There are enough camera angles now to get rid of it entirely. The most silly ones are where it's a diving catch in the deep. The umpire standing miles away is expected to make a judgement and give a soft signal. Just send it straight to the third umpire. It's insane, and not really fair on the standing umpires either tbf.
England Cricket 2022
- Thread starter RileyOBlimey
- Start date
There are enough camera angles now to get rid of it entirely. The most silly ones are where it's a diving catch in the deep. The umpire standing miles away is expected to make a judgement and give a soft signal. Just send it straight to the third umpire. It's insane, and not really fair on the standing umpires either tbf.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
It's not that "they" thought umpires can't detect no-balls, it's that "they" thought the umpire might be better placed for e.g. edges, lbw, carries if they're not shifting focus from bowler's foot placement to bat/pad on ball in the time it takes a Mark Wood effort ball to travel 20ish yards.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Your point about catches in the deep I can definitely agree with, neither on-field umpire is at all well placed to judge.
Well, arguably, in fact definitely, technology is also better 'placed' to adjudicate on edges and LBWs as well (which it already does, ie, DRS)
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Yep, but I don't think any of us want the game slowed by loading up the tech for every half hearted appeal. Hence the umpire umpires and the tech intervenes only when really called for.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I agree that that one looked to have been grassed, but no number of cameras can counter the foreshortening effect of a zoom camera. It can make a clean catch look like it hit the ground in front of it.
There's no good solution to that unless they create some kind of 3D camera.
Anyhow, Joel Wilson is definitely England's lucky ump!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
On edges and lbws yes. On catches not always.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
They don't use soft signal anymore.
Edit: could be wrong - nobody seems to know. Cricinfo said their understanding is that it's only to be used when the technology fails to load, but were going to ask the ICC
Last edited:
Well, no they do. They used it today. I'm not sure whether the third umpire was shown that extreme close up in the clip above as surely he would have overturned the soft signal. But yeh - the guidance is something like 'unless there's clear or obvious evidence that the soft signal is wrong'
Respect to the Pakistan side for not throwing a hissy fit about that post-match. Most other teams would have.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Five of his nine tests haven't gone to day 5. Two only lasted to day 3 and a couple that did go to day 5 wouldn't have done if bowlers actually bowled 90 overs in a day.
I think he is changing the game and this (4 day tests) might be one of the consequences at some point.
I don’t know about that. Often you get a result in four days only because both sides know that a fifth day is available, meaning the draw is out of reach. Maybe if this match had been four days, Pakistan would have batted for the draw and achieved it
Hope not. Sports involves decisions made by officials. They’re part of the game. I’ve always been massively unimpressed with any sportsperson who fails to respect that. To be fair, outside of football, most do seem to respect us.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
I don't think those who now put on cricket give a monkey's for the game - I don't think Pakistan batting for a draw would bother them. It's about bums on expensive seats and the rest of the money those bums can spend.
I know Ben/Baz's mission is to save test cricket but if it becomes at the expense of tests becoming 4 days, no - not in favour of that.
Test cricket would appear to be back in the national conversation though. I was listening to 5Live this morning and the debate about the English football team, their lack of mental strength. Quite a few commentators used Stokes/Baz as an example of how to do it. Although I'm still a little unclear as to how they've actually done it. Would be great if they'd had a doco crew following them about like they did with the Aussies in that Sky series after sandpapergate.
Test cricket would appear to be back in the national conversation though. I was listening to 5Live this morning and the debate about the English football team, their lack of mental strength. Quite a few commentators used Stokes/Baz as an example of how to do it. Although I'm still a little unclear as to how they've actually done it. Would be great if they'd had a doco crew following them about like they did with the Aussies in that Sky series after sandpapergate.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Is this new though? Without looking at any stats I wouldn't think five out of nine would be too out of the ordinary for the last few years, particularly as I don't think there's been a lot of time lost to rain in those games, as far as I remember anyway.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
What history tells us about the length of Test matches
A look at the result percentages and length of Test matches over the decades, and the feasibility of four-day games
This has stats for 2000-2020 and gives 58% of tests finishing in four days or less. So five would be pretty average.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
What history tells us about the length of Test matches
A look at the result percentages and length of Test matches over the decades, and the feasibility of four-day gameswww.espncricinfo.com
This has stats for 2000-2020 and gives 58% of tests finishing in four days or less. So five would be pretty average.
Yes, and that's why there is already clamour for 4 day Tests. I just think Stokes' approach, which may yet catch on with other teams, will, the way they see it, give them an extra excuse to go for 4 days.
Kabbes is right. We ARE used to England getting beat, thrashed, in 3 days. By being useless. Stokes is showing you can play a different brand of cricket, still with high scores, and still achieve a result. I can see that being used.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Most of the very best tests end in a result on day 5. This one was an exception in that it was a close match that finished in four days. Generally it is one sided games that end a day or more earlier. See Aus thrashing WI.
Reducing to four days would change the dynamic from day 1. And of course if you do lose time to the weather, that will fuck a lot more games. It's a terrible idea even with bazball.
Reducing to four days would change the dynamic from day 1. And of course if you do lose time to the weather, that will fuck a lot more games. It's a terrible idea even with bazball.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Foakes must be back in the team and playing Rehan Ahmed is likely to too tempting for Stokes. Dropping Jacks for Foakes is obvious but who to drop for Ahmed? Jimmy as he’s an old codger or Wood to wrap him up for the Ashes?
Crawley
Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Stokes (he saved his knee for Karachi)
Foakes (for the Foakes and Ahemd show)
Robinson (make the fat fuck play, plus he’s a good understudy for Anderson)
Wood (No one can replace his pace atm)
Ahmed
Leach
Crawley
Duckett
Pope
Root
Brook
Stokes (he saved his knee for Karachi)
Foakes (for the Foakes and Ahemd show)
Robinson (make the fat fuck play, plus he’s a good understudy for Anderson)
Wood (No one can replace his pace atm)
Ahmed
Leach
No, no need for Foakes. He's just blocking up a spot for a better batsman or a bowler. The days of a specialist keeper are gone. Surely Baz/Ben recognise that. It's a lovely thought reminiscent of the cricket I was brought up with, but no. Doesn't fit in to the new approach.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
That is a bold statement Petcha!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He's not a specialist keeper. He's got two centuries and an average in the low 30s, as good as pope. And he's scored important runs at various times. It's almost like he's penalised for being a natural keeper sometimes.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And while all those runs in the first test were very welcome, let's have some context - the pitch was deemed substandard for offering nothing to the bowlers. Foakes could have scored a century on that, too.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I'd expect they'll stick with something pretty similar to what has worked in the first two tests which I'd expect means no Foakes. It's silly to claim that it's some sort of era shift though - in other places they won't be bothered by squeezing in an extra PT spinner and the keeper will obviously be back in.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Disagree with what? He has a 1st class ave of 39 - over 40 in non tests. He would have a career as a professional cricketer even if he didn't keep. Ergo he is not a specialist keeper.
His style doesn't seem to fit to me, in this new setup. What's his strike rate? Which is more important in this current setup than average arguably.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There can be a logical fallacy sometimes to thinking a decision was right because you got away with it. If pope had been judged to have grassed that catch and England had lost, it may not have looked so clever. England were a bit lucky on that final day after the 3rd day collapse.
