littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And who is Player of the Match?? 
Cricket World Cup 2023
- Thread starter QueenOfGoths
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I've said a lot of nice things on here about Shakib in the past. Most complete allrounder in history, etc.
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This from Kusal Mendis.
My feelings exactly.
My feelings exactly.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Nine overs. That's a sizeable swing. We'll see how it looks in a minute.
ETA:
Bangladesh now just ahead of SL.
England don't just need to beat the Netherlands to get out of the bottom two next game. They need to marmalise them.
Could all come down to who loses by the smallest margins in the last game.
Not quite marmalise.
Quick example.
England bat first.
England 299 in 50 overs. (LOL)
Nederlands 232
Puts England ahead of all those currently on 4 points by NRR
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I'm a bit late to this and whilst I think the time out was wrong, could have been avoided and all the rest, the whole thing was a bit unclear. From watching on TV I wasn't quite sure at what point the two minutes was up. Was it before the replacement helmet got on the field? Also, did Bangladesh initiate the whole thing to claim a wicket or because they were worried about time penalties for themselves? Probably the former, but the umpires could have at least said that the delay wouldn't count against them. Looked like an almighty mess on field, largely with one of the umpires getting involved in an extended discussion with a rightfully pissed off Matthews. Best way out, it seems to me, would have been the umpires stepping away from that, perhaps talking to the 3rd umpire and then simply turning the appeal down - 'yes it was over 2 minutes, but equipment failure isn't the batter's fault'. Pretty bad that the Bangladeshi's didn't withdraw the appeal, if they were asked to do so as it seems, but if the umpires had allowed common sense to prevail it wouldn't have got that far.
Final thought is that if the umpires were actually thinking about the possibility of an appeal for time out, they should have warned Matthews to hurry up and/or bat without helmet. That they didn't do this suggests they weren't thinking about it and panicked when the appeal happened. Not similar in every respect, but there are shades of the Bairstow dismissal in that at least (the umpire sent it to the video review rather than deal with the issue).
Final thought is that if the umpires were actually thinking about the possibility of an appeal for time out, they should have warned Matthews to hurry up and/or bat without helmet. That they didn't do this suggests they weren't thinking about it and panicked when the appeal happened. Not similar in every respect, but there are shades of the Bairstow dismissal in that at least (the umpire sent it to the video review rather than deal with the issue).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Shitshow all round. Reflects very badly on umpires and Shakib. Shakib for being a cunt, and umpires for being weak.
As I posted earlier, I don't think we've heard the last of this. I would bet that the Laws will be reworded as a direct result of this incident.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Several laws need changing. Not just this. For example, the arse of a rule where we have to stop play at 6.30 even if the sun is shining bright and we have allotted overs still to bowl, unless it's the last day of a (Test) match. That's fucking stupid.
I'd even argue the Time Out rule is contradicted by the dead ball rule. We all now know, if we didn't before, what constitutes Timed Out. But how does that square with the dead ball rule which states;
20.4.2.5 - the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball...provided the umpire is satisfied that the striker had adequate reason for not being ready
How is that not covered by equipment failure that happens on the pitch?
I love this game but the laws are arcane. No wonder non-cricket people take the piss out of it.
I'd even argue the Time Out rule is contradicted by the dead ball rule. We all now know, if we didn't before, what constitutes Timed Out. But how does that square with the dead ball rule which states;
20.4.2.5 - the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball...provided the umpire is satisfied that the striker had adequate reason for not being ready
How is that not covered by equipment failure that happens on the pitch?
I love this game but the laws are arcane. No wonder non-cricket people take the piss out of it.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Same umpire as in the Bairstow case, Marais Erasmus. In the Bairstow one he was the 3rd umpire who actually gave him out, though I'm not sure what choices he had at that point. It was the onfield umpire who should have sorted it out, asked the Aussies if they really wanted to proceed. Instead the umpire referred when he had no grounds to refer (iirc, you can only refer to see if the batter is out of his ground - Bairstow clearly was). Anyway, there are different opinions on the Bairstow case, but both dismissals seem to me to be situations where the umpires on field could have allowed common sense to prevail,
Common sense did prevail in the Bairstow case. He was strutting down the pitch for a fist pump before the ball was dead and then had an even bigger tantrum than Mathews did today (whose tanty was more than justified).
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Another thing is that after Matthews was given out there was scope for wiser heads to prevail. Whether it be the Bangladesh team management or the 3rd umpire, they could have suggested that Matthews was allowed to come back in at the fall of the next wicket. Not easy sorting that out or communicating it to and through the umpires, breaking in to the idea that they make a decision and everything follows in the normal order. But it would have been 'honourable' and seen cricket's reputation enhanced. Not some fabled spirit of cricket thing, just fair play.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Well, like I say, there are different opinions. But my point was the way the umpires handled it, passing it on to the 3rd umpire was bottling it. He was obviously out of his ground, so the onfield umpires should have either given it or talked to the Aussies about withdrawing the appeal.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Next up for Bangladesh - Australia.
Bangladesh second wicket falls. Shakib walks out. Exactly the same thing happens to him (helmet strap blah blah). Fearful of looking ridiculous, he quickly passes his broken helmet to the Umpire, calls for a new one but faces one ball not wearing a helmet. Starc bowls a bouncer and kills him, a la Phil Hughes.
Where's your stupid fucking laws then?
Bangladesh second wicket falls. Shakib walks out. Exactly the same thing happens to him (helmet strap blah blah). Fearful of looking ridiculous, he quickly passes his broken helmet to the Umpire, calls for a new one but faces one ball not wearing a helmet. Starc bowls a bouncer and kills him, a la Phil Hughes.
Where's your stupid fucking laws then?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Shakib is doubling down, even suggesting it inspired Bangladesh on.
He'll come to regret it one day. I think that's the single worst piece of sportsmanship I've ever seen on a cricket pitch.
And yes, umpires were worse than pathetic. They should have just made something up - it's equipment failure so whatever Law doesn't apply. Anything. Weak.
He'll come to regret it one day. I think that's the single worst piece of sportsmanship I've ever seen on a cricket pitch.
And yes, umpires were worse than pathetic. They should have just made something up - it's equipment failure so whatever Law doesn't apply. Anything. Weak.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
In that instance, Bairstow was dozy and yes, he'd tried on something similar himself before. While I didn't like it, I didn't think it was 100% out of order. I can't see any mitigation for what Shakib did. Mathews wasn't being dozy or disrespectful. his fucking helmet had broken ffs.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No. The umpires are judges. Their job is to administer the letter of the law. The spirit of the game is down to the skippers. This is totally on Shakib, who was given the opportunity to withdraw the shout by Erasmus.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The umpires did give it. They only reviewed it to see where dopey Bairstow was when the stumps went down. There was no question of it being out after that.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Win their last two games and they're through. Kiwis should be cheering on Aus today really.
surreybrowncap
“Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand"
Yeah - but what about their straps?
surreybrowncap
“Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand"
It seems that even the BBC were not prepared for the mode of dismissal…
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Shakib out of World Cup after fracturing finger
Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan will miss his side's final Cricket World Cup match with a fractured finger.
www.bbc.co.uk
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tms disagrees with you.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Bollocks to them. It clearly hit the ground and what's more, Stoinis would have known that because of the way it felt when it went into his hands.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Uber-methodical from Trott. And it's working. Afghanistan used to be mercurial with the bat. Now they're calculating and measured. Whatever the result here, it's impressive - 291 when bowling is your stronger hand is never a bad effort.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Stuart Broad agrees with me.
