Cricket

[Pakenhamtrain]

Good opportunity for young blokes, but looks like the Stars are wilting today though against the Scorchers.

To be fair they were fielding the Victorian Premier Cricket XI.
Todays game vs the Renegades the opener was a manager at a computer shop!

I'm surprised they didn't have a crowd prize of being in the XI.

We have the AFLW and AFL seasons coming up. It's going to be carnage.

 

[Farang]

Bangladesh have beaten New Zealand by 8 wickets in NZ!

Bangladesh seal historic upset to end New Zealand’s unbeaten home Test run

Bangladesh have ended New Zealand’s 17-match unbeaten run on home soil with a stunning eight-wicket victory at Mount Maunganui

www.theguardian.com

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just logged on to see Australia 331-7. Broad has just taken his fourth wicket.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

The methodical destruction on England continues. Australia declared at 8/416.
And it's congratulations to Broad on racking up a century. Oh an 5 wickets.

 

[Class800]

That Cummins dismissal was very unlucky I think - not out on the field, so the DRS review had to find conclusive evidence to overturn it, and the spike on the snickometer was the frame after the balled passed the glove not the frame that the ball passed the glove - so as a batsman one would feel very hard done by there. Not conclusive evidence due to the timing issue.

And Crawley very lucky indeed - a tight no ball that the umpire didn't spot. Not sure I like all this constant checking for no balls etc - if the umpire doesn't see it, it should be marginal one hopes. Reviews detract from the spectator experience as you can't celebrate anything as you don't know if it will be changed

 

[SteveM70]

And Crawley very lucky indeed - a tight no ball that the umpire didn't spot.

The on field umpires no longer check the front foot where the third umpire / TV cameras do it, so nothing to do with the ump not spotting it

 

[Class800]

The on field umpires no longer check the front foot where the third umpire / TV cameras do it, so nothing to do with the ump not spotting it

Thanks for letting me know - didn't know that. How cricket is changing! And away from its traditions rather

 

[jfollows]

Thanks for letting me know - didn't know that. How cricket is changing! And away from its traditions rather

For me, the DRS system has ruined the game as a spectator, it's used for tactical reasons and the implication is that the umpire is always wrong. For a spectator, bad decisions in the past generally cancelled each other out. For a player I can see how a bad decision could be devastating, so I don't really blame them for using DRS when they can.
But it's a genie out of a box now and I wouldn't want to uninvent it. It's just tiresome.
I can see the merit of no-ball decisions being made separately, this bothers me less, not least because it's quick and decisive.
My remedy to DRS is to record the game and fast-forward through the review stuff.

 

[Class800]

I don't like DRS either but it is the future, sadly. It does nothing for the live experience. Bad decisions do average out. And maybe umpires should go back to benefit of doubt for batsman as was the tradition so no one is ever given out incorrectly hopefully, but bowlers have to work very hard for wickets. There were allegations in the past of umpire bias especially in the subcontinent. But you just have to play what is in front of you, and if the umpire is from the home nation and doesn't ever give you LBWs, that's just the way it is. The tradition was always at least one home umpire, and as the away bowling unit, you had to work hard

 

[Mikey C]

I always enjoy the DRS moments when at games, and most of the crowd seem to do so also. Only 3 reviews for teams (with home umpires) so it's not as if there are reviews every 5 minutes

Indeed I prefer this to neutral umpires

And the old old days of biased local umpires was disgraceful.

 

[SteveM70]

For me, using DRS for line decisions (no balls, run outs) in cricket is like using it for offside in football - when done properly its not controversial because they're matters of fact not interpretation. Furthermore, using it for no balls takes a lot of pressure of the bowler's end umpire - a mate of mine umpires local cricket and he says its surprisingly difficult to focus on the bowler's back foot landing and in under a second have a clear view of LBWs. Add in the increased pace and pressure of international cricket and its a no-brainer.

DRS for catches and LBWs is a far murkier area though......

 

[jfollows]

I always enjoy the DRS moments when at games, and most of the crowd seem to do so also. Only 3 reviews for teams (with home umpires) so it's not as if there are reviews every 5 minutes

Indeed I prefer this to neutral umpires

And the old old days of biased local umpires was disgraceful.

There are usually more than 3 reviews because teams only "lose" a review under certain circumstances.
I understand the comments about umpires. You can't please all the people all of the time.

 

[SteveM70]

I watched the first hour of last night's play and its clearer than ever that Root just isn't a very good captain. He sets really strange fields, for example Leach bowling to the left handed Khawaja (so the ball turns into the batsman) without a midwicket so there's an easy single there 90% of the time. Makes it very difficult to build pressure when there's always a "get out" shot available - no wonder it took Leach 36 overs this series to bowl a maiden.

I'm not sure what the solution is to the captaincy though - the current system of central contracts and extremely limited release of centrally-contracted players to play for their counties makes it pretty much impossible for a player to become both an experienced test cricketer and an experienced captain

 

[Class800]

I just like the game how it was, but times move on. I'm OK with DRS etc in white ball games, but in Tests I do like tradition to be retained, but am in the minority. I am starting local umpiring training - and it's basically impossible to call slight no balls even at club pace, it's only called if it's a massive overstep. And wicketkeeper's gloves in front of stumps will never be called at club level as no ball as no replays to check it, so keepers can use this tactically to stop cut shots by getting gloves in the way a bit, but it's always been that way

 

[SteveM70]

And wicketkeeper's gloves in front of stumps will never be called at club level as no ball as no replays to check it, so keepers can use this tactically to stop cut shots by getting gloves in the way a bit, but it's always been that way

Surely that's pretty straightforward for the square leg ump? He should be watching closely if the keeper is standing up to the stumps in case there's a stumping appeal

 

[Class800]

Surely that's pretty straightforward for the square leg ump? He should be watching closely if the keeper is standing up to the stumps in case there's a stumping appeal

Not if it's just an inch or two in front. And they don't call it - never seen it called no ball for hands in front, except in TV matches. At club level, stumpings are usually not given out unless it's literally that the batsman ran down the pitch and was out by a yard or two. Too difficult to call them without cameras, but maybe in premier leagues a few more stumpings are given, but in the lower divisions it's not going to be given unless it's far out. Bear in mind also that in some lower leagues, the square leg umpire is a player, often from the batting side, and he's not going to call it out surely, unless it's very obvious.

