I don't think that's really necessary at this point. Bowling that fast, all the time, is how you exacerbate injuries
England Cricket 2022
- Thread starter RileyOBlimey
- Start date
I don't think that's really necessary at this point. Bowling that fast, all the time, is how you exacerbate injuries
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They brought him back for a third over. I wouldn't have done that. Two overs of magic, job done. Save yourself for the next match. But when you do come on, bowl as fast as you can. That's your thing.
We just need to enjoy it when it happens cos we know the next injury is around the corner, and he's not getting any younger.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Player of the Match will go to Brook, but it was the bowlers who won that for England, and Mark Wood in particular. He was the difference.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
You are such a Mark Wood fanboy.
He bowled really well.But Brook won that game.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
A total lack of pace was obvious yesterday. Wood’s pace and Topley’s height done the job today.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yeah 81 off 35 is special. And he hit some fantastic controlled shots. It wasn't flukey.You are such a Mark Wood fanboy.
But Brook won that game.
It's hard for bowlers to get player of the match, though. They only get one fifth of the balls tops. Batters can get up to half. It's not a fair fight.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Topley-Wood as the opening bowlers in Aus could be a very good combo. Been impressed by Topley the couple of times I've seen him this year. He's another who's had horrific injury problems.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
India win with a Mankad. The laws have changed so that the bowler can do this after entering their delivery stride, as here. It's a strange rule change for me, means the bowler can effect a Mankad using deception, as was done here.
a_chap
When the world came apart, where were you?
Just watched the replay on BBC iPlayer.
The radio commentary didn't do the shockingly bad mankad justice. Astounded stooped to that level. Especially given that England had formed a guard of honour for Goswami earlier.
Talk about "spirit of the game"
The radio commentary didn't do the shockingly bad mankad justice. Astounded stooped to that level. Especially given that England had formed a guard of honour for Goswami earlier.
Talk about "spirit of the game"
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
I wouldn’t have shook her hand after that.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I've defended the mankad in the past, but that was before they changed the law. This is the bowler being sneaky, not the batter trying to gain an unfair advantage. She braces, then pulls out. It's something only a spinner can do.
That said, the batter has to hold her hand up and admit that she was dozy there. Sharma does have form for doing it. She will have known that.
One way perhaps the laws can be changed would be to impose some penalty on the bowler if they pull out of the delivery and don't effect a run-out. Otherwise I could see this starting to happen a lot. Whatever you think of the mankad, and I'm not totally anti, the laws around it are not ideal.
That said, the batter has to hold her hand up and admit that she was dozy there. Sharma does have form for doing it. She will have known that.
One way perhaps the laws can be changed would be to impose some penalty on the bowler if they pull out of the delivery and don't effect a run-out. Otherwise I could see this starting to happen a lot. Whatever you think of the mankad, and I'm not totally anti, the laws around it are not ideal.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
What is 'normally'?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That rule change doesn’t kick in until October. That’s a bit silly though. If it’s ok in October it should be ok now. Personally I’m totally in favour of Mankadding. If a bowler is skilful enough to perform one on a batter who’s trying to nick a yard, good on the bowler.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Problem I can see there is if the batter isn't out of their ground. What then? I think in this instance - where a bowler has entered delivery stride and is cocked for bowling - if the mankad isn't effected it should be ruled a no-ball and free hit.
Steven Finn missed out here. He could have appealed every time he knocked the bails off accidentally in his delivery stride - something that is a no-ball now because of him. He'd have got a ton of wickets with the rule as it is now. But logically, if the bails being knocked off accidentally is a no-ball, it should be a no-ball if it's done intentionally as well - as long, of course, as the batter isn't out of their ground.
The fact that this is something only a spinner can do is a little unsatisfactory somehow.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
More I think about it, the more I think it's important that there should be a penalty for a failed mankad. Just calling dead ball isn't good enough.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Normally, for me, means 'when the bowler would release the ball if they actually intended to bowl it'. At which point the batter was still in her crease.
If the rule was intended to allow this kind of shit they'd have left out the whole bit about 'normally expected to...' surely? It'd just be, 'if you're out of crease, tough shit for you'.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The bowler was nowhere near the point of release when she ran the batter out. She hadn't even started turning over her bowling (right) arm.
It's here (from 1.00 minute):
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It was the right umpiring decision. Nobody disputes that. It would have been the right umpiring decision even if she had started turning over her bowling arm then aborted. It's just a weird law tbh. As I understand it, the umps need to judge what moment the ball would have been released if the bowler had continued to try to bowl.
Sharma wasn't random - she was keeping a close eye for the batter leaving the crease. In a way it's the equivalent of a batter moving early and the bowler being able to follow them with the ball when they bowl - Dean left the crease a fraction of a second too early and Sharma spotted it (spotted it because she was looking for it).
