I have looked at the scorecard and everything I said seems to be true. I have also discussed it Dad and he says those were some of the matches that turned him into an ODI fan.
- If both bails are oalready off the stumps, the fielding side can knock a stump out of the ground (either by throwing the ball at a stump, hitting the stump with the hand holding the ball, or pulling the stump out of the ground (provided one of the hands involved in the extraction is holding the ball). If both bails are off and all stumps are out of the ground, the fielding side can re-insert a stump into the stump-hole, and then knock/pull it out of the ground (never seen of heard of it actually happening, but the rule is there).
- Answered by others here. Also, as cricket evolves over time, there have been periods where the majority of tests ended in a draw, and periods where most end in a result (like now). As has been pointed out, India/Pakistan matches are virtually wars, and while it is great to win, it is a national disgrace to lose.
- All bowlers have to say which arm they are using to bowl with, and which side of the wicket they will bowl from. Changes are announced by the umpire to the batsman before they happen (The traditional park cricket joke is ‘Wallaby will be bowling right-arm tripe from around the wicket - as if that makes it any more likely he’s get it anywhere near the stumps’).
- A wicket will deteriorate over the 5 days of a test match - it is a source of endless discussions for commentators during the game. The batting side chooses a roller to give a final touch-up prior to the start of their innings (bear in mind, the pitch curator has been preparing, rolling and mowing the pitch for weeks before. This last little piece of gardening isn’t going to make that much difference). A heavy roller will flatten the pitch more - which means a more consistent, smooth surface, and less bounce - both good for batting. However, when done to much, it removes too much bounce, which makes it harder to time the ball when hitting it, and it also forces more moisture out of the pitch, making it drier and more likely to crack and aid spin bowlers. Also remember, that when choosing which roller to use, the other team may get to bat on it again (after your innings is over), and then you may have another innings - so you may have to be thinking a few days ahead. Understanding and forecastin pitch conditions is a combination of local knowledge and experience, weather forecasting, bullshit, witchcraft, voodoo, physics, biology, psychology, luck and is mostly a load of wankery - which manages to fill endless hours of dead time over the 5 days.
- DRS slows the game down and interrupts the flow (a DRS decision takes anywhere from 30-300 seconds to process). The BBL is mostly a TV product for entertainment. It’s thought better to keep the game flowing. (FWIW, I like not having DRS).
Yes, as per @Wallaby above, the bowler can use any type of delivery pace, slow, off spin, leg spin without notice. But a change of arm or side of wicket needs to be advised to the umpire who in turn advises batsman. Also no field changes can be made once the bowler commences their run in.
Which sounds reasonable, but the same courtesy doesn’t apply to the batter, who can face up as a right hander, get a delivery say short of a length just outside off stump, designed to entice a catch in the slips with the field set accordingly and then switches hands to being a leftie and hooks the ball.
Cricket is a batsman’s game and I can handle laps, ramps and other modern assaults on the batting lexicon but the batter changing hands it should be called a dead ball.
Ah we are doing this again…
Well, call me an unreconstructed Corinthian, but I think a sport needs to be a contest … elsewise the disadvantaged party seeks to redress the inbalance by bodyline, or sunscreen, or bottle caps, or sandpaper or vulcanised rubber.
Can anybody recall any national team be able to consistently swing the ball ( normal or reverse) since Sandpapergate?
England’s opening partnership finally passed 50 and the team still collapse in a single session. Seems like an inferiority complex at this point.
I do think it’s more down to the preparation, coaching and leadership at this point. We’re not going to be able to replace these batsmen with a set of better ones, we need to trust in the ones we’ve got and better prepare and coach them for test cricket.
What we’ll probably do is replace the bowlers, of course.
In that order? Just kidding, and thanks for the answers.
The issue I have with the BBL not using DRS is that it’s used everywhere else, so everyone (including the umpires) are accustomed to it. As I’ve noticed with American sports (and I think the incorporation of video tech and replay has been fairly concurrent for all of these sports), the actual calls on the field or court by referees and umpires have worsened. This is somewhat counterintuitive, as you would think that increased scrutiny would produce better decisions. And while I agree that replays disturb the pace and flow of the game, this occurs with every sport and it’s a price that they’ve all agreed to pay to get to the correct call.
I was never a proponent of video replay for any sport at first, as the logical conclusion is that people can’t really know for certain the final result of many exciting games that end on a close play until the video replay confirms what happened. It takes away from the spontaneity of the celebration. But now that the genie is out of the bottle, I see how vital it has become. Perfect example was the series of terrible decisions toward the tail end of Australia’s 2nd innings, which if were left uncorrected, could have changed the outcome of the test (although perhaps not with the condition of England’s batting recently).
With India and Pahistan games (and also Sri Lanka) the games were often played on very slow paced wickets- essentially it was for batsmen. (And matting was used rather than turf wickets not that long ago) And although it is not commonly referred to today, there were no international umpires. Given the status of famous cricketers- and even simply National players- decisions were made that were often biased against touring teams. Which made the performances of the mighty West Indies sides of the 80’s, to win there, even more meritorious.
As for the cricket last night I decided I would watch the play today as nothing much was happening. Due to a storm we had no Internet and I didn’t know Australia had won until mid morning.
Genies come out of lamps.
I agree with you that preparation, coaching and leadership is a big issue. There are systemic issues that need looking at. It’s just that the Australians haven’t actually been that dominant themselves. They had problems with the opening batsmen. Their best player Smith didn’t score a century. Before the series if you said that would be the case you would think it would be a very even contest. And yet it wasn’t. Which I think is down to mentality. When the Australian top order were struggling the guys below fought hard and took back the momentum. With England it’s as if the moment Root gets dismissed that the end is nigh. We know it as people watching the television and it feels like the guys playing know it too.