Cricket

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
11,427
Does anyone recall the reason why Buttler moved from his former county to join Lancashire?
Yes, I do. Buttler was competing for the wicket keeper slot with Craig Kieswetter at Somerset, and there was probably room for both of them given the different competitions and that both had played for England. Kieswetter was the predecessor, though, and had indeed been Man of the Match in England's T20 World Cup final win in 2010. Buttler wanted to be recognised as top dog, and to fulfil his England ambitions further he thought joining a 'better connected' county would help. It appears he was not wrong!
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
5,260
Does anyone recall the reason why Buttler moved from his former county to join Lancashire?
Kieswetter had the gloves at Somerset, especially in white ball matches, with Buttler often playing just as a batsman. Buttler wanted to be a keeper for England, but needed to play regularly as a keeper, so ended up moving on.

It's always an issues with keepers (just like goalkeepers in football), Paul Downton left Kent for Middlesex because he couldn't get past Alan Knott.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
11,427
Kieswetter had the gloves at Somerset, especially in white ball matches, with Buttler often playing just as a batsman. Buttler wanted to be a keeper for England, but needed to play regularly as a keeper, so ended up moving on.

It's always an issues with keepers (just like goalkeepers in football), Paul Downton left Kent for Middlesex because he couldn't get past Alan Knott.
Kent made the right decision imo. Downton was a vg keeper but not the genius that Knott was. Bob Taylor got held back at England level because his keeping, arguably just as good as Knott's, was significantly better than his batting. Jack Richards, of Penzance and Surrey, was superior to Downton too, a view not necessarily held by the cricket 'establishment.'
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
5,260
Kent made the right decision imo. Downton was a vg keeper but not the genius that Knott was. Bob Taylor got held back at England level because his keeping, arguably just as good as Knott's, was significantly better than his batting. Jack Richards, of Penzance and Surrey, was superior to Downton too, a view not necessarily held by the cricket 'establishment.'
Downton was clearly not as good as Knott, but was younger though so I guess the crucial factor was how long Knott was going to go on for. You wouldn't want a situation where Downton left, only for Knott to retire a year later. Fortunately Knott continued for several years

Leicester City had a similar problem, and sold World Cup hero Gordon Banks a year after 1966, because Peter Shilton was coming through.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
2,295
Location
Kent
Downton was clearly not as good as Knott, but was younger though so I guess the crucial factor was how long Knott was going to go on for. You wouldn't want a situation where Downton left, only for Knott to retire a year later. Fortunately Knott continued for several years
To which I would add '... and whether his participation on the Packer tours would affect his availability for the county.'

Downton is currently Director of Cricket at Kent.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
5,260
To which I would add '... and whether his participation on the Packer tours would affect his availability for the county.'

Downton is currently Director of Cricket at Kent.
And also, which benefited Kent, Knott went on the rebel tour to S Africa in 1982 and was banned from playing for England!
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
2,164
India lost all 20 wickets against South Africa to catches, the first time that's ever happened in test matches.
 

Class800

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,162
Location
West Country
Burns unlucky - too tight to be definitive. I don't like all the use of replays on run outs, if you need a replay it's too tight to give in my opinion.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
11,815
Burns unlucky - too tight to be definitive. I don't like all the use of replays on run outs, if you need a replay it's too tight to give in my opinion.
Unlucky? It was out and clearly so.

Another shambolic England batting performance.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
2,164
Burns unlucky - too tight to be definitive. I don't like all the use of replays on run outs, if you need a replay it's too tight to give in my opinion.

The last thing it was is unlucky. Why on earth take the risk of a quick single at that stage of the game? Totally unnecessary

And I disagree about replays too - its a line decision, no element of subjectivity, so use the technology and make sure its correct
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
1,275
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
The last thing it was is unlucky. Why on earth take the risk of a quick single at that stage of the game? Totally unnecessary

Agree; That kind of decision-making, along with the some of the shots England players get themselves out with, makes me wonder if they actually know what a Test match is, and how to approach one.
 

PauloDavesi

On Moderation
Joined
14 Dec 2011
Messages
139
Chris Woakes in three games scored well over the combined total of the two Surrey players in the side, and he’s only behind Root & Bairstow in the batting averages, excluding Billing with just one innngs.
 

Class800

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,162
Location
West Country
Test cricket is supposed to be traditional. So I do wish it was the same as 50 years ago. No DRS or replays. But technology is the future sadly in my view. With the tradition of benefit of doubt to batsman I would want the batsman to be a good six inches short of the line to give it run out, i.e, a clear cut run out that can be seen from square leg. Burns was right up by the line. But I am very traditional with red ball cricket. And open to all sorts of modern twists with white ball, especially T20. No issues with replays, DRS, no ball checks, close run outs being checked, etc in T20, but I do wish Test cricket had been left alone. My favourite Test umpire was Dickie Bird - usually gave it not out, and was fair to both sides, and made the bowlers graft hard.
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
11,427
Chris Woakes in three games scored well over the combined total of the two Surrey players in the side, and he’s only behind Root & Bairstow in the batting averages, excluding Billing with just one innngs.
If only he could take more than the occasional test wicket away from English conditions he might be worth his place.
 
