Jump to content

The Cricket Thread


bewlay

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


It wasn't a dead ball though.

20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.


Carey threw the ball at the stumps almost as soon as he had it in his hands, so he certainly didn't seem to have ceased to regard it as in play.

Yeah I don't really blame him for instinctively going for the stumps. Once it was clear the batsman thought it was a dead ball, though, they should have withdrawn the appeal. If they'd been playing Bangladesh with a 500 lead, they would have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crawford Bridge said:

Batsmen at every level take liberties IMO. 

See also, backing up at the non-striker's end. 

They absolutely do.  But it’s also widely accepted by fielding sides.  

On a more positive note: it’s almost impossible not to like the way Ben Stokes plays cricket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

They absolutely do.  But it’s also widely accepted by fielding sides.  

On a more positive note: it’s almost impossible not to like the way Ben Stokes plays cricket. 

I admit, as a keeper I am biased. 

I see it as my job to keep batsmen honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clearly out by the letter of the law, haven't been watching but not sure if Bairstow had been walking down the pitch regularly which is why Carey done it.

At least with a Mankad you can say that's a defence to the non-striker trying to steal yards, Bairstow wasn't attempting a run.

Still think this is too far beyond England, Stokes will have to hit 200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real cricket, Sri Lanka have done us a massive favour by tonking Zimbabwe which now means qualification is back in our own hands. Tuesday's match vs Zimbabwe is loser doesn't qualify. As we now have a better NRR than Zimbabwe any margin of victory will take us above them.

However any margin of Zimbabwe win and we're out.

If we win vs Zimbabwe and beat Netherlands on Thursday we definitely qualify.

If we win vs Zimbabwe and lose to Netherlands, and Netherlands beat Oman tomorrow (which I'd assume they will) then it'll come down to NRR between us and Netherlands.

If Netherlands lose to Oman and we beat Zimbabwe we're through.

I've ignored washout and no result scenarios in this as it hasn't affected the tournament so far.

Edited by Fuctifano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sri Lanka twatted Zimbabwe, which is good news for us. Beat Zimbabwe and Netherlands and we qualify. Thanks to Zimbabwe's net run rate taking a beat there is also the outside chance we could lose to the Dutch and still go through, too.

Edit: Fuctifano beat me to it 🙂

Edited by Bully Wee Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Yeah I don't really blame him for instinctively going for the stumps. Once it was clear the batsman thought it was a dead ball, though, they should have withdrawn the appeal. If they'd been playing Bangladesh with a 500 lead, they would have done.

Should the spirit of sportsmanship have led to Duckett insisting he should be out last night because Starc thought the catch was complete, regardless of the third umpire's decision?

We're either playing to the letter of law or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunning1874 said:

Should the spirit of sportsmanship have led to Duckett insisting he should be out last night because Starc thought the catch was complete, regardless of the third umpire's decision?

We're either playing to the letter of law or not.

Trouble is, the Starc “catch” was a matter of fact - the ball hit the ground -whereas the “run out” was a question of understanding.   Can’t really compare.  If you want to do away with the notion of the spirit of cricket, and there’s a good case for doing so, you can, but it would really change the sport.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Catches are completely different from these Mankad-type dismissals.

This isn’t even a Mankad.   Bairstow wasn’t trying to score a run or advance the game in any way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

If you've warned them, fair enough. No warning means that was outside the spirit of the game.

Here’s your warning, you’re playing at the top level of the game, don’t be a stupid c**t.   That’s assumed as soon as you take to the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Here’s your warning, you’re playing at the top level of the game, don’t be a stupid c**t.   That’s assumed as soon as you take to the field.

On that basis you could just Mankad people every ball an no innings would last ten overs.

They gave no warning, they shouldn't have maintained their appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

On that basis you could just Mankad people every ball an no innings would last ten overs.

They gave no warning, they shouldn't have maintained their appeal.

Well no, given after the non-striker goes the rest should switch on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...