Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-24-2019, 03:41 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Slightly more predictable in Brisbane.

Had the feel of one of those backyard games where, after been badly smacked around by Big Brother, Middle Brother takes revenge on Little Brother but Mum is watching so it's not too brutal.

SL won the toss and batted, or something that approximated batting.

Sri Lanka 144 all out (Dickwella 64, Cummins 4-39, Richardson 3-26)
Stumps: Australia 72 for 2 (Harris 40*, Lyon 0*)

SL were poor apart from their keeper batting like he was in a T20 (including a ramp for 6 off Starc). His batting wagon wheel looked classical, if turned 180 degrees. They lost 3-58 in the first session and 5-64 in the second.

They were fortunate enough that their inning concluded in time to give the locals almost all the time under lights where the SL bowlers had the ball darting about nicely.

Harris batted through a period where he looked like he'd totally lost the plot, playing and missing, hitting ones he was trying to leave, but survived which will serve him well in the future.
  #52  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:23 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,939
Is the color of the ball more orange than red in the Aus-WI test, or is it just the Willow broadcast in the US? Almost looks like a toy ball.

As to my previous question about the Pandya-Rahul suspensions, I only read the comments that the former made. The latter appears to be a victim of guilt by association.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #53  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:52 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Is the color of the ball more orange than red in the Aus-WI test, or is it just the Willow broadcast in the US? Almost looks like a toy ball....
Okay, the announcer just mentioned something about a “pink” ball, which tells me that it’s not just my tv. Surprised, since I thought test cricket is especially rigid with its regulations due to tradition,
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #54  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:55 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
It's Aust vs Sri Lanka, the Windies are taking on the Poms.

It's a pink ball used for day-night Tests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
I thought test cricket is especially rigid with its regulations due to tradition
It is, which is why it's taken so long to develop.

1) A standard red ball is very difficult to see under lights.
2) A white ball works well at night (i.e. T20 cricket is played at night with a white ball) but the players are all wearing white in a Test.
3) Use a white ball for 90 overs it's scuffed up, discoloured and hard to see under lights (or during the day). For night T20 cricket they use white 2 balls.
4) You can't use a red ball for the day sessions and then change the ball to a white for the night session, then back to a red one the next morning.


So it must be as visible in the middle of the day as at night, it must wear and behave in a similar manner to a red ball and you can't get that result by just painting/dying a red ball pink, yellow or orange.
  #55  
Old 01-25-2019, 01:43 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
It's Dinner in Brisbane, which is the second break in the day/night game. Australia quietly getting on with building a decent total, thinking they may well only have to bat once if they can get another hundred or so runs. Sri Lanka is nearly as much under the cosh as England.
  #56  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:46 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Amusing that Labuschagne scored after I tucked into him earlier in the thread - though I don't know whether a) he should have scored a ton and/or b) this has anything to do with the relative weakness of the current SL side, also playing in unfamiliar conditions.

304-9 now
  #57  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:34 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
He’s got the highest Test score by an Australian this summer. :shrug:
Been two in the BBL.

That Harris, Lambruschagne, Head and Pattinson went back to the sheds with starts against some workmanlike but barely Test standard bowling just maintains the worry.

You only need the ball to do a bit in the air and they have the self-assurance of an ocean going tadpole. I thought every county side has a couple of them.

SL got within one ball of negotiating an awkward six over session to stumps.
  #58  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:39 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
You only need the ball to do a bit in the air and they have the self-assurance of an ocean going tadpole. I thought every county side has a couple of them.
We do - someone like Jamie Porter at Essex can make the ball sing in English conditions - and not yet capped (and may well not be until Anderson retires, since he replicates his role almost totally). The only issue is that Australia's bowling attack is good enough to do it as well, I reckon. Can see The Ashes in the summer being played on as many seaming tracks as we can make and being low scoring shoot outs. From a batting perspective, it's likely to be two one legged men in an arse kicking contest.
  #59  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:07 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
3rd ODI between Pakistan and SA just started. Pakistan won the toss and elected to bat. Some conversation about the incident with Sarfraz at the outset - apparently he's apologised to Phehlukwayo personally and Faf Du Plessis has made all the right sort of gracious noises about forgiveness and what have you, and referred everyone back to the ICC.

