Cricket Thread

[Dr Jacoby]

Watch them gain a lead now.

 

[waspish]

Sadly that has already cost us in this series! It was a huge call to play Bairstow as a wicket keeper. His form before the injury was exceptional so I get why he had to come in. But Stokes should have weighed up how well he'd keep wicket considering it was a double leg break. It was between Pope, Bairstow, Brook and Foakes and he decided Foakes was the weakest with the bat so dropped him. That's fine, but because of his injuries Bairstow cost us far too many runs and ignoring his 99 not out, because it was irrelevant in the end, he's averages about 20 which Foakes would have contributed whilst taking those chances.

This Aussie side were there for the taking, especially with that Lyon injury, but sadly that decision cost us.

There's a few decisions this series that have me scratching my head?! One of the biggest ones was bringing Ali back that contributed to our first test loss and Bairstow after being out for so long and reading about it saying they thought he could even not play cricket again it was that bad of a break!

 

[heslops barnet]

Correct decision though

That one was but they’ve favoured the convicts this series….

 

[homerdog]

So what's the rule then; that if the keeper hits the wicket, it can't be a run out even if the batsman still hasn't made his ground when he does have the ball in his gloves? Does the ball actually have to hit the stumps, because if that's the case, they should disallow just about every run out!?

 

[heslops barnet]

So what's the rule then; that if the keeper hits the wicket, it can't be a run out even if the batsman still hasn't made his ground when he does have the ball in his gloves? Does the ball actually have to hit the stumps, because if that's the case, they should disallow just about every run out!?

Remove stumps I think?

 

[homerdog]

Remove stumps I think?

Or other bail off? Or had both already been dislodged?

 

[BringBackSwales]

Sadly that has already cost us in this series! It was a huge call to play Bairstow as a wicket keeper. His form before the injury was exceptional so I get why he had to come in. But Stokes should have weighed up how well he'd keep wicket considering it was a double leg break. It was between Pope, Bairstow, Brook and Foakes and he decided Foakes was the weakest with the bat so dropped him. That's fine, but because of his injuries Bairstow cost us far too many runs and ignoring his 99 not out, because it was irrelevant in the end, he's averages about 20 which Foakes would have contributed whilst taking those chances.

This Aussie side were there for the taking, especially with that Lyon injury, but sadly that decision cost us.

His batting form was exceptional, his wicket keeping hadn’t and never had been

 

[BringBackSwales]

Remove stumps I think?

I thought it was remove both bails?

 

[jimharri]

So what's the rule then; that if the keeper hits the wicket, it can't be a run out even if the batsman still hasn't made his ground when he does have the ball in his gloves? Does the ball actually have to hit the stumps, because if that's the case, they should disallow just about every run out!?

My understanding is that the ball has to be in his hand when he removes the bails. I don't think it has to be the ball that actually makes contact with the bails (the keeper's glove is okay?), but the ball has to be in that hand, not the other hand.

 

[jimharri]

I thought it was remove both bails?

No; I think one bail out of it's groove is fine.