England Cricket 2022

[Ted Striker]

Which rather bolsters the argument for also considering the Mankad part of the game.

Yes, and I think it should be, only because we should move to make laws less open to interpretation. Make it legal, and when the ball leaves the hand.

Though I don't exactly want to see bowlers sneaking around trying to catch batters out like that. It's still... ugly.

 

[Spymaster]

Not really. Other forms of deception are not allowed - eg fake fielding. Fake bowling is the equivalent of fake fielding, surely. It's not quite the same as a well-disguised wrong-un.

But that's all irrelevant given that the Mankad is explicitly allowed in the laws of the game.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, and I think it should be, only because we should move to make laws less open to interpretation. Make it legal, and when the ball leaves the hand.

I agree, and that's what they've done.

 

[Petcha]

Should stumping be allowed?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's all irrelevant given that the Mankad is explicitly allowed in the laws of the game.

No it's not. The mankad is legal same way that fielding is legal. Pretending to bowl to extract one doesn't have to be legal, and shouldn't be imo, just as pretending to throw the ball to stop the batters running when in fact you don't have the ball is not legal.

If you're going to make fake bowling legal, you should make fake fielding legal as well.

 

[Spymaster]

No it's not. The mankad is legal same way that fielding is legal. Pretending to bowl to extract one doesn't have to be legal, and shouldn't be imo, just as pretending to throw the ball to stop the batters running when in fact you don't have the ball is not legal.

If you're going to make fake bowling legal, you should make fake fielding legal as well.

The problem would be an umpire being able to distinguish a genuine attempt from a supposedly fake one.

Of course the whole thing isn't an issue if batters just stay in their fucking crease until the ball has gone.

If batsmen didn't try to cheat in this way this whole argument would be moot.

 

[Ted Striker]

I agree, and that's what they've done.

But not if the Umpire's even a second into his best Whigfield impression.

 

[Spymaster]

But not if the Umpire's even a second into his best Whigfield impression.

Nah. Umpiring decisions are frequently reversed when they're wrong. Hence the 3rd umpire, ball tracking etc.

 

[Ted Striker]

Nah. Umpiring decisions are frequently reversed when they're wrong. Hence the 3rd umpire, ball tracking etc.

When the Umpire has made a physical signal, during the run of play, the reversal of which would significantly disadvantage a team that followed the original instruction? I can't think of an equivalent in any other sport.

If the umpire even sneezes it's a Let. With good reason.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

When the Umpire has made a physical signal, during the run of play, the reversal of which would significantly disadvantage a team that followed the original instruction? I can't think of an equivalent in any other sport.

If the umpire even sneezes it's a Let. With good reason.

Philippe Coutinho for Aston Villa against Man City, recently. The flag went up for offside, Coutinho received the ball, the referee blew his whistle to give the offside, Coutinho bent a shot into the top corner. Man City goalkeeper and defenders had visibly stopped (but only just) by the time the ball hit the net.

Coutinho was in fact onside. Should the goal therefore be given? No, because the whistle had gone, even though it was a pretty much unstoppable shot.

 

[Spymaster]

When the Umpire has made a physical signal, during the run of play, the reversal of which would significantly disadvantage a team that followed the original instruction?

That’s precisely what happens all the time with DRS. And in this case he didn’t complete the signal and reversed himself. The notion that umpires should be compelled to go through with wrong decisions even when they’ve realised they’re making a mistake is absurd.

 

[Ted Striker]

That’s precisely what happens all the time with DRS.

The ball is not in play at the point of the (signal that is referred to the) DRS call.

The umpires decision (and signal) is not affecting the players 'in play' action.

 

[Spymaster]

The ball is not in play at the point of the (signal that is referred to the) DRS call.

The umpires decision (and signal) is not affecting the players 'in play' action.

Neither did it here. The only player to whom it could have had the slightest bit of relevance at that point was Dean, and she wouldn’t have seen it. That very brief, aborted signal didn’t affect the play at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dean was in her own little world.

