In general, the fact that we have started the fourth innings before lunch on Day 3 is a big, big problem for Test cricket.
@Jackknifed_Juggernaut wondered about them going into T20 mode. The fact that England regularly score more in T20 or ODI than they manage in tests is partly a reflection of how much easier pitch preparation and fielding restrictions make short-form batting , but also of how big the skill deficit is.
Can someone explain to me why cricket fielders chase hard-hit balls that have breached the infield, at full speed expending all that energy, when the ball is clearly going to reach the boundary well before they can get to it? Is it just difficult to judge the speed of the ball from behind? Is it to show their dedication? Is it to make the bowler feel bad, so that he doesn’t bowl that same ball again?
I’m all for working hard to prevent runs, even one run, but some of the energy used for chasing these hard-hit balls could affect their performance later in the match, right?
Stumps Day3
England 141 and 216 for 5 (Root 77*, Foakes 9*) need a further 61 runs to win.
It’s the hope that kills you! 
It’s pretty much all over, England at 141 & 267/5 needing 10 more.
Root has his century (and 10k career runs). What a stand!
And, now we’re at drinks.
I want whatever Root had at drinks! He comes back out and knock 3 4s in 5 balls to give England the win.
New Zealand 132 & 285
England 141 & 279/5
Root finishes with 115 (10,015 career). Man of the match for sure. He is 14th on the all-time list and the 2nd highest total for an English batter (Cook is 5th with 12,472). He’s only 108 runs out of 12th all time, so he’ll possibly end this test series there.
Hell of a game, looking back. Lots of moments that you think “If that had been different…” - from Stokes getting a chance on a no-ball, to CdG running himself out first ball.
I’m liking this team. There’s lots of bowling options recovering from injury, but the batting is looking a little better. Not brilliant - still far too reliant on Stokes and Root - but Lees and Crawley put on a first-innings partnership that you wouldn’t be upset with in any game, and I think Pope is probably here for the long term.
Root is probably the best batsman in the world at the moment. Superb innings, never looked in trouble. His biggest weakness is the guy at the other end.
Have been watching the first session, sometimes more of this series. Been good entertainment.
Slips should (in the Australian experience) be set so as to take most chances come waist high with the ball starting to dip. You also take most catches to your right, not your left. A lot of chances are coming below knee height, very few at shoulder height. So in our conditions they need to come up a metre or two … but they are already close to the wicket for guys bowling 130kms.
Maybe just two slips, a deep third man and putting an extra guy in the covers is as effective offensively, is better defensively, and encourages the seamers to bowl a fuller length? And let the vagrancies of the pitch and ball create the chances.
It might be footwork. He seems to assess the deliveries line, moves early then needs to move again or dive. Takes deliveries on the outside of the body rather than inside.
That old keeper adage “great hands, poor feet”, maybe.
Whatever, he’s the best gloveman ENG have had for a while.
Random question: if I understand correctly, an umpire cannot call a batter “out” until an appeal is made by the fielding team. If that’s the case, can both batters be out on the same ball, with the fielding team then appealing the out for the one they prefer to go off? For example, in a caught-and-bowled situation, the non-striker may stray off his crease, which could potentially allow the bowler, who just caught the batted ball, to run out the non-striker. If the fielding team prefers the non-striker to be off, they would not appeal the catch, and appeal for the run-out.
I don’t know about legality, but I’d consider that unsporting. Once the catch is taken the ball is presumed to be dead. So assuming the catch is obviously clean, the batter is going to walk and anything after that would be a sharp practice that the captain isn’t going to contemplate.
I hear you, if the play is basically over. I meant more like a hard shot to the bowler, who very quickly flings the ball at the wickets behind him, catching the batsman off the crease.
I don’t know how to explain it, but this kind of rules lawyering is not in the spirit of the game. Maybe it happens at some level, but I would expect that if the bowler were to appeal for a run out of Joe Root (for example) on 140 not out when he’d just caught and bowled #9 Stuart Broad for 9, the captain would run up and withdraw the appeal.
In my example, the non-striker was trying to gain an advantage by leaving his crease (to shorten his path to get a run). A “lead”, if you will. So the fielding team should fairly be able to punish him for doing so. If the bowler had intentionally dropped the ball, and then flung it onto the wicket, then that would certainly be acceptable, right?
Anyway, regardless of the ethical considerations, is it even possible?
Legally yes that is possible. Under the Laws the umpire would have no choice.
So is running out a backing up non striker without a warning. Courtney Walsh is one of the greats of the game, with a fantastic statistical record, but to me and many of my generation, his defining moment was refusing to run out a backing up non striker and (IIRC) his team losing a World Cup match, possibly costing them the World Cup itself.
It’s just not done.
I just googled that play, and I see your point. But it still makes no sense to me that the runner can try to gain such an advantage without repercussion, especially in such a close game. But unwritten rules and all…
That said, the fact there was so much discussion after his decision suggests to me that there is at least some grey area here.
This should give you an idea: the act of running out a backing up non striker (without a warning) was called “mankading” after the guy who famously did it in a Test match, an Indian legend named Vinod Mankad. The term is regarded as a racial slur by many Indians.
I think it’s more acceptable these days, especially in ODI and T20 cricket. It certainly happens more often.
I think the etiquette now us to give a warning (e.g., run up, fail to bowl and fake running the offender out) with the idea being that after that it’s fair game. Because yes, it’s a cheap shot, but equally you can’t be giving people 5 yards head start
As long as I’ve been following the game (maybe 45 years) that’s always been the etiquette.
But regardless of all that, what @Jackknifed_Juggernaut was asking about delaying an appeal to have a chance at the other batter would not be thought well of. I suspect if it happened, it would be written out of the laws very quickly.
Autocorrect got me again. That’s VINOO Mankad.