It's not a rule as such, just something umpires tend to recommend when the light is borderline.
I'm a cricket radical and believe 'bad light' should be abolished. Just another load of batsman favouring shite.
Printable View
It's not a rule as such, just something umpires tend to recommend when the light is borderline.
I'm a cricket radical and believe 'bad light' should be abolished. Just another load of batsman favouring shite.
So is Warner also getting detention for constantly copying Smith and Bancroft's homework?
IPL starting, I'll be watching the first game just to see what Dhoni fixes this time. There's a school of thought among some insiders that say he's at it in most games he plays (hence captaining in all formats and IPL for so long).
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/43824037/
:D
What even is the point of this? Is it because they don't like the idea that everyone else started doing the T20 thing?
I'm so angry about it that I can't even be bothered to fully explain why.
The fact that they've come out of nowhere presenting it as a fait accompli is the worst thing about it, but by god there are a lot of very, very bad things about it.
:face:Quote:
ESPNcricinfo understