Cricket Thread

[goalmole]

Stuart Broad has no regrets over not walking at Trent Bridge

Seamer looks back on the controversy of 2013, and the sequence of events it kicked off

www.espncricinfo.com

Think he made the point a few of the Aussies nicked the ball and didn’t walk in that series either too.

Cricket is no more the gentleman's game than any other professional sport. Some people seem to want to cling on to this notion for no better reason than to uphold a cliche. With all the very ungentlemanly money, sponsorship, politics, cheating, ball tampering, spot fixing and other various scandals that have been associated with cricket down the years, you'd have thought people would have realised this and moved on by now.
Just play to the rules and laws, everyone knows where they stand, just get on with it and accept defeat or victory graciously instead of getting on a high horse every time things don't go your way.

 

[Nellies left peg]

Not a massive cricket fans but is there a few parallels with how Pep reinvented football in England, with this guy coming along and shaking up cricket orthodoxy.

Not saying it will have the same degree of success, or is even the right course of action but there seems to be a blueprint of how they want the team to play and there going to stick with it.

Playing the risky shots throughout has parallels with playing out from the back in football. When it goes wrong it looks really bad, but if that way of playing has got you in a certain position, why then would you change it in the latter part of matches?

Its not a view I necessarily subscribe to but just second guessing the thought process of the decision-makers.

But surely you must take conditions into consideration and be a bit more circumspect sometimes

 

[Malcontent]

He gave a small clue in his post match interview when he referenced the Starc catch. The interviewer did not pursue it at all. Cummins should have been directly asked if that catch led to some perceived grievance they wanted to level up, but Sky just left it

I think there is some mileage in this. I think it also showed Cummins to be a weak/immature captain, unwilling or unable to make the right call.

 

[M18CTID]

Just because the ball is in the keeper's hands it doesn't mean that it has finally settled. If that was the case, then stumping will not be possible at all.

Three times JB left his crease. Carey watched him every time. The fourth time Carey caught the ball & threw at the stumps in the same action. Out. Had Carey missed the stumps the batsman may have taken overthrow runs.

Also: 20.2 Ball finally settled Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide

Well the fact that the umpire wasn't even looking at that point leads us to think that he considered the over done. And if he didn't then why wasn't he paying attention?

 

[stan bowles]

I hope the Aussies get it big time from the Yorkshire crowd, cheating twats.

20,000 pissed up Yorkshire folk can't be wrong.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Just because the ball is in the keeper's hands it doesn't mean that it has finally settled. If that was the case, then stumping will not be possible at all.

Three times JB left his crease. Carey watched him every time. The fourth time Carey caught the ball & threw at the stumps in the same action. Out. Had Carey missed the stumps the batsman may have taken overthrow runs.

Also: 20.2 Ball finally settled Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide

Why do you think he waited till the last ball of the over ? Maybe because he knew JB would be taking a walk? and I mean one of no return. Cricket is a very over analysed sport, with marginal gains starting at a few blades of grass, I’ve no doubt this was a preconceived idea by the Aussies & was probably relayed via the walkie-talkie they where constantly using, that to me is premeditation and makes it a whole lot worse. The buzzers point is an interesting one, but you can’t compare 1-2 runs and a wicket in an ashes test, far more comparable to the situation (as previously mentioned) is a batter taking a run when the fielding team throw the ball around

 

[supercity88]

Why do you think he waited till the last ball of the over ? Maybe because he knew JB would be taking a walk? and I mean one of no return. Cricket is a very over analysed sport, with marginal gains starting at a few blades of grass, I’ve no doubt this was a preconceived idea by the Aussies & was probably relayed via the walkie-talkie they where constantly using, that to me is premeditation and makes it a whole lot worse. The buzzers point is an interesting one, but you can’t compare 1-2 runs and a wicket in an ashes test, far more comparable to the situation (as previously mentioned) is a batter taking a run when the fielding team throw the ball around

I'm with you completely. They'd discussed it and were looking for the right time to get him with it. It was pre-meditated which makes it wrong in my opinion. They were pissed off with that Starc catch not being given and were waiting for the moment to strike with Bairstow. If he'd have missed they've had laughed about it and pretended it was a joke.

That wicket was crucial to the game. Yes England were poor in the first innings and should have been looking at a lead, not a collapse, but ultimately Bairstow could have added enough to take the pressure off Stokes and got us closer to winning the game. It was a huge wicket and really poor for them to do it.

The spirit of the game line people like to talk about in cricket, exists in all sports and just in day to day life. In football you can score whilst a goalkeeper is down injured or you can do what Di Canio did and catch the ball. It's whether you're a **** or not ultimately. The convicts have set the standard now, and they're about to get hell at Headingley. Hopefully this kicks us into that ruthless mode we've lacked so far. It takes a lot for Lords to have any atmosphere beyond the popping of champagne bottles, so it's going to be wild in the last three tests.

 

[Gabriel]

Lyon to miss the remainder of the Ashes series. Pity. We now have both sides deprived of their main spinner, which is rather ironic as people were predicting how the seam bowlers would not last the distance.

 

[goalmole]

Just because the ball is in the keeper's hands it doesn't mean that it has finally settled. If that was the case, then stumping will not be possible at all.

Three times JB left his crease. Carey watched him every time. The fourth time Carey caught the ball & threw at the stumps in the same action. Out. Had Carey missed the stumps the batsman may have taken overthrow runs.

Also: 20.2 Ball finally settled Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide

Rewatch the incident in the clip I've posted and you'll see that Bairstow ducks, the ball passes over his head, Bairstow at no point thereafter looks behind him to see what has happened to the ball. He doesn't even watch it into the keepers hands. For all he knows, the keeper could have missed the take, dropped the take, it could be going for byes, in any of these scenarios the ball would have been alive and Bairstow wouldn't have been any the wiser.
For argument's sake, what if the keeper had dropped the take, Bairstow had walked out of his crease, the keeper had picked up the ball and thrown it at the stumps?
At the very least it was sloppy and gormless cricket from Bairstow.
If anyone wants to look at the link I've posted, it shows that at no time was the ball settled in the keepers hands. He receives the ball and throws it at the wicket in one fluid action.
There was never a pause or hiatus in play.
There was only one person to blame for Bairstow losing his wicket, and that was Bairstow.

 

[DelToro]

Rewatch the incident in the clip I've posted and you'll see that Bairstow ducks, the ball passes over his head, Bairstow at no point thereafter looks behind him to see what has happened to the ball. He doesn't even watch it into the keepers hands. For all he knows, the keeper could have missed the take, dropped the take, it could be going for byes, in any of these scenarios the ball would have been alive and Bairstow wouldn't have been any the wiser.
For argument's sake, what if the keeper had dropped the take, Bairstow had walked out of his crease, the keeper had picked up the ball and thrown it at the stumps?
At the very least it was sloppy and gormless cricket from Bairstow.
If anyone wants to look at the link I've posted, it shows that at no time was the ball settled in the keepers hands. He receives the ball and throws it at the wicket in one fluid action.
There was never a pause or hiatus in play.
There was only one person to blame for Bairstow losing his wicket, and that was Bairstow.

Bairstow would have heard it the keepers gives.