The sides seem a little stronger than for the second ODI - Steyn, De Kock, Mo Amir and Imad Wasim are all back after missing that (Steyn and De Kock didn't play the first ODI either, as it goes).
  #60  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:57 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Pak got 316, but it now looks like they may lose overs for SA's reply as they come off for rain.

The less said about the England test match the better, other than perhaps, "Well played, Jason Holder"
  #61  
Old 01-25-2019, 01:53 PM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
This has gone well!

Just 628 to chase. Holder and Dowrich get 200 and 100 respectively. England will probably lose by about 400 runs. No wickets today - Root wound up bowling off and leg breaks, and giving Keaton Jennings a bowl.

SA win fairly easily on Duckworth Lewis.
  #62  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:28 PM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
And that's the end of a rare day - no wickets fell, although both teams batted.

I'd like to think England can get themselves up into the 300s, and perhaps even get a century somewhere. There's no way in hell they are either going to get the runs or bat out two days (unless the rain forecast on Sunday becomes much more significant than currently predicted, and even then), so it's just for the pride, boys. Let's see if we can take it to Sunday.
  #63  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:53 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,939
Not having watched any of the match, I took notice of the odd final score in the South Africa-Pakistan ODI today. South Africa won by 13 runs (D/L method). Based on the Pak 317 - SA 188 final score, Pak obviously batted first. But why would SA need to win by 13, when the match presumably would have ended once they were ahead by 6 or less? Doesn’t D/L simply establish a lower target for the team that isn’t able to complete its innings?
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #64  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:05 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumbrian View Post
SA win fairly easily on Duckworth Lewis.
  #65  
Old 01-26-2019, 02:13 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Not having watched any of the match, I took notice of the odd final score in the South Africa-Pakistan ODI today. South Africa won by 13 runs (D/L method). Based on the Pak 317 - SA 188 final score, Pak obviously batted first. But why would SA need to win by 13, when the match presumably would have ended once they were ahead by 6 or less? Doesn’t D/L simply establish a lower target for the team that isn’t able to complete its innings?
When a team wins batting second by runs like that, it means that they were unable to complete their innings due to rain, so the D/L method figures out where they *should* be. The winning margin is how far ahead they are of that total.
  #66  
Old 01-26-2019, 06:47 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
When a team wins batting second by runs like that, it means that they were unable to complete their innings due to rain, so the D/L method figures out where they *should* be. The winning margin is how far ahead they are of that total.
Yes. It does not account for the fact that they would have faced a reversing ball on a wet outfield against Aamir and Hasan Ali.
  #67  
Old 01-26-2019, 09:23 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Yes. It does not account for the fact that they would have faced a reversing ball on a wet outfield against Aamir and Hasan Ali.
It doesn't, no.

I'm ambivalent about D/L. It has a tendency assume all batsmen and bowlers are equal (or, at least, that Pak bowlers are equal to SA bowlers, for instance). 13 runs is a fair amount, but SA had only lost 2 wickets so they did have a lot of resource, and the batsmen who were in were set.

I like that D/L exists, but it's no substitute for a tight game of cricket, which this had the makings of.
  #68  
Old 01-26-2019, 02:11 PM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Well, that was depressing

Hammered by 381 runs. Holder and Dowrich made exactly the same amount of runs in the game as England did (323), and they were not out in the second innings. Utter hammering.
  #69  
Old 01-26-2019, 02:23 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,769
India crushed New Zealand again as well.
  #70  
Old 01-26-2019, 02:59 PM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
India crushed New Zealand again as well.
India doing what you need to do when defending a par score - taking regular wickets and not letting the opposition get going at all.
  #71  
Old 01-26-2019, 05:07 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,939
So if there is any chance of rain, it behooves the chasing team to keep a running tab on its D/L total and make certain that it’s exceeded at all times, right?
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #72  
Old 01-26-2019, 05:33 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
It only needs to be exceeded at the conclusion of the game, but keeping it within reach is useful.

I score in Sydney Grade cricket and the app we use (MyCricket) and the others I'm aware of eg TSC, has D/L built and, once the game parameters are set then it can calculate the target on demand.
Each side has a scorer so both teams know the target.
The distinction is that the fielding team is a bit harder to convey the message to and the tactics of the fielding side don't change that much. It's still limit runs and take wickets.
  #73  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:58 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
There was a WIvsEng game a few years ago - long enough back that the batting team could still chose to come off or not for light rain - and it started raining and the batting team thought they were ahead so they came off, but they'd just lost a wicket and hadn't recalculated so they lost. Good times.


In other news, Sarfraz Ahmed has been handed a 4 match suspension by the ICC and has been sent home - Shoaib Malik will cover in his absence. The PCC may well appeal, since they think that the incident had been settled amicably between the two teams.
  #74  
Old 01-27-2019, 11:45 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Not international cricket, but the Australia women's BBL concluded on Saturday.

The two semi-finals were absolutely cracking games.

The First came down to the Sydney Thunder needing 5 to win off last ball but the Brisbane Heat took the catch on the boundary
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-...iller/10729224

The second semi, Melbourne Renegades needed three to win off the final ball, but the Sydney Sixers performed a run-out any team would be proud of to send the game to a super over which they won.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1086508913288130560

The Final was also a cracking game with another last over win to the Heat.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-...?section=sport
  #75  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:12 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,432
Pakistan won easily yesterday. Shinwari and Afridi ran riot through the Saffer top order.
We are a better team sans Sarfraz. Bench the fucker and let Rizwan play. Who is just a better batsman and Keeper.

I also don't know why they keep dropping Shinwari. He has to take a 4 or 5fer every match just to stay in, while Aamir gets half a dozen chances.

Afridi, Hasan Ali, Shinwari and Aamir. Thats an attack that can defeat any lineup.
  #76  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:41 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
We are a better team sans Sarfraz. Bench the fucker and let Rizwan play. Who is just a better batsman and Keeper
This seems to be the reaction of the Pakistan supporters on the cricket reddit as well - that he's an embarrassment and not a good a player as his replacement.

He's out until the third T20 in this series. We'll see if he comes back.
  #77  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:12 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
I also don't know why they keep dropping Shinwari.
First I’ve seen Shinwari was in BBL for Renegades this season.
Thought he was more than serviceable.
  #78  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:22 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
I thought Pakistan were pretty awesome on Sunday. When their bowling attack is even halfway on song, they are hugely difficult to beat and I thought some of the captaincy in the field to press home the advantage was excellent. If I were a county side, I would be looking to emply any number of the Pakistan pace attack - apart from anything, none of them can play IPL, so they would be available for more of the season than some other international cricketers. Afridi, Shinwari and Amir would all rule up here - Abbas has already played for Leicestershire and was amazing as well.

England got the drubbing they so richly deserved. I love Moeen, but his play with the bat in this game was indefensible. I'd make 3 changes for the next game, dropping Mo, Rashid and Curran and bring in Woakes, Broad and Leach. I'd also have a serious think about dropping Jennings, who has never looked good enough to open the batting against a pace attack outside Asia - but the cupboard is bare in this particular squad of 16. Denly might well get a shot, even though I don't think he'll do much either.

Re: Duckworth Lewis - it's not perfect, but it is better than what was there before. You basically need a maths doctorate to be capable of coming up with something better - if anyone has any ideas, I am sure that the ICC will be all ears.
  #79  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:45 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
India are in imperious (and ominous) ODI form at the moment. They've dealt with what is, I still maintain, a good NZ side very easily. 3-0 up in the ODI series there at the moment, wrapping up the series win, and since the end of their tour of England, hold a record of P17 W13 L2 Tied 2 in ODIs. Their bowling is better than good, their batsmen are very handy in this format, they've got the IPL in between now and the World Cup to further sharpen skills in an environment that will include many of the better players that they are likely to face in the World Cup. They look very good indeed, and I would imagine, given the format of the WC (the 1992 format - everyone plays everyone once in a big group, top 4 go through), they are nailed on to be a semi finalist.
  #80  
Old 01-29-2019, 12:20 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
I’d regard India in the World Cup akin to the All Blacks in the rugby .

The only probable way they don’t succeed is if ambushed through being bowled out cheaply.

Their batting strength is such that were their opposition able to post an unlikely 400, I’d back them to chase it down. But a couple of poor shots, a couple of dodgy dismissals, a couple of outrageous catches and they get rolled for 150, like anybody can, and they might be good things beaten.

A bit like RWC and France, Pakistan are always likely to play one spellbinding match and if they make the top 4 you would prefer to watch them rather than play them.
  #81  
Old 01-30-2019, 12:15 PM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Due to work, not seen any of this ODI between SA and Pakistan yet but Pakistan were incredibly short of runs. SA have beaten them with about 10 overs spare. I guess the highlights might show whether it was good bowling or bad batting. Imran Tahir's figures (and Rabada's/Pretorius') in particular very economical.
  #82  
Old 01-30-2019, 12:18 PM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
I’d regard India in the World Cup akin to the All Blacks in the rugby .

The only probable way they don’t succeed is if ambushed through being bowled out cheaply.

Their batting strength is such that were their opposition able to post an unlikely 400, I’d back them to chase it down. But a couple of poor shots, a couple of dodgy dismissals, a couple of outrageous catches and they get rolled for 150, like anybody can, and they might be good things beaten.

A bit like RWC and France, Pakistan are always likely to play one spellbinding match and if they make the top 4 you would prefer to watch them rather than play them.
I think the thing about this format in the CWC is that, even if India do get ambushed in the tournament, if it happens in the group stage, it is far less likely to prove fatal than in previous versions of the competition. In the 1992 version, there was one fewer team and 5 wins was sufficient to get into the knockout stages. 6 wins out of 9 will probably see you in the semis this time. One bad result can easily be worn and not really be a problem. This is why I think India are nailed on for the semis - I can't see them losing 4 out of the 9 games in the group.

Of course, they could then have a bad day in the knockouts but then I'm not claiming they're definitely going to make the final - at least not yet. Any team could run into a Pakistani buzzsaw in a knockout game. I'd dread facing them if England got to the knockout stages.

Last edited by Cumbrian; 01-30-2019 at 12:19 PM.
  #83  
Old 01-31-2019, 06:48 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
2nd Test Aust v SL @ Marnuka Oval (Canberra)

Australia unchanged from 1st Test, won inside 3 days.
They resisted the temptation to include Pucovski and/or Stoiness. Understandable but the sooner Stoiness get a chance to establish himself the sooner we put a crucifix into the prospect of a Mitch Marsh revival.

SL have lost through injury their 3 seamers from Brisbane.
So we have their second choice bowlers from honest trundlers first picked for the sixth ranked Test side. Their opening bowlers have 14 wickets between the and the other is on debut.

One doesn't like to beat up on the minnows but in a summer without a Test century (first time since 1964 when they only played one Test, next worst season has 4) this is the gilded opportunity to score a "soft" century and book passage on an Ashes tour.

Paine wins toss, is astonished at his luck and bats, as he should on a benign batting deck..

In the 9th over Aust 3-28 ROFLMAO which at work isn't a good career move unless your boss is a similar tragic. He's not.

Last edited by penultima thule; 01-31-2019 at 06:49 PM.
  #84  
Old 02-01-2019, 08:17 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
One doesn't like to beat up on the minnows but in a summer without a Test century (first time since 1964 when they only played one Test, next worst season has 4) this is the gilded opportunity to score a "soft" century and book passage on an Ashes tour.
That's Burns and Head in then?

Scoring rate for the day was 4.4 an over - which is pretty remarkable. Surely those 3 wickets that fell early must be disgusted with themselves as this appears to be a wicket, an opposition, or both, where you should be scoring heavily.

England had a bad old day of it yesterday and are now in the field for Day 2. It seems like it was a difficult wicket - not many of them gave it away yesterday (for instance, Joe Root's wicket was pretty much unplayable given the lift it got off a good length). I don't have loads of confidence that the English bowlers have what it takes to exploit this wicket though. If you're the Windies, you see off Anderson, be a bit careful with Stokes and Broad but try to rotate strike and then cash in on Curran and Moeen I think. They should get a first innings lead, with care paid.

Amusing that after talking up India, they did exactly what PT suggested might happen every so often and got shot out for 92. No Kohli and Dhoni in that line up though, so some salt to be taken with that. Just goes to show that the knockout phases of the CWC will not necessarily be predictable.

Last edited by Cumbrian; 02-01-2019 at 08:17 AM.
  #85  
Old 02-01-2019, 11:00 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
[QUOTE=Cumbrian;21464163
England had a bad old day of it yesterday and are now in the field for Day 2. It seems like it was a difficult wicket - not many of them gave it away yesterday (for instance, Joe Root's wicket was pretty much unplayable given the lift it got off a good length). I don't have loads of confidence that the English bowlers have what it takes to exploit this wicket though. If you're the Windies, you see off Anderson, be a bit careful with Stokes and Broad but try to rotate strike and then cash in on Curran and Moeen I think. They should get a first innings lead, with care paid.[/QUOTE]

And this is what is happening, with WI at 133/2. It's still possible that they will get out below 250 - the WI batting lineup has shown itself to be fragile, and England do seem to be bowling well to little reward, but the pitch has a demon or two and so the WI batsmen appear to actually be taking care which balls they score off, and not attempting to blaze away from the off.

It's almost like it's a 5 day game or something.

Last edited by Teuton; 02-01-2019 at 11:00 AM.
  #86  
Old 02-02-2019, 10:26 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Lunch on day 3 in Antigua.

West Indies finally bowled out for 306, having batted slowly but effectively to a lead of 110 runs. A bit of an annoying lead, really, since it gives England fans that *hope* that maybe Joe Root will get a ton and we can get to a lead of 150-200 to make an actual game of it in the final innings.

In the second test in Canberra*, and after getting into a bit of trouble at 28/3 as penultima thule points out above, Australia have bossed the game since. Big tons from Travis Head and Joe Burns (and a smaller one from Patterson) have given them a stranglehold on this game that Sri Lanka seem unlikely to break. They had a decent opening partnership, they are 123/3 at the close and Karunaratne has been rushed to hospital for scans after getting a bouncer in the back of the head. He may well return to bat later if he's ok.


*Canberra? Do they play there a lot?

Last edited by Teuton; 02-02-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #87  
Old 02-02-2019, 11:29 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
..... He may well return to bat later if he's ok....
Is something like this the decision of the umpire? Or why wouldn’t teams sub batsmen in and out?

Another question: oftentimes, umpires will use DRS to confirm that the bowler’s foot was not too forward prior to a wicket. Why don’t they also check the bowler’s arm? I’ve watched a bit of this West Indies- England test series and thought that Roach’s arm was slightly bent on at least one occasion. Or is this simply too much of a judgement call? I’ve now been watching cricket for a while, and don’t recall a bowler ever being caught for a bent arm toss.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #88  
Old 02-02-2019, 12:15 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,769
There are no substitutions in cricket. The eleven named at the start of the game are the only ones who can bat or bowl. You can have a substitute fielder but that's it.
  #89  
Old 02-02-2019, 01:06 PM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Is something like this the decision of the umpire? Or why wouldn’t teams sub batsmen in and out?

Another question: oftentimes, umpires will use DRS to confirm that the bowler’s foot was not too forward prior to a wicket. Why don’t they also check the bowler’s arm? I’ve watched a bit of this West Indies- England test series and thought that Roach’s arm was slightly bent on at least one occasion. Or is this simply too much of a judgement call? I’ve now been watching cricket for a while, and don’t recall a bowler ever being caught for a bent arm toss.
You can "retire hurt" as you want, and you can return to bat at the fall of a wicket. It's not normally an advantage to split your innings like that, though, so it's not abused. They don't get to use an extra batsman, and if you're not available when the final available wicket falls, you don't get to bat (but you are "not out")

They tend to reserve the checking for suspect actions for review after the games, as it got too political when they would no ball someone during a game.
  #90  
Old 02-02-2019, 08:47 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
*Canberra? Do they play there a lot?
First Test to be played at the venue.

Play First Class games there regularly.
Last was NSW Blues v QLD Bulls Friday in November.

Also, due to a scheduling snafu the 2014 Sheffield Shield final between NSW and WA was played there.

Good venue, excellent surface, good batting deck, it's not a drop-in pitch.
  #91  
Old 02-02-2019, 09:50 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
You can "retire hurt" as you want, and you can return to bat at the fall of a wicket.
"as you want" is a bit problematic.
You can retire anytime you like, but then you are out.

To be hurt is usually self-evident at the time, the batsman is hit, injured or becomes ill. The fielding team are usually critically aware they have a problem and

In his iconic 210 vs India in 1986 Dean Jones was in severe heat distress for the last half of his innings. His routine was block, block, hit a boundary, walk to square leg, spew [repeat]
He asked hard as nails captain Border if he could retire but was told “Well go on, off you go then. We’ll get someone tough out here. We’ll get a Queenslander.”

Phillip Hughes was 63 retired, not out in his last innings.
The only instance of retired, not out in Test cricket was Gordon Greenidge's 154 retired, not out in 1983 in 5th Test vs India when he left the field to visit his daughter who was dying.

In an U16s game the team I was coaching a couple of seasons the oppositions captain and best bat had scored mid 20s. He was cleaning his glasses between overs and one of the lens popped out and he couldn't get it back in place. So he left the field. Didn't ask, just walked off.

We had an ex 1st grade umpire officiating and I was standing at square leg.
I have glasses myself so am sympathetic to his plight but they were the best team in the comp and we were in with a real chance of knocking them off. So I asked the umpire whether he had "retired" or "retired hurt" as he patently wasn't hurt, nor had he sought permission to leave the field.

At the drinks break the umpire consulted the regulations and decided that Law 24.4.2 applied on grounds of unavoidable cause, rather than Law 25.4.3.

Quote:
25.4.2 If a batsman retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batsman is entitled to resume his/her innings. If for any reason this does not happen, that batsman is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.
25.4.3 If a batsman retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the innings of that batsman may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that batsman is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.
  #92  
Old 02-02-2019, 10:59 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Aust v SL Day 3

Leading by 319 Aust don't enforce the follow-on. It's the right call.
We need to batting practice more than wickets and it's hot enough to take the opportunity to sit inside.

After 14 overs Aust are 3-37.
Demand for antacids, beta blockers and Packer Whackers will go the roof this Ashes tour.
  #93  
Old 02-02-2019, 11:23 PM
don't ask is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
The only instance of retired, not out in Test cricket was Gordon Greenidge's 154 retired, not out in 1983 in 5th Test vs India when he left the field to visit his daughter who was dying.
Greenidge was not out overnight when called away because his 2-year-old daughter had suddenly acquired a kidney infection. He stayed with her until she died 2 days after the test had ended. Greenidge won man-of-the-match, but obviously wasn't there to receive his award.
  #94  
Old 02-04-2019, 06:01 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Comfortable win for Australia. Comfortable win for the Windies. Neither of the losing sides can have any complaints.

No real point in getting into England - they need to prize their wickets more highly but probably don't have skills to do it - and the solutions won't be found in the touring party they have. Whether there are any options in county cricket is a difficult question. Not that I can see. We could really do with Haseeb Hameed putting his last two years of dreadful form behind him and coming good. There was a bloke who I thought was going to be the new Boycott/Cook and just grind away at the top of the order. The rest of them, bar Root, don't average much more than 30. This is not good enough, bluntly.

Windies have been really good but Jason Holder has been suspended for a match for slow over rates. A lot of the cricket commentariat I follow are grumbling about this (they're playing winning cricket, the match finished in 3 days, it's good for the Windies to be captained by a guy who is leading them back, etc) - to which I say bollocks, in particular to the idea that the matched finished in 3 days so it's not an issue. Tell that to the guy who forked over for a day's cricket and didn't get a full day because he was watching guys stand around. I wish this was rigidly enforced -- England are not blameless here and could stand to have some sanctions come their way - as slow over rates are a pox on cricket. My Ashes tickets at The Oval are Ł100+ a day. You'd best believe I want the 90 overs I paid for, and the ICC is right to safeguard the paying punter over some of these sort of romantic objections to enforcing the rules.
  #95  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:44 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,939
Is there a different criteria for wide balls in test cricket, versus limited overs games? I don’t see wides called when I watch test cricket often. Also, I noticed that a wide ball that went past the keeper to the boundary was called a 4-wides in a test match, but a 5-wides in an ODI or T20. If so, teams that are bowling for a draw in a test match could purposely bowl poorly to minimize the batting side’s probability of reaching its target. Does this happen?
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #96  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:26 PM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
So, the third test in a dead rubber, now the WIndies are 2-0 up.

Decent from England yesterday. Some dodgy moments outside off stump, but they generally put more value on their wickets and it showed, no Authority was Stamped but they stayed in and got some runs, and sat pretty at around 230/4 at the end of the day.

Then they threw it all away in the first session, all out for 277. Good bowling though.

After another 50 opening partnership by the WIndies, though, the English bowlers are starting to have a little fun themselves, and have them pegged at 59/4.


Jackknifed Juggernaut, there are different criteria for wides, yes. And "negative bowling", trying to prevent scoring instead of trying to take wickets, is absolutely a thing. It's not "Bowling poorly" though, it's bowling to prevent scoring, and there are batting tactics to use against it.
  #97  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:29 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Is there a different criteria for wide balls in test cricket, versus limited overs games? I don’t see wides called when I watch test cricket often.
Substantial difference.

In the BBL the creases are now marked with additional blue lines.

In a BBL T20 a ball passing outside the blue line on the off-side would be called a wide, in Test cricket it would need to be outside the (white) return crease to be called a wide.
On the leg-side the distinction is even more pronounced. Any delivery passing down the leg-side in a T20 is probably going to be called as wide, even if it pitches on the stumps and spins. In Tests a leg-side wide would again need to be pitching outside the (white) return crease.

Finally a delivery bouncing over the head of the batsman will be called as a wide in T20 but exceptionally rarely called in Tests.

Quote:
Also, I noticed that a wide ball that went past the keeper to the boundary was called a 4-wides in a test match, but a 5-wides in an ODI or T20
A delivery called wide which went to the boundary in Test, ODI or T20 would score 5 in all three formats and the delivery is rebowled. What you may have seen in the Test was a errant/wide delivery which was not called a wide and therefore scored 4 byes. These really piss off the wicketkeeper as it is marked as being their error but isn't marked against the bowler.
  #98  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:33 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
In a flashback to the 90s, when I started watching cricket, England, in a dead rubber, have come to the party and hold a big lead on first innings in the final Test in St Lucia. Burns and Denly hung around well enough, without scoring heavily, to knock some of the shine off the ball and helped the middle order get some runs in that respect. They still collapsed from 232-4 to 277 all out, mind you - though the Windies bowled well and the pitch looks reasonably difficult. Putting the Windies out for 154 was a top effort - better catching, and some fast, fast bowling from Mark Wood being the primary factors. Wood is someone that struggles to bowl this fast in successive Test matches - good job that there is a long break after this one then - and probably needs some real looking after. When he's fast though, he's fast - most of his spell yesterday north of 90 and frequently around 94-95 mph. Had the batsmen hopping at least.

Given how difficult the pitch has been to score on, I would hope that 200 would be sufficient in England's second innings. Likely to be an adventure trying to get there though.
  #99  
Old 02-12-2019, 06:52 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,752
England 324/4, and it's nice that we've actually showed up to a game in this series, even if it is after the series is already lost.

Still a huge question over Jennings. I want him in my Ashes team this summer, but it seems unlikely he's going to be there. But who are they going to throw to the sharks in his place?
  #100  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:43 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
Still a huge question over Jennings. I want him in my Ashes team this summer, but it seems unlikely he's going to be there. But who are they going to throw to the sharks in his place?
England set Windies 480+. Anderson strikes early - belting catch by Moeen in the gully.

I find the above interesting. Why do you want Jennings in your Ashes team?

As to the second question: everyone seems to be pointing at Jason Roy to open. Which seems to me like pouring oil on the fire. He doesn't open down at Surrey and he'll be in on the grounds that he opens in ODIs and should be able to tee off. But isn't our problem at the top of the order lack of obduracy?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017