Does anyone recall the reason why Buttler moved from his former county to join Lancashire?
Money
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!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.Does anyone recall the reason why Buttler moved from his former county to join Lancashire?
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.'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.
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 yearsKent 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.'
To which I would add '... and whether his participation on the Packer tours would affect his availability for the county.'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
And also, which benefited Kent, Knott went on the rebel tour to S Africa in 1982 and was banned from playing for England!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.
Unlucky? It was out and clearly so.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.
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
If only he could take more than the occasional test wicket away from English conditions he might be worth his place.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.
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.
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.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
Shhhh!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.With England at 52-0, it's time for a batting collapse, so that the match can end today.
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!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.
As expected, it's now 83-3.With England at 52-0, it's time for a batting collapse, so that the match can end today.
With Green taking all the three wicketsAs expected, it's now 83-3.