Cricket Thread

[Romey 1878]

1 minute ago, Formby said:

Who would you have gone with? I'm guessing they thought he could add some runs.  

 He's a fucking idiot with the bat, totally unreliable.

Either of the ones who have been playing recently while Ali couldn't be arsed with Test cricket. Total slap in the face for those two (Jacks and Ahmed) that they've been fucked off just because Ali fancied it again because it's the Ashes.

Could have even gone with Dawson if you wanted runs as well. I just really do not like how it all went down.

[Romey 1878]

He'll probably spin us to victory now  and I hope he does, but it's not right how it's all come about.

[Formby]

4 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

He'll probably spin us to victory now  and I hope he does, but it's not right how it's all come about.

In sha Allah! 

[Formby]

6 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

 He's a fucking idiot with the bat, totally unreliable.

Either of the ones who have been playing recently while Ali couldn't be arsed with Test cricket. Total slap in the face for those two (Jacks and Ahmed) that they've been fucked off just because Ali fancied it again because it's the Ashes.

Could have even gone with Dawson if you wanted runs as well. I just really do not like how it all went down.

I would have gone with Ahmed. He's shown enough. Young, brave. 

[MikeO]

41 minutes ago, Formby said:

it's a great effort from the tail. Very commendable. 

Been out all day but my thoughts exactly, they've given us a shout.

[Cornish Steve]

On 17/06/2023 at 18:07, Palfy said:

I’m more in agreement with some pundits that England are bringing their one day cricket mentality of all out attack with batting and bowling to their test matches, whether this proves successful or not time will tell. But it can’t be denied that it’s refreshing to have a different approach to what can be a very slow and defensive 5 days.  

The more I think on this, I believe you're right. Test match cricket is a 5-day game of strategy, while limited over cricket is about scoring runs quickly. They are two very different games. Bringing a limited over mentality to test cricket is understandable but a mistake.

I'll warrant, if we look at recent statistics, that there's increasingly less reason in buying, in advance, a final day ticket.

[Romey 1878]

3 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

The more I think on this, I believe you're right. Test match cricket is a 5-day game of strategy, while limited over cricket is about scoring runs quickly. They are two very different games. Bringing a limited over mentality to test cricket is understandable but a mistake.

I'll repeat, they've only lost twice playing this way since Stokes took over the captaincy. It has worked very well and they will win far more games than they'll lose playing this way.

[Palfy]

2 quick wickets puts the game back in the balance, England’s tactics make for an entertaining game of cricket, we could have carried on batting day 1 and this test would have probably petered out in to a draw, but England aren’t interested in the draw they go all out for the win. For me their tactics aren’t arrogant or foolhardy they are brave and bravery should be respected. 

[Palfy]

Get in Broady, attack attack and let’s turn the old farts approach to test cricket on it’s head, apologies Cornish

[MikeO]

7 minutes ago, Palfy said:

2 quick wickets puts the game back in the balance

Make that three

[Palfy]

Just now, MikeO said:

Make that three

Wickets or old farts ( not suggesting you or me )

[Formby]

15 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Get in Broady, attack attack and let’s turn the old farts approach to test cricket on it’s head, apologies Cornish

To be fair to Steve, if Bazball was any other country's approach to test cricket, he would be for it. He just can't stomach it being English!  

[Cornish Steve]

I must be losing touch with the rules of cricket. The Australians claimed Stokes was out LBW, and it's clear from the replay that the ball would have hit the stumps if his pad was not in the way. As it is, his bat seems to have made the slightest contact with the ball - but still the ball would have hit the wicket if his pad was not in the way. Has the rule always been that way - that any contact with the bat precludes an LBW decision?

[Vranny]

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

I must be losing touch with the rules of cricket. The Australians claimed Stokes was out LBW, and it's clear from the replay that the ball would have hit the stumps if his pad was not in the way. As it is, his bat seems to have made the slightest contact with the ball - but still the ball would have hit the wicket if his pad was not in the way. Has the rule always been that way - that any contact with the bat precludes an LBW decision?

Correct. The ball has to hit the pad/body part first to be an LBW dismissal. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

I must be losing touch with the rules of cricket. The Australians claimed Stokes was out LBW, and it's clear from the replay that the ball would have hit the stumps if his pad was not in the way. As it is, his bat seems to have made the slightest contact with the ball - but still the ball would have hit the wicket if his pad was not in the way. Has the rule always been that way - that any contact with the bat precludes an LBW decision?

Yes I believe so, if the incident you are talking about is the one where he was given LBW and contested, it showed the ball had made contact with his glove before hitting his pad. 

[Romey 1878]

14 hours ago, Palfy said:

2 quick wickets puts the game back in the balance, England’s tactics make for an entertaining game of cricket, we could have carried on batting day 1 and this test would have probably petered out in to a draw, but England aren’t interested in the draw they go all out for the win. For me their tactics aren’t arrogant or foolhardy they are brave and bravery should be respected. 

