| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
All the positives of yesterday lost in a session
Nasty looking crack on the jaw for Broad. Horribly close to the neck area.
Ona separate note. Anyone else find the BBC commentator Joe Wilson extremely annoying. Seems to be trying to be humorous, but just comes across as a complete tosser. It's a dive for the nite button when he starts narrating the highlights on the news
Yes, but he's marginally better when compared to Mike Bushell on Breakfast.Originally Posted by chrisp_1927
Just seen some of the shots Brook played this morning and I take back my earlier comment about just accepting him for what he is. I was talking about the player who was playing brilliant classical cricket shots last winter, not the one who was hacking at the ball as if it was the last three balls of an innings in the Hundred this morning.
Mike Atherton and Eoin Morgan got it right a few minutes ago on Sky when they said until recently there was a degree of calculation behind the Baz ball approach, but now it looks like the players think all they have to do is swing the bat against a team which for this test had four bowlers with more than two hundred test wickets each and they’ll wilt just like other sides have done.
Australia must be taking lunch thinking this is easy. Bowling short all of the time was no master plan, it was a desperate move by a team which were behind the eight ball after losing their steadiest bowler through injury. Last year England wouldn’t have flung their bat at everything, but this year it’s almost as if they think they’re wimps if they don’t and so England imploded and it’s hard to see a way back into the series for them from here.
👍
Theres a balance though. England were playing positively and scoring runs quickly.
They were well on top of the Australian attack. Australia then decide to bowl short and set a trap and Englands batsmen fell for it and gifted them wickets. The hook is a big risk and there was no need to do it. Leave the short one and milk easy runs. They would soon change the plan. Play the situation.
It was really disappointing. England are close to losing the Ashes already and theyve gifted them.
How many stumpings have been dismissals as well.,
Play positively by all means. But this isnt that dismal Pakistan attack its the Worlds no.1 attack and taking on their short balls has been a ridiculous decision.
A couple of very basic questions:
1. Why does it matter if the ball pitches outside the line? If the ball is going to hit the wickets, it is going to hit the wickets.
2. Why have "umpires call"? If the ball is going to hit the wickets, it is going to hit the wickets.
I think the umpires call was instituted to reflect that the technology itself is going to have a margin of error. Although I do wonder if they could tighten up the margins a little bit. Maybe 1/3 of a stump instead of half kinda thing
I wondered this too.
The LBW law has always been a bit flowery and the ball pitching outside off stump used to be not out but in recent years it hasn't seemed to matter.
One just now looked an identical situation and had it been reviewed it would have been given out.
This is becoming as farcical as VAR is in football.
Pitching outside the line only comes into play if the batter isn't playing a shot. It's hitting the pad outside the line I don't understand. Why is it relevant?
Are you asking that question of the message board or the cricket board?
1 its the LBW law. Has to pitch in line as well. However outside off stump if a batsman offers no shot you can still be given out LBW.
Yes but why is it the law. If it's hitting the wickets........
Im not 100% but I think its to discourage negative bowling outside the line of the stumps. Thats definitely the case with outside leg stump as you cant be out even if not playing a shot.
The bowler knows to get and go for LBW they have to pitch it in line as well.
For 2 I think it is because there is sufficient doubt in the accuracy of the predicted trajectory. The prediction needs to show more that 50% of the ball hitting the stumps.
It also allows a team to keep a review if an appeal to a not-out shows less than half the ball hitting the stumps.
A ball can pitch outside off stump and be given out.it’s the point of impact with the pad or body which is important. If the point of impact is outside off stump, then it’s not out, unless the batsman isn’t playing a shot, whereas if in the umpires mind it’s hitting the stump then it should be given out. If the ball pitches outside off stump but the point of impact is in front of the stumps then the umpire has a decision to make.
If the ball pitches outside leg stump the point of impact doesn’t matter. Pitching outside leg stump should always be not out.
I may be out of my depth here but, what about the spin bowlers who, if they can really spin the ball, would presumably invariably pitch it outside the line and then using warneian witchcraft, spin it back in. Warnes famous dismissal of Gatting springs to mind. What if that had hit the pad? Are am I talking nonsense?
Gatting would have been not out. That ball pitched outside leg.
Then the rule is farcical. Best ball of the century and not out.
Should be called the anti bowler with any skill rule, seamer or spinner.
Last edited by John Buchanan; 30-06-23 at 18:29. Reason: Addition
Yes I didnt explain right. Outside off its impact in line.
But it hit the wicket so how was it out of line. If it's going to hit the wicket, it's going to hit the wicket.
Just because a pad gets in the way.....
Last edited by John Buchanan; 30-06-23 at 18:39. Reason: Addition
No its not farcial. Warne knew he couldnt get LBW and that makes the delivery all the better.
It wouldnt have been the same sensational delivery if it had hit his pads.
That ball spun so much Gatting didnt get anywhere near it.
Warnes delivery pitched outside leg. LBW cant be given.
I agree it wouldn't have been as sensational but it still would have hit the wicket and therefore to my simplistic mind, should still be out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote