Question for the cricket mavens in the crowd: I may be in Bangalore on Sept 22, staying in a hotel just down the street from the stadium where India is playing South Africa. It’s listed as “India v South Africa 2019 3rd T20I” and I have no idea where this fits in the grand scheme of things. Is this a qualifier for the T20 World Cup? What is the T20 World Cup? Should I try to attend, even for a bit, with my very basic knowledge of the game? I love attending sporting events around the world and this seems like it’s the cosmos telling me I must attend a match right down the street from my hotel.
Yes, you should go. The atmosphere should be great (but not rising to the sometimes dangerous levels of India vs Pakistan) and the cricket could be spectacular. In case you’re unaware, in T20 matches each side only bats for 20 overs, so the game is done in about 3 hours. This also tends to lead to aggressive batting, expect to see lots of balls flying into the stands. The T20 World Cup is held in a single country every couple of years with several countries playing each other over a few weeks to find the World Champion. This match isn’t a qualifier for that, because at present both sides are strong enough to qualify automatically.
It’s a routine tour game.
It’s not a qualifier, both India and South Africa will play the nex WC.
But just for the vibe of an Indian home crowd going off their collective nuts it’d be a hoot.
The game will take 4 hours.
Get a seat, tell the guy beside to you are a cricket novice and it’s a near certainty you’ll be overwhelmed with enthusiasm for the game and they’ll let you know exactly what’s the game situation strategy and ball by ball commentary.
By the end of the game you’ll be a paid up member of the “Swami Army”!
Broad!
Could Smith and Paine have made more effort to cross?
Two of Broad’s wickets wouldn’t be out if DRS’d. Think Pattinson might have thought it better to leave the DRS remaining for Smith though…
Pretty ordinary umpiring. Pattinson’s looked like it was going down leg at full speed, first time.
Does the TV camera angle make it easier to judge than the umpire’s-eye view?
Related question - why do umpires stand so far behind the stumps? If I were umpiring, I’d want to be as near the stumps as possible, both to check for no balls and for lbw decisions. Is it because they have to leave room for the bowler to get as close to the stumps as they wish when they deliver the ball? It seems to me very tough to judge close no balls from 4-6 feet behind the stumps.
I think one problem with being closer in is that it makes it more difficult to keep the non-strikers crease and the batter in view at the same time. I.e. if you’re looking down at the crease from 3 ft away at the moment the bowler releases the ball, you’ve got a second or so to look back up, pick up the flight of an 85 mph ball and possibly make an LBW call. Whereas if you’re standing back it’s easier to make the no-ball call without losing the overall view. Maybe?
I’m unpatriotically glad that Australia dragged it into the third session. Trent Bridge 2015 was fun, but this is Test cricket and one- or two-session innings should be a rarity. If this series is going to be a succession of collapses (which it well might be!) then I’ll feel rather short-changed in a “C’est magnifique, mais c’est nes pas de guerre” kind of way.
I mean, to a point. I’m not calling for a record 10th wicket stand or anything crazy.
This chap Smith is quite good.
If offered that at the start of the day, I’d have taken it. Having had Australia 122-8 though, that is a fairly ordinary performance in the end.
Smith is bloody good mind you. It’s more not sorting Siddle out more quickly I think I have issue with. Thought we missed Archer - and Anderson getting injured obviously not helping at all. Shades of Simon Jones- I wonder if we’ll see Jimmy play for England again. A recurrence would put him out for the rest of the series.
On the one hand, you don’t win the toss and bat to be 284 all-out unless the pitch is a dustbowl.
On the other, 284 could easily be the highest score of the game, and Siddle could easily have won the Test for Australia before he’s bowled a ball. Australia must be on a massive high - what price them to get a 100+ first-innings lead?
And yes, the umpiring was all over the place, particularly in the first session.
Umpires don’t watch for front foot no balls.
They make a judgement based on where bowler usually the back foot lands.
If they are forward of their usual landing spot they may watch the front foot moe closely.
The DRS takes out the potential for a dismissal off a no ball, if it not a dismissal and the front foot is a couple of mils over the popping crease, que sera, sera.
Standing back provides a better view on line, length and height for LBWs
Looking back on the innings, I think that Paine was the only guy who played a poor shot and even that is a a bit tough. LBW, bowled or nicking off to deliveries that had to be played. Nobody went to a catch in the gulley by handing their bat out to dry at deliveries that should have been let go.
So you’d need to give the honours to the bowlers.
By the time I went to bed about midnight when Pattinson went (7-122) I think there had only been a handful of short deliveries. And of course, missed the Smith/Siddle partnership and the last wicket fireworks.
A great example of why Test cricket is so enthralling
I am extremely happy that Smith scored so well- over 50% of Australia’s runs. Surely the heckling has gone past the use by date given other indiscretions by other players from various countries.
Seemed a rather difficult decision as the whether to bat first on a pitch that did so much.
Penultimate Thule- are you getting mystified by team slections on the Australian side?
In some respects, I don’t think I disagree with this. This said, what reaction do you reckon an English cricketer would have got, under the same circumstances, in Australia? Given the treatment meted out in a subsequent Australian series to Broad for not walking in an Ashes Test up here (an offence that seems somewhat less serious to me than using sandpaper on the ball)? Given “get ready for a broken fuckin’ arm”? Given the wind up that is generally given to the public by the media?
It’s all bollocks and I wish everything could be conducted with a better sense of sportsmanship. I am sure we’re all pretty much of like mind on this board. The fact of the matter is though, this is now how the masses respond. Putting a lid on it is going to be bloody difficult. In point of fact, the only way it will happen is keep scoring buckets of runs regardless - eventually the barrackers will shut up as it’s not having an effect.
Not really.
Replace Bancroft with Burns is the only change I make in the batting.
I’d prefer one left arm paceman but I understand the concern that Starc can be expensive.
Root there, getting a year’s worth of luck in one delivery.
If he goes on to get a century it will be worth it.
With apologies in advance, I’ll be the one to say it - this is the sort of Test-match batting we have been crying out for for years. But we’re going to need a 100+ first-innings lead to avoid a tricky last knock, and that’s still a very long way off.
Yes, this is… good?
Root has faced 60 balls for 12. Burns has faced 110 for 53. England are 79/1 just after lunch. Australia were dangerous in the morning, but England have got away with only losing one. It’s by no means straightforward for the batters, but it will get easier and if they can stick it out it will get easier, bowlers will tire, and there might be an opportunity for a good score.
It might not happen. But it’s nice to feel it’s an option.
Yes, fear of a major collapse is always there (no doubt for the players as much as the fans) but the longer this goes on, the more that fear recedes. And fear of a collapse is much better than an actual one.
TMS were chuntering about how perhaps England are scoring too slowly and this may be a problem. It makes you wonder if they’ve heard of Test cricket. 125/1 in 43 overs on a tough pitch, when your opponents were 122/8 yesterday, is fine.