If you will indulge me in a non-international cricket post.
Surrey are trying to chase down 501 to beat Kent, or least bat out five and a bit sessions to draw, in a match that they were not in at all for the first two and a half days.
Currently 331-3, as I follow along with a half dozen OAPs and seemingly no one else.
I listened along the radio on the drive home, about 45 minutes, but by that time it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that Surrey would get there.
The 8th highest 4th innings chase in first class cricket, anywhere, and the highest in England since 1925
Kent recovered from 41/5 in the first innings, though
Amazing stuff. Particularly by Dom Sibley, with a “Baz-whatnow?” innings of 140 not out from 415 balls over 9 hours and 38 minutes of play. Magnificent.
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that.
England have announced the team for the first test on friday:
Duckett, Crawley, Pope, Root, Brook, Stokes, Bairstow(wk), Ali, Broad, Robinson, Anderson.
Different bowling attack to the one used against Ireland, although still not full strength - will Archer ever regularly plays tests? Probably our best batting lineup though.
I have a doubt about Crawley and Pope back to back - it feels like there is a definite chance to lose 2 quick wickets there, but overall strong.
Still think Foakes was robbed. He’s not a mug with the bat and he’s a much better keeper.
Bowling is as you say - dropping Wood feels like rowing back on earlier talk about need pace, especially with the heartbreak of losing Archer. But it’s a solid line up for English conditions. Ali could go one way or the other, hopefully confidence is high.
The selection of Ali puzzles me, though more for the alternatives.
Doesn’t every county team going round have a right and/or left arm orthodox spinner of first class standard?
The other point I’d make related to the WTC and Green’s catch of Gill.
Obviously I’m in the “clean catch, ya shoulda walked” crowd though Shubman was quite within his rights to wait on the decision.
The crowd booing, well fair enough but “cheat cheat cheat” shows there is a message about DRS and adjudging catches based on replays.
There is no question that the edge carries.
There is no question Green wraps his oversized mitt around the ball
There is no question that the catch was clean, not fumbled.
There is vision that appears to show hand, ball and grass in close proximity. 3rd umpire, without clear evidence either way has .
It is a curious reversal of the doubt going to the batter, but it’s not the only case eg stumpings and no balls being others.
The problem here is the vision is a 2D representation of the 3D action including that the field is curved away from the pitch.
If you happen to watch a replay you will note that while the ball seems to graze the grass, Green’s boot and knee seem to go much further beneath the surface. This is because the offending grass in the vision is in foreground of where the action takes place rather directly beneath.
There is one guy who knows whether the catch was clean (Green) and one who by proximity has a bloody good idea (Smith). The rest of us are running on inference.
We are fighting Mr Murphy if we are hoping the scenario doesn’t repeat during the Ashes. Might well be contentious, hopefully not decisive. But when making your own educated assessments, remember that the DRS replays aren’t necessarily wrong, but they aren’t as conclusive at we’d like.
A footnote to the WTC is that, due the combined team penalties for slow over rates (which were appalling from both sides) and dissent, Shubman has to pay the ICC for the privilege of playing that game.
AUS were fined 80% of their match fees.
I suspect the prize-money well covers
When I saw that play, my first thought was if there is an actual definition of a clean catch in cricket. It seems less common now, but when I first started watching cricket, fielders would barely have control of a caught ball for a split second before tossing it in the air. I wondered what would happen if they fumbled the toss part. If I was an umpire, I would call that not-out, as I think a fielder should demonstrate a sufficient amount of control for a period of time that leaves no doubt that it was a catch. I’m on a train so can’t pull the video, but I seem to recall that the ball did touch the ground after Green first grasped it, so isn’t there at least some possibility that the ground assisted the catch?
As for the part I quoted, well, that’s pretty much the same as saying no one knows for sure whether it was a catch.
Hershel Gibbs drops the 1999 World Cup.
So long as you are in control of the disposal of the ball, it’s a fair catch.
If you take one, you know. As Gibbs knew he dropped it (his body language pleaded guilty as charged) though if he’d thrown it straight up as he’d intended Waugh was out.
I remember Brian Lara taking a catch against England in the deep, disposing of it sideways instead of up, and then having it given not out because the umpire didn’t think he controlled it.
So the Ashes begins this morning. Will Australia be able to stop this attacking England side? Great batting conditions this morning and England have won the toss and decided to bat. Should be a fascinating day.
Typically I would be bracing for a calamity - and I still am, but less so with this side than in recent years. But, you know, last time round I stayed up to midnight just to watch the first ball, and got to see Burns bowled with it for my troubles. So not completely confident.
Patently the attestation of the ipsum is in the ingestion.
And all hale to England if it works whether as Bazball or Bazball lite or grinding them out.
I’d point out that IND has a attacking line-up of superior quality, though maybe not in current form and they were rattling along at run-a-ball for much of the TWC.
AUS have a handy bowling line-up while Hazelwood in for Starc shows they want to keep it a bit tighter and to do that will sacrifice the assistance Starc provides for Lyon.
There will be chances, methinks the critical question is whether the catches stick.
That, and whether you appeal when the batter nicks it.
124-3, that third wicket falling on the last ball. A RR of 4.65 is fast for Tests, slow for full-bore Bazball. Seems to be fairly batter friendly conditions - sunny, still, wicket is hard and pretty flat. Which makes 3 wickets more significant than 124 runs. Australia setting defensive fields which allowed quite a few easy singles, especially to square leg, but don’t
And a much better result from the first ball than I was dreading!
I have seen “Bazball lite” in two discussions this morning (here and in a WhatsApp group).
Is this a term of art or just an obvious derivation.
The team, and in particular Brendan McCullum, don’t actually like the term Bazball because it implies a mindless slugfest.
What they say is underpinning the dramatic change in results - and scoring rate - is an attitude of playing without fear. That doesn’t mean swinging at everything regardless of conditions or scoreboard, but it does mean looking to score when possible and giving the players confidence that if they get out playing positively they won’t be dropped for it.
So under that version of Bazball, 4.65 RPO against defensive fields is still Bazball, as long as people were playing with postivity and confidence (which I think there was).
It feels like this partnership between Root and Bairstow could be key (currently 35*). If a miracle occurs and they’re still together at the close, that could be enough to secure England a decisive advantage in the game. Failing that, Australia will probably be happy with their efforts today. Unless England’s bowlers can find something more in the pitch. We could also get more cloud cover before the end of the game. And I’m glad we don’t have to face Lyon in the fourth innings.
Over rate pathetically slow, as usual. Time to start imposing actual scoreboard penalties? Say something fairly punitive like 5 runs added to the batting team’s score for every over not bowled. Or is it just too complicated to allow for things like wickets, injuries, changes to equipment etc? Plus I appreciate it can be manipulated to some extent by the batting side, also.
Yeah, after 175-5 tehy’ve really pulled it back - but whether we get past 300 feels very dependent on them sticking around. Not that Ali can’t score on his day, but I wouldn’t want to ask him for more than 20.
Agreed, and I’m ok with something like 5 an over. (Although, in the event that e.g Stokes and Brook are tee-ing off, bowling sides might want to bank a few overs at only 5 an over, so maybe it’s 5 an over or the run-rate at umpire’s discretion.) I think allowing for wickets is easy enough - take off two overs per wicket from the 90 - and I’m sure you can similarly reduce the target number of overs for injuries easily enough.
As for batters slowing things down by gardening, adjusting guard etc - easiest solution is the umpire can penalise them (premsumably by subtracting runs?)
Someone on Cricinfo has already improved on my suggestion - just multiply the overs not bowled by the run rate for the day and add this to the batting side’s score. I’m not sure I’d subtract 2 overs for every wicket - how about doing that for every wicket after the eighth of the day? And I think subtracting 5 for a mid-session change of innings is pretty standard also.
Cricket basically solved “no result” in limited overs with the DLS method, this should be far simpler. Warnings for batters wasting time is a little more subjective but could also be implemented (I’d suggest first warning, final warning, out).