Cricket Thread

I dont get all this moaning about the Aussies.
I watch football and see footballers faking injuries, diving, time wasting, trying to get opponents sent off etc. No big fuss from the press/media about that.

From what I saw the batsman was a knobhead for just walking out of his cross.
 
give it to gordon said:
I dont get all this moaning about the Aussies.
I watch football and see footballers faking injuries, diving, time wasting, trying to get opponents sent off etc. No big fuss from the press/media about that.

From what I saw the batsman was a knobhead for just walking out of his cross.
Click to expand...
I would like to think Bairstow would have done the same if the roles were reversed.
 
bennyboy said:
I would like to think Bairstow would have done the same if the roles were reversed.
Click to expand...
It’s like if someone is persistently backing up at the non strikers end . You should warn them and you are quite within your rights to run them out . From what I’ve seen Bairstow persistently does it although not seeking to gain an advantage, it seems a bit of a habitual thing and done without thinking
 
jimharri said:
I said that after the first test, and was called out for it by a poster on here. I suggested that it was going to be difficult to win the series after going behind as my impression was/is that Australia don't lose many series after going behind. I got 2005 thrown back at me, ignoring the fact that I never said that they never lose series after going behind. Hey ho.
Click to expand...

Every test match is big in the Ashes, But in the first test you must not lose and the Aussies knew how big a win that was, England playing Bazball cricket facing the best team at test cricket is crazy with the odds against winning or getting something out of the test, Yes it's great to watch when winning, but not when your losing,

The Ashes are bigger than that in my book, You have to respect what it means to the fans of England, You are gambling on getting a score on the board so you can get you in the game and put the pressure on them,

Also, the ageing England bowling attack is showing why a score on the board is needed first, 450 is the magic number in test cricket, That's why we lost the first test, Them 50-odd runs were the difference and sort of sent out a bad message that we don't respect your batters,

Wood and Woakes have to start in the next test, even the spinner Rehan Ahmed must play, Even If that means Anderson and Robinson or Broad missing out then so be it, Stopping the Whitewash is the aim now
 
give it to gordon said:
I dont get all this moaning about the Aussies.
I watch football and see footballers faking injuries, diving, time wasting, trying to get opponents sent off etc. No big fuss from the press/media about that.

From what I saw the batsman was a knobhead for just walking out of his cross.
Click to expand...

Not sure football is the best example when it comes to sportsmanship to be fair!
 
ancoats said:
Wood and Woakes have to start in the next test, even the spinner Rehan Ahmed must play, Even If that means Anderson and Robinson or Broad missing out then so be it, Stopping the Whitewash is the aim now
Click to expand...
He’s been dropped from the squad, Ali and Potts are back in, and there is no place for Foakes.
 
Nellies left peg said:
It’s like if someone is persistently backing up at the non strikers end . You should warn them and you are quite within your rights to run them out . From what I’ve seen Bairstow persistently does it although not seeking to gain an advantage, it seems a bit of a habitual thing and done without thinking
Click to expand...
This is no longer the case.
Earlier this year the rules were clarified to make the mankat a perfectly acceptable dismissal with no warning needed.


Rule 38.3.1
At any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out if he/she is out of his/her ground. In these circumstances the non-striker will be out run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
This is no longer the case.
Earlier this year the rules were clarified to make the mankat a perfectly acceptable dismissal with no warning needed.


Rule 38.3.1
At any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out if he/she is out of his/her ground. In these circumstances the non-striker will be out run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
Click to expand...
I thought it was always allowed but very ungentlemanly as someone tried it in a school match when I was a kid and it caused a mass scrap
 
denislawsbackheel said:
This is no longer the case.
Earlier this year the rules were clarified to make the mankat a perfectly acceptable dismissal with no warning needed.


Rule 38.3.1
At any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out if he/she is out of his/her ground. In these circumstances the non-striker will be out run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
Click to expand...
All of your post is true but what about the spirit of the game.
 
Nellies left peg said:
I thought it was always allowed but very ungentlemanly as someone tried it in a school match when I was a kid and it caused a mass scrap
Click to expand...
It was always “allowed” but considered “ungentlemanly”. Because of it happening more often, especially in one day cricket, they decided to include it in the rules in 2019 and clarified it this year.
 
Remember Collingwood being done in very similar circumstances during a ODI against New Zealand. The Umpire took Vettori aside, spoke to him, and he withdrew the appeal; some guy called McCullum was the wicketkeeper doing the ‘stumping’. Vettori is in the Australian dressing room, I think, but I guess he’s not advising on sporting etiquette.
 
eastmanc said:
Good point but a mancat isn't a great look, much worse than none walkers. Years ago lots of players walked if they nicked one. Now it seems nobody does.
Click to expand...
It was started by the Aussies, they wouldn’t walk if they middled it. But to be fair that’s what the umpires and the snickometer are for.
 
give it to gordon said:
I dont get all this moaning about the Aussies.
I watch football and see footballers faking injuries, diving, time wasting, trying to get opponents sent off etc. No big fuss from the press/media about that.

From what I saw the batsman was a knobhead for just walking out of his cross.
Click to expand...
I think the issue here is that cricket still has a level of sportsmanship that football lacks, hence the furore.

For me, while it was a bit lazy from Bairstow what they haven’t factored in is the umpire seemed to be in the process of handing the bowler his cap back when that incident happened so IMO that was enough to signal the end of the over.

IIRC there was a similar incident at an England v India test match back around 2010 or 2011. On that occasion, I think Ian Bell was either stumped or run out (when backing up) on the stroke of lunch. During the lunch break, there was a discussion between the two teams and the appeal was withdrawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top