Jump to content

Cricket: General Chat


Milfner

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

I was just thinking people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, what we do with the kangaroos is our business 😅

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC interviewed England batsmen this week and they all laughed and said they wouldn't walk if knew they nicked it

Spirit of the game goes 2 ways

Edited by Zatman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zatman said:

BBC interviewed England batsmen this week and they all laughed and said they wouldn't walk if knew they nicked it

Spirit of the game goes 2 ways

Not the same thing. Barely anyone anywhere in the world voluntarily walks these days, and you have the review system now anyway, so it’s become something of a non issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Not the same thing. Barely anyone anywhere in the world voluntarily walks these days, and you have the review system now anyway, so it’s become something of a non issue.

Its still not in the spirit of the game and just because everybody does it, doesn't make it right

Broad of all people has a cheek to be offended

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Its still not in the spirit of the game and just because everybody does it, doesn't make it right

Broad of all people has a cheek to be offended

Mmm, I think you’re reaching a bit, but ok. Broad isn’t a saint, you’re right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question here....would bairstow done the same if Carey was up to the stumps or did he feel because he was further back he felt able to wander ?

FWIW I don't think he would've. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No blame on Carey, he's just doing a job. All the blame lands with Cummins. He should have withdrawn the appeal. The umpires should also have had a word with him to encourage him to withdraw it, it was a dick move. 

Edited by villa89
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have not withdrawn it either too tbf. In the context of the not catch last night, I'd be feeling a bit aggrieved, and have a slight siege mentality of "well if that's the way it's going to be, lets get technical". If there had been a few days breathing space between the catch controversy and that, then it doesn't happen imo and they widthdraw the appeal. I feel the anger of the previous night played a part. For me it's 1-1 in shit decisions, not that 2 wrongs make a right but it's easy for them to rationalise it that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No excuses the better team won. Heroics from Stokes made the game closer than it should have been. Other than that Duckett showed he's a capable opening batsmsn and Tongue looked useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mottaloo said:

Genuine question here....would bairstow done the same if Carey was up to the stumps or did he feel because he was further back he felt able to wander ?

FWIW I don't think he is capable . 

FTFY ;) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rewatching the Bairstow incident he is completely at fault. Is about one second between ball getting to Carey and the stumps getting broken. He never once puts his bat down or looks at what Carey is doing

apparently wasnt the first time he had done it either in the match

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Rewatching the Bairstow incident he is completely at fault. Is about one second between ball getting to Carey and the stumps getting broken. He never once puts his bat down or looks at what Carey is doing

apparently wasnt the first time he had done it either in the match

He clearly touches his back foot down inside the crease to indicate he’s inside and the ball is dead. Bat or foot irrelevant. Yes was naive from him, but so rare for keeper to try and stump someone in that scenario because it’s a cheap play.

 

21 minutes ago, Rodders said:

I'd have not withdrawn it either too tbf. In the context of the not catch last night, I'd be feeling a bit aggrieved, and have a slight siege mentality of "well if that's the way it's going to be, lets get technical". If there had been a few days breathing space between the catch controversy and that, then it doesn't happen imo and they widthdraw the appeal. I feel the anger of the previous night played a part. For me it's 1-1 in shit decisions, not that 2 wrongs make a right but it's easy for them to rationalise it that way

Erasmus gave a very clear explanation re the “catch” being Not Out, and remember that decision was completely outside the control of either team. I don’t see any parallel between the two.

Whereas there are historic examples of captains withdrawing the appeal in the cheap stumping scenario.

I dunno. Ultimately Bairstow gave him the opportunity, but it spoiled an otherwise fascinating day of cricket.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rodders said:

I'd have not withdrawn it either too tbf. In the context of the not catch last night, I'd be feeling a bit aggrieved

Why? It clearly wasn't a catch. No controversy at all about it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

He clearly touches his back foot down inside the crease to indicate he’s inside and the ball is dead. Bat or foot irrelevant. Yes was naive from him, but so rare for keeper to try and stump someone in that scenario because it’s a cheap play.

 

The ball has just got to Carey yet when he does this action who probably doesnt see it as has his eye on the ball

apparently is a video online of Bairstow trying similar to Labuschagne a couple days ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He clearly had control of the ball and as a player you'd have no argument with that catch being given. Only slow mo telly replays decided he arbitrarily wasn't in control of the body. A bit facetious to say there's no controversy about it. I acknowledge the explanation but an explanation  doesn't dilute controversy, as seen with the Bairstow issue.

I know it's slightly different one being an umpires call the other an on field action but I do think, only my sense obviously, is without the controversy in thr back of the players minds making them more emotional, then Cummins probably does withdraw that appeal. 

But don't disagree it does spoil the spectacle. Although do note Strauss blaming the boos on the plebs but no comment on the gammon embarrassments in the long room behaving like unpleasant boors.

Anyway, England ought to focus on their first innings batting and fielding woes instead of crying foul. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

The ball has just got to Carey yet when he does this action who probably doesnt see it as has his eye on the ball

apparently is a video online of Bairstow trying similar to Labuschagne a couple days ago

 

There's also video of Brendan Mccullum doing similar for NZ too.  The hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rodders said:

He clearly had control of the ball and as a player you'd have no argument with that catch being given. Only slow mo telly replays decided he arbitrarily wasn't in control of the body. A bit facetious to say there's no controversy about it. I acknowledge the explanation but an explanation  doesn't dilute controversy, as seen with the Bairstow issue.

Did you actually watch Erasmus’s explanation because he very clearly states why he didn’t have control of the ball, and lots of examples (eg carrying the ball out for 4, or the ball spilling out as you hit the ground) that negate the catch. It was 100% not out, not even up for debate.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â