 

[two sheds]

Heather Knight denies India’s Deepti Sharma gave Mankad warning

England captain was irked by comments that Charlie Dean was ‘warned’ before her controversial dismissal in the third ODI on Saturday

www.theguardian.com

The plot thickens

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

One thing with this, it's got more publicity and more people talking about women's cricket than more or less anything I can remember. Sport can thrive on (petty) controversy can't it.

 

[planetgeli]

Sussex have been spectacularly bad this season but the average age of the team is about 12 and seemingly they are building for the future.

But note the names Tom Haines and Ali Orr. Both openers, both left-handers, aged 23 and 21. Orr already averages 45 and Haines is approaching 40.

They are currently following-on for Sussex, because that's what Sussex do. And they're 276/0. Both have hundreds. Haines got a hundred in the first innings too, where he carried his bat.

You heard it here first.

 

[Petcha]

More importantly, in game 83 of the current series in Pakistan, England are collapsing again

 

[planetgeli]

Sing when we're winning.

Sussex 312/0 at close. Off 53 overs (Bazball!). Orr 185* Haines 121*.

 

[planetgeli]

Hell of a finish happening in the CC relegation battle. Hants 129/8 chasing 139. Warwicks need 2 wickets to send Yorkshire down.

(And Sussex scored 554/8 dec btw - Orr 198, Haines 177)

 

[planetgeli]

Oh my 133/9. One more wicket before 6 more runs. I want Yorkshire down.

 

[planetgeli]

Gone! Yorkshire down. 133 all out. Liam Norwell 9-62.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well done Warks. Watched the last few overs of that and at no point did I think Warks would do it until I saw Abbas trudging out in that final over. Full, fast and straight is all that was needed for him - he's a no.11's no.11.

Yorks deserved to go down. The bottom three all had stinkers of seasons but to have survived having won just one match, and that against the bottom team, would have been jammy.

Live feeds seem to have improved a lot. A few different cameras and a producer somewhere switching between them. Or was that just done for this match?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dunno what I think about Yorkshire right now. I've never liked their superior attitude and of course they handled the racism scandal appallingly. But they are clearly in a process of renewal and I like Ottis Gibson. Will he stay on? Will there even be promotion from Div 2 next season? Potentially a very bad season to go down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Excellent article by David Hopps about the Strauss review.

Rebellion in the shires as counties consider response to Strauss Review

The article makes a good point about allowing white-ball fans a say in running the counties. But it also pointedly highlights some of the things the review had nothing to say about, such as the pathway from private schools, the lack of links with the club structure and the costs of involving your kid in cricket. Instead of talking about how to broaden the base, there is waffle about diversity at the top.

This is spot on, imo.

But if the aim of this report really is to maximise elite talent as possible, then that is best achieved by 18 centres of excellence, every one of them under pressure to be less reliant on the pathways provided by the private school system and more committed to discovering the most talented from all areas of society. Reference to diversity in leadership groups without considering the failure to build a diverse playing staff, by providing opportunities for all, is a glaring omission.

Not sure where George Dobell is these days. Would have liked to hear what he has to say. But Hopps is a pretty good substitute.

 

[paulhackett]

Excellent article by David Hopps about the Strauss review.

Rebellion in the shires as counties consider response to Strauss Review

The article makes a good point about allowing white-ball fans a say in running the counties. But it also pointedly highlights some of the things the review had nothing to say about, such as the pathway from private schools, the lack of links with the club structure and the costs of involving your kid in cricket. Instead of talking about how to broaden the base, there is waffle about diversity at the top.

This is spot on, imo.



Not sure where George Dobell is these days. Would have liked to hear what he has to say. But Hopps is a pretty good substitute.

He's behind a paywall for the Cricketer. Perhaps best after he riled lots of people with his comments about Joe Clarke.

 

[steveo87]

 

[WhyLikeThis]

England have squandered Moeen’s talents. A sad day.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Pity. He did himself justice as a bowler in tests considering bowling is his second string. Yes, his average is a little high, but his strike rate is good and there are a few match-winning performances in there. But a batting average of 28 is criminally low for a player of his talent. And of course he was messed around. Batted at least twice in every position from 1 to 9. He was always a natural number 7, where three of his five hundreds came from. His bowling and batting never quite clicked at the same time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

dp