is correct, you're taking it to extremes to prove an argument that nobody is making as far as I can tell.

The whole thing is controversial, so much so that they have just moved the rule to legitimise or remove the 'bad sportsmanship' stigma that follows such an action (effective 1st October)

MCC's new code of Laws for 2022 come into force | Lord's

MCC has today announced its new code of Laws for 2022, which will come into force from 1 October.

www.lords.org

Law 41.16 – running out the non-striker – has been moved from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out). The wording of the Law remains the same.

 

[rightwayup]

India will come to rue this decision. Charlie Deans position as the bowler starts their delivery stride is hardly outrageous. Deepti Sharma had no intention of bowling the ball, she was looking at the non-striking batter. It won’t even sunk in for Deepti Sharms that she might have just affected her chances of getting a lucrative Hundred contract next year. On the positive side the England team is very inexperienced and were close to dragging a dead match back to a victory. The strength at regional level is unbelievable. The younger girls pushing into the senior sides are getting better and better. In 5 years Australia will not be the only rans at international level.

 

[Nav420]

This was something I read online and can see both sides of the argument-

”Imagine a World Cup final. 1 to level scores. Non-striker charges down for a single and is in by a quarter of an inch. Suppose it turns out that she had the left the crease before the ball was bowled. Would that be fair? Would running less to win be in the spirit of the game?

I think the law should be simplified to: non-striker stays within the crease till the ball leaves the bowler's hand.”

 

[PCozzie]

This was something I read online and can see both sides of the argument-

”Imagine a World Cup final. 1 to level scores. Non-striker charges down for a single and is in by a quarter of an inch. Suppose it turns out that she had the left the crease before the ball was bowled. Would that be fair? Would running less to win be in the spirit of the game?

I think the law should be simplified to: non-striker stays within the crease till the ball leaves the bowler's hand.”

To take it to the logical conclusion, in that scenario the non-striker could just go and stand up with the batsman so their run is already completed before the ball is bowled, and it's only for the batsman to get to the other end to win. If mankading is to be subject to such criticism that it is effectively outlawed why should the non-striker even bother to remain near the bowling crease until the ball is bowled?

I know almost all of us turn a blind eye to the batter stealing a yard or two when bowling, but for the most part it's fairly inconsequential. It becomes important when in the closing stages of a run chase, and the fielding team are expected to simply ignore a batter leaving the crease to gain an advantage.

I don't think there is anything inherantly wrong in taking a wicket like that. I think the approbrium comes from the lack of warning; though at that level, surely the warning is implied from the off? It's like saying the bowler can't get an LBW until they've given warning to the batter that they're aiming at their pads.

 

[midoshairband]

regardless of the method if dismissal, there's no excuse for crying.

only kidding.

don't care for it at all, I certainly would never want to take a wicket like that. the fact that there's only been 10 or so instances of it across all mens international cricket speaks volumes for how it's viewed by most fair minded players.