They know the weather reports for the 5 days so they'll have known that rain was likely, so I'm sure that came into the thinking with the first day declaration.

Definitely not arrogance, Stokes wants results in games.

[Cornish Steve]

10 hours ago, Palfy said:

Yes I believe so, if the incident you are talking about is the one where he was given LBW and contested, it showed the ball had made contact with his glove before hitting his pad. 

Now the discussion becomes interesting. Tendulkar was once given out LBW because he ducked to protect himself and the ball hit his shoulder - which blocked the wicket. In other words, the 'L' really means any body part. But you just wrote that glove is defined as being part of the bat and not a part of the body. What if, momentarily, the hand left the bat: Does glove then become body and not bat? It comes down to fine margins, doesn't it?

[MikeO]

5 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

They know the weather reports for the 5 days so they'll have known that rain was likely, so I'm sure that came into the thinking with the first day declaration.

Definitely not arrogance, Stokes wants results in games.

South Africa legend AB de Villiers on Twitter: "I never looked at the Birmingham weather leading up to this Test match. The way England played now makes sense. Call it what you want, some say Bazball, I just think it’s smart cricket.

"The best teams are prepared to adapt and play situations in a way that’ll ultimately put them in a winning position more often than the rest, whether that’s by making bold declarations or playing reverse sweeps a lot, whatever it takes.

"The only way to make it impactful is to have a complete buy in from every individual, no egos, no stats driven players, just a full on buy in to be the best team in the world. That’s how I see the Eng team play atm. Also saw that with MSD and co. in the IPL.

"Gonna be a fascinating final day. Let’s get it going. Aus still in with a chance here, unlikely, but possible."

[Vranny]

54 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

But you just wrote that glove is defined as being part of the bat and not a part of the body. What if, momentarily, the hand left the bat: Does glove then become body and not bat? It comes down to fine margins, doesn't it?

This is actually correct. The glove isn’t considered part of the bat when it’s not touching it. You start running the risk of being given out handling the ball if you’re deliberately fending off the ball with a glove unattached from your bat though!

[Romey 1878]

It's getting very interesting now!

[MikeO]

Need another one (or preferably two) pretty soon now, getting away from us a bit at the mo.

[Romey 1878]

7 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Need another one (or preferably two) pretty soon now, getting away from us a bit at the mo.

It's definitely Australia's to lose.

[Cornish Steve]

51 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

It's definitely Australia's to lose.

It's on a knife edge. This game could end as a win, loss, or draw.

[Romey 1878]

Massive, massive wicket!

[Palfy]

4 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Now the discussion becomes interesting. Tendulkar was once given out LBW because he ducked to protect himself and the ball hit his shoulder - which blocked the wicket. In other words, the 'L' really means any body part. But you just wrote that glove is defined as being part of the bat and not a part of the body. What if, momentarily, the hand left the bat: Does glove then become body and not bat? It comes down to fine margins, doesn't it?

Definitely fine margins, to be an umpire must come with a lot of second guessing, but they never seem rushed or stressed when making a call, and if they are challenged and wrong they just take in their stride. If the glove wasn’t in contact with the bat then I would guess that if it then traveled on to hit the pad and was on line to hit the wicket it would be LBW, based on if you’re Tendulkar evidence being correct. I might try and google it or maybe find the rules on LBW. But at this moment in time I’m to engrossed in the game. 

[Romey 1878]

Australia should still win this but I've enjoyed it so much because it's been entertaining.

[Cornish Steve]

47 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Australia should still win this but I've enjoyed it so much because it's been entertaining.

I can't help but smile. When Roberto was our manager, we played really attractive football that was exciting to watch - but we weren't winning. Then we had a manager who played really boring football in order to win more. Ideally, we win all the time and do so by playing attractive football. When having to choose one or the other, though, which is the better option? Gamble it all as England did with their first innings declaration, or play traditional boring cricket and not lose? Play exciting football because it's more enjoyable or grind out boring draws and wins to finish higher up the table? It's an intriguing question.

[Romey 1878]

12 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

I can't help but smile. When Roberto was our manager, we played really attractive football that was exciting to watch - but we weren't winning. Then we had a manager who played really boring football in order to win more. Ideally, we win all the time and do so by playing attractive football. When having to choose one or the other, though, which is the better option? Gamble it all as England did with their first innings declaration, or play traditional boring cricket and not lose? Play exciting football because it's more enjoyable or grind out boring draws and wins to finish higher up the table? It's an intriguing question.

His first season it was exciting and we were winning, his second and third season the football was atrocious and we were losing, Steve. That was the problem.

And I will say once again in the hope you'll actually take it in - we have won the majority of the matches we've played with an attacking attitude. It has, and will, win us far more games than we'll lose.

[Romey 1878]

Well done, Australia. What a game!

[Cornish Steve]

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

Well done, Australia. What a game!

The real winner is cricket.