In a way it's no biggie. Dean was dozy. She won't do it again, you can bet on that. Generally, batters need to be coached a bit differently to ensure they never allow a mankad.
England need to dust themselves off and move on. They were well beaten in the first two games. Not a good series for them. It's shown up how dependent they are on star performers like Sciver.
Sharma wasn't random - she was keeping a close eye for the batter leaving the crease. In a way it's the equivalent of a batter moving early and the bowler being able to follow them with the ball when they bowl - Dean left the crease a fraction of a second too early and Sharma spotted it (spotted it because she was looking for it).
In a way it's no biggie. Dean was dozy. She won't do it again, you can bet on that. Generally, batters need to be coached a bit differently to ensure they never allow a mankad.
England need to dust themselves off and move on. They were well beaten in the first two games. Not a good series for them. It's shown up how dependent they are on star performers like Sciver.
It was stupid on the batter's part. If a bowler suddenly started delivering the ball from a couple of feet over the popping crease they'd be no-balled for nicking that distance. Why should a batter get to gain advantage by strolling halfway down the pitch before the ball's even bowled. The crease is there for a reason.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Nobody strolled halfway down the pitch.
Because she had no intention of turning her arm over. She obviously pre-planned what she was going to do. Dean's eyes were on the bowler (and bat in the crease) to the point where she could reasonably believe that someone playing 'within the spirit of the game' was about to turn her arm over.
It was deception. I would not want any team I played in or supported to win a game like this. FFS, the series was already won. If someone is halfway down the pitch, sure, fuck 'em. That's what a Mankad should be for. Not this.
Because she had no intention of turning her arm over. She obviously pre-planned what she was going to do. Dean's eyes were on the bowler (and bat in the crease) to the point where she could reasonably believe that someone playing 'within the spirit of the game' was about to turn her arm over.
It was deception. I would not want any team I played in or supported to win a game like this. FFS, the series was already won. If someone is halfway down the pitch, sure, fuck 'em. That's what a Mankad should be for. Not this.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It was a clever move by the bowler that should now become part of the spinner's armoury to keep batsmen honest or pay the price. If the bowler is sharp enough to pull it off and the batsman dumb enough to not have something behind the crease, so be it. The game's been stacked in favour of batsmen and against bowlers with fielding restrictions, ridiculous free hits and whatnot for ages. That shit was brought in to make the game more exciting for spectators. This is no different and should have been the case anyway. It's easy to avoid. Keep something behind the line. If a bowler oversteps the crease and tries to steal ground he gets no-balled. Batsmen trying to nick ground should also be penalised. I'd also be ok with LBJ's suggestion of no-balling bowlers for a failed Mankad.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
I didn't find what happened yesterday in any way 'exciting'. It was dull, letter-of-the-law stuff. A warning should be sufficient, even more so in this case where the bowler had no intention whatsoever of bowling the ball.
There's a hell of a difference between penalising a bowler for one run (or even two) and a batter losing their wicket.
There's a hell of a difference between penalising a bowler for one run (or even two) and a batter losing their wicket.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Agree with this. I was following on the radio and the tension was building brilliantly. India were still favourites, but it was going right down to the wire. Then this. It just left a flat feeling, even more so after watching it. Fair enough if they'd needed a single off the last ball and Dean was charging down the pitch. But she wasn't. They had about eight overs to score 17 runs. No way they were risking dodgy singles.
Truth is that their main bowlers were bowled out and they didn't fancy getting the wicket in the normal way. That's why they did it.
This is going to happen a lot more. The likes of Ashwin are doing it routinely in the IPL now, and that's only going to increase. That's why a penalty of some kind is needed. If you decide to play silly buggers, there needs to be some jeopardy for you as well as the one you're trying to catch out.
Wording of a rule would need to be carefully done. Don't want to penalise a bowler who just loses their footing or something and has to abort. Wording could simply be that if the bowler aborts their bowling after entering their delivery stride and in the opinion of the umpires this was done with a view to effecting a run-out, it shall be called no-ball if the run-out is not effected. Umpires already rule on intention in various circumstances, don't see why they can't do so here.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That would go against the current law though, which refers to the point of release, not the delivery stride.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
If you want to make the game a bit more exciting around run outs, and even up the batter friendly rules a bit, try moving the boundaries back out so the whole game isn't dominated largely by 4s and singles. 3s are almost extinct now in limited overs - they produce exciting run out chances.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Sadly this is true, at least it was my first thought at the time. They were down to their unsuccessful 4th and 5th bowlers after that over. That's why it was calculated and cynical.
So Dean was out of her crease 71 times in her innings, and was warned repeatedly....
www.espncricinfo.com
'We had warned her' - Deepti Sharma on the Charlie Dean dismissal
Heather Knight, however, has said that the Indians hadn't warned the batter and were "lying" about it
