Cricket Thread

[waspish]

Right decision but what happens when you dont have a wicket keeper who keeps all the time!

Lets hope that dont cost us

 

[chris63]

Bairstow. Just not good enough.

 

[Chipmeister]

Another Bairstow error, been so costly this series

 

[i kne albert davy]

That will be a moment people often come back to, but for me it wasn't why we lost the test. Poor fielding cost us.

Yep you’re probably right, but first rule of cricket make sure you can’t lose before winning :-)

 

[ancoats]

Don't try and kid us mate - you'd be slagging England off for this approach if we were in the same position as Australia are at the moment with the Ashes retained and us 2-1 up in the series!

if we were in control and just sitting in and just defending then yes I probably would moan because I think it's the wrong thing to do on the 2nd morning of the tests, The Aussies were going nowhere after bowling England out for a low-ish score and only 1 down with over 60 runs on the board,

 

[jimharri]

Bairstow is a liability as a keeper. Too many errors.

 

[supercity88]

Right decision but what happens when you dont have a wicket keeper who keeps all the time!

Lets hope that dont cost us

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.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Bit harsh on Bairstow that, watch it in full speed, he has to come around the stumps to take the ball without getting in front of the throw (in case of a direct hit) it was just unfortunate, the throw was quick & very low, I thought it was a good bit of cricket with an element of misfortune….fine margins

 

[chesterbells]

Bairstow. Just not good enough.

Agreed. And how many times does it need saying?

 

[supercity88]

Bit harsh on Bairstow that, watch it in full speed, he has to come around the stumps to take the ball without getting in front of the throw (in case of a direct hit) it was just unfortunate, the throw was quick & very low, I thought it was a good bit of cricket with an element of misfortune….fine margins

Yeah I wouldn't blame him for that, very hard to take the ball in real time without brushing the stumps. It was still out anyway in my opinion.

 

[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.