Cricket Thread

That means SA are in the final, Australia will join them if they win 2 of the remaining 4 providing 1 is v India, as it would give them 58.87 to a maximum of 55.26.

However if India win both Aussies games remaining they will be on 60.52 making Au v SL irrelevant for the CWC.

A draw and win in the last 2 for India v Au means Au need a Win and Draw v SL to get to the final. Providing there are no more points deductions.
 
It was a nailed on draw until Pant went into T20 mode. Pant made his name 4 years ago in the same series when India were behind and a virtual 2nd string were brought in to beat Aus.

If India win the final test Aus still just need to win 1/2 v Sri Lanka or Draw both to reach the final. A draw in the final Aus India means Australia qualify by 1.75 %p.

One thing that stands out is SA top the group on 66.67% compared to England on 43.18%, however England played 22 games compared to SA half that on 11. Without slow over rate deductions in the final tests v Aus and NZ then England would have 51.5%.

It seems that playing all the extra tests for money isn't the best way to win the Test Championship. Aus will play 19, India 19, NZ 14. All 3 have been in the last 2 finals. There will be 21 games for England next TC to qualify, Aus 22 but the others far less. SA will have 14 next time 8 at home and 6 away, which is a big advantage,
 
BungleBear said:
It was a nailed on draw until Pant went into T20 mode. Pant made his name 4 years ago in the same series when India were behind and a virtual 2nd string were brought in to beat Aus.

If India win the final test Aus still just need to win 1/2 v Sri Lanka or Draw both to reach the final. A draw in the final Aus India means Australia qualify by 1.75 %p.

One thing that stands out is SA top the group on 66.67% compared to England on 43.18%, however England played 22 games compared to SA half that on 11. Without slow over rate deductions in the final tests v Aus and NZ then England would have 51.5%.

It seems that playing all the extra tests for money isn't the best way to win the Test Championship. Aus will play 19, India 19, NZ 14. All 3 have been in the last 2 finals. There will be 21 games for England next TC to qualify, Aus 22 but the others far less. SA will have 14 next time 8 at home and 6 away, which is a big advantage,
Click to expand...
Maybe adjustments to the results should be made to make it more equal. Don’t suppose that will happen, though.
 
Just watching the BBL game between Brisbane Heat and Melbourne Stars. Glenn Maxwell took a stunning catch; one of those where the initial catch is taken behind the rope, and then tossed back into the field of play, to be completed. The initial catch would have been very good on it's own; taken one handed, at full stretch while running. But to have your wits about you to get rid of the ball while he's still in the air (half a second, maybe?), and then complete the catch was staggering. I know those catches are more commonplace than they would have been 20 years ago, but they're still a rarity. One of the best of that type of catch I've seen.

 
BungleBear said:
It was a nailed on draw until Pant went into T20 mode. Pant made his name 4 years ago in the same series when India were behind and a virtual 2nd string were brought in to beat Aus.

If India win the final test Aus still just need to win 1/2 v Sri Lanka or Draw both to reach the final. A draw in the final Aus India means Australia qualify by 1.75 %p.

One thing that stands out is SA top the group on 66.67% compared to England on 43.18%, however England played 22 games compared to SA half that on 11. Without slow over rate deductions in the final tests v Aus and NZ then England would have 51.5%.

It seems that playing all the extra tests for money isn't the best way to win the Test Championship. Aus will play 19, India 19, NZ 14. All 3 have been in the last 2 finals. There will be 21 games for England next TC to qualify, Aus 22 but the others far less. SA will have 14 next time 8 at home and 6 away, which is a big advantage,
Click to expand...
There’s a lot (rightly so) exuberance from the Aussie performance but there is an equally valid point that India threw away the draw
 
jimharri said:
Just watching the BBL game between Brisbane Heat and Melbourne Stars. Glenn Maxwell took a stunning catch; one of those where the initial catch is taken behind the rope, and then tossed back into the field of play, to be completed. The initial catch would have been very good on it's own; taken one handed, at full stretch while running. But to have your wits about you to get rid of the ball while he's still in the air (half a second, maybe?), and then complete the catch was staggering. I know those catches are more commonplace than they would have been 20 years ago, but they're still a rarity. One of the best of that type of catch I've seen.

Click to expand...

Should that really be not out?
 
KS55 said:
Should that really be not out?
Click to expand...
No. He was never in contact with the ground beyond the boundary rope while he had the ball in his hand. No difference (as far as the laws of the game are concerned) to a fielder juggling the ball before eventually hanging on. It was a brilliant piece of fielding by Maxwell.
 
jimharri said:
No. He was never in contact with the ground beyond the boundary rope while he had the ball in his hand. No difference (as far as the laws of the game are concerned) to a fielder juggling the ball before eventually hanging on. It was a brilliant piece of fielding by Maxwell.
Click to expand...
I know that is the rule currently but it seems odd to me that you can just bat the ball back over the rope to claim a catch. It is quite different, I think, from cases where the fielder catches the ball in bounds and gets rid as he overruns the rope and then recovers.
 
KS55 said:
I know that is the rule currently but it seems odd to me that you can just bat the ball back over the rope to claim a catch. It is quite different, I think, from cases where the fielder catches the ball in bounds and gets rid as he overruns the rope and then recovers.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see you try it. And that's not having a go at you personally, by the way. It's all I can do to catch a cold these days. I'd like to see any of us try it. Remember, you can’t be in contact with the ground while your hand is in contact with the ball. That ball will have travelled over 70 yds, and may have dropped from 30 ft up in the air. And he was running at full pelt. To have the composure to actually know what he had to do, never mind actually doing it, is remarkable*.


*In my opinion. Other opinions are available!
 
jimharri said:
I'd like to see you try it. And that's not having a go at you personally, by the way. It's all I can do to catch a cold these days. I'd like to see any of us try it. Remember, you can’t be in contact with the ground while your hand is in contact with the ball. That ball will have travelled over 70 yds, and may have dropped from 30 ft up in the air. And he was running at full pelt. To have the composure to actually know what he had to do, never mind actually doing it, is remarkable*.


*In my opinion. Other opinions are available!
Click to expand...
Yeah, a brilliant feat, but should it be out? I have a vague memory of some umpires saying not out to a similar incident.
In my day, I was a slip, saved all that running nonsense. I even caught a few.
 
KS55 said:
Yeah, a brilliant feat, but should it be out? I have a vague memory of some umpires saying not out to a similar incident.
In my day, I was a slip, saved all that running nonsense. I even caught a few.
Click to expand...
You said yourself a few posts back; by the rules, it's out. Which I don't have an issue with. I'd be amazed if an umpire gave that particular incident as not out. I don't know the incident you're referring to but, if I had to guess, I think there must have been a doubt about the fielder not touching the ground beyond the boundary rope.
 
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