 

[Mikey C]

There are usually more than 3 reviews because teams only "lose" a review under certain circumstances.
I understand the comments about umpires. You can't please all the people all of the time.

If teams retain their reviews, it shows the umpire made a mistake or the batsman was only marginally in or out.

Either way, it's untenable to return to the "old days" in international cricket as back then the TV coverage was far more basic and decisions couldn't be "proved" wrong, whereas now (for the majority of situations) they can be.

And unlike football, there isn't the subjectivity of VAR where someone has to decide whether a challenge was a foul or not...

 

[backontrack]

"We've failed to deliver that. It doesn't matter what bowlers you play if you're getting bowled out for 140. That might be a bit brutal, but that's the truth in Test cricket."

A rather annoyed Stuart Broad.

 

[SteveM70]

And unlike football, there isn't the subjectivity of VAR where someone has to decide whether a challenge was a foul or not

There is for LBWs, because there's a predictive element as to the path the ball would have taken had it not hit the pad. Would it have continued in exactly the same trajectory or begun to curve? If it was already curving, would the degree stay the same? Now, it isn't subjective in the sense that different umpires could give different decisions for the DRS review, because the system gives the result, but there is a degree of subjectivity in how the system is programmed

 

[43096]

"We've failed to deliver that. It doesn't matter what bowlers you play if you're getting bowled out for 140. That might be a bit brutal, but that's the truth in Test cricket."

A rather annoyed Stuart Broad.

He's right, too. Without runs on the board, you aren't going to win matches.

Perhaps that was a "collective response" from the bowlers to Root's comments earlier in the series about the bowlers?

 

[Mikey C]

There is for LBWs, because there's a predictive element as to the path the ball would have taken had it not hit the pad. Would it have continued in exactly the same trajectory or begun to curve? If it was already curving, would the degree stay the same? Now, it isn't subjective in the sense that different umpires could give different decisions for the DRS review, because the system gives the result, but there is a degree of subjectivity in how the system is programmed

It's computer generated though, so there's no on field argument about the result, whereas VAR decisions about fouls and handballs have a human deciding them.

Yes somebody had to write the programme, but there's no hint of bias in it as the result is the same whether the batter is Kohli or Root.

 

[SteveM70]

It's computer generated though, so there's no on field argument about the result, whereas VAR decisions about fouls and handballs have a human deciding them.

Yes somebody had to write the programme, but there's no hint of bias in it as the result is the same whether the batter is Kohli or Root.

Yes, exactly my point - it isn't guaranteed to be 100% right, but its guaranteed to work as its designed and programmed.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm not sure what the solution is to the captaincy though - the current system of central contracts and extremely limited release of centrally-contracted players to play for their counties makes it pretty much impossible for a player to become both an experienced test cricketer and an experienced captain

I don't believe the solution exists. There is no other player guaranteed a place in the England team imo, given the fast bowlers have to be rotated these days due to the incidence of 'back to back' tests. Maybe the old Australian way of choosing the team and then the captain will return, but I doubt it. Sam Billings would be my wild card pick, but Malan would be my choice from the current crop. In case you're wondering, I've a feeling Stokes is near the end of his test career.

 

[Whistler40145]

Who's likely to be axed by England after the Ashes are over?

 

[Busaholic]

Who's likely to be axed by England after the Ashes are over?

Ashley Giles, I hope.

 

[backontrack]

He's right, too. Without runs on the board, you aren't going to win matches.

Perhaps that was a "collective response" from the bowlers to Root's comments earlier in the series about the bowlers?

Of course. Broad being dropped was a stupid call, from a cabal of idiots.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TitusOReily/status/1479280740067987458

Any England player who wrote ‘cricketer’ on their visa could find themselves sharing a hotel with Novak. #Ashes

The Last 53 balls before the end of that session:


....................W..................W.........W

 

[backontrack]

These batsmen - this shocking shower of batsmen - they don't even deserve to be ridiculed. They haven't earned that yet. None of this is funny. (Unless you're @Pakenhamtrain, that is.)

And I've genuinely switched off the live text because I am being a bit kinder to myself this year, and trying to foster a bit more self-confidence, and... this England cricket team doesn't deserve my attention. I should value myself a little bit more than that. So I'm not going to give them the slightest second of my time from now on.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

These batsmen - this shocking shower of batsmen - they don't even deserve to be ridiculed. They haven't earned that yet. None of this is funny. (Unless you're @Pakenhamtrain, that is.)

And I've genuinely switched off the live text because I am being a bit kinder to myself this year, and trying to foster a bit more self-confidence, and... this England cricket team doesn't deserve my attention. I should value myself a little bit more than that. So I'm not going to give them the slightest second of my time from now on.

We have reached the point of pity over here.

 

[backontrack]

We have reached the point of pity over here.

Ah no, you've earned the positive feeling A bowling masterclass from your lads, great captaincy from new leader Cummins and some excellent innings from your lesser batting lights. Honestly please don't let the English drama cloud it, there's going to be such a Western narrative of "England absolutely lost it" rather than give credit to the Baggy Greens, when in reality it was Australia who destroyed England. The credit is deserved.

(but also, we'll take the crumbs of pity nicely thank you)