Last edited:

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
2,164
Test cricket is supposed to be traditional. So I do wish it was the same as 50 years ago. No DRS or replays. But technology is the future sadly in my view. With the tradition of benefit of doubt to batsman I would want the batsman to be a good six inches short of the line to give it run out, i.e, a clear cut run out that can be seen from square leg. Burns was right up by the line. But I am very traditional with red ball cricket. And open to all sorts of modern twists with white ball, especially T20. No issues with replays, DRS, no ball checks, close run outs being checked, etc in T20, but I do wish Test cricket had been left alone. My favourite Test umpire was Dickie Bird - usually gave it not out, and was fair to both sides, and made the bowlers graft hard.

So when it matters most (given test cricket is the pinnacle of the sport) you advocate lower quality decision making? And if it’s the traditional approach that matters, perhaps ban batsmen from wearing those new-fangled helmets?

And if a batsman is clearly four inches short of his ground he’s to be given not out?

Ive previously said I’m a bit dubious about the use of technology where there’s a predictive element, but at least that’s the same for both teams, and it isn’t going to be possible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Where it’s a line decision - no balls, boundaries and run outs - of course we should use the technology because it’s quick and accurate

The other one I’m unsure about is using replays for catches. Very difficult to know even with the various camera angles if a fielder has got his hands under the ball
 

Class800

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,162
Location
West Country
Times have moved on - and my way belongs in the past, and I have to accept that. I would prefer 'out' to be for clear and obvious dismissals, able to be seen on the field by umpires, not using replays and technology which spoils the spectator experience by meaning we don't know whether the decision will be over turned, so we can't celebrate. Run outs for me should be 'not in the frame' really - ones where the batman isn't there when the bails come off, I'm not interested in a few millimetres or inches - you can't see that from the stands as a spectator, so can't really appreciate it. I know things have moved on and technology will have a bigger role - in fact it won't be long until there are calls for umpires to be replaced by technology, I hope that is resisted.

Whatever our views - I think this written interview by Dickie Bird is quite interesting - I agree with his take on LBWs and technology https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/dickie-bird-nobody-in-the-world-objected-to-dickie-bird-449972
 
Last edited:

3rd rail land

Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
517
Location
Where the 3rd rail powers the trains
So when it matters most (given test cricket is the pinnacle of the sport) you advocate lower quality decision making? And if it’s the traditional approach that matters, perhaps ban batsmen from wearing those new-fangled helmets?

And if a batsman is clearly four inches short of his ground he’s to be given not out?

I've previously said I’m a bit dubious about the use of technology where there’s a predictive element, but at least that’s the same for both teams, and it isn’t going to be possible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Where it’s a line decision - no balls, boundaries and run outs - of course we should use the technology because it’s quick and accurate

The other one I’m unsure about is using replays for catches. Very difficult to know even with the various camera angles if a fielder has got his hands under the ball
For run outs I wish on field umpires would trust their own decision making rather than going 'upstairs' nearly every time. When I watch run outs on TV in real time I can usually make the right call 95% of the time. Sure, use technology to check the really close calls but not every single time. It's simply not necessary. It's not as if umpires review LBWs when they are not 100% sure, they have it make a decision in a few seconds and everyone accepts they will get it wrong on the odd occasion. That's why players are allowed to challenge decisions.

As for catches I think you instinctively know if you have cleanly caught the ball or not. We just need to trust players to be honest and own up to catches that have made contact with the ground as it enters the players hand(s) etc...

I think its perfectly ok to check a 4 vs 6 if it is close as umpires currently do. With no balls my opinion is they should only be checked if the on field umpire is unsure and the play is significant, eg a catch, taken or batsmen been bowled etc...
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
29,063
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Just before I decided my bed was calling, Australia were in the process of emulating a top/middle order England style collapse.....63-6!!!
Wood had four wickets to his name and Billings had taken four catches. Green and Carey were at the crease hoping to stop the rot.
 

Class800

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,162
Location
West Country
Carey spared twice by the use of technology for very tight calls, no ball and LBW. I was under the impression that the use of technology was intended to prevent 'howlers' - and while I wouldn't agree with its use for that in red ball games, it is understandable to a point. But it seems increasingly used to re-evaluate really tight calls, where you can't really say the umpire got it wrong. In fact the no balls are now not being assessed by the bowler's end umpire at all, leading to replay after replay of whether the finest point of someone's heel was behind the line. In the old days, both Carey ones would have been out and I don't think anyone at the times would have seen it as a bad decision
 

Class800

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,162
Location
West Country
With England at 52-0, it's time for a batting collapse, so that the match can end today.
271 to win, 68/1 - with most sides other than England, you would surely fancy the batting side. But with England you can't be sure. I was going to suggest some astute slowing the game down tactics to get through to close with no further losses, but realised a whole session to go. I cannot get my head around day night Test cricket, although it is good for T20. The longer internal being the second interval feels so odd - wonder whether or how it affects players' routines.

That no ball was the correct call.
The camera not being directly in line with the crease gives an optical illusion of it being closer than it was.
His heel was on the line - while technically a no ball, is it worth slowing the game down to scrutinise things that two experienced umpires can't notice live (and indeed have had this responsibility removed) - it's not a massive overstep. I don't think the game is going in the right direction with all this technology - but it will go ever more in that direction. In 10 years, maybe, the umpires will just be computer operators if this trend continues, standing on the field or maybe not even being on the field!

New contender for cleverest move to slow the game down? Which is a key tactical aspect of Test cricket. Hameed brought out a new helmet for Malan after being hit by Green, with the price tag still on it! So they needed to sort that out before he could play on. A wise old move. Take the pace out of the game, frustrate the bowling unit, let the bowlers get cold and stiffen up (even in Hobart conditions it will happen a bit).
 
Last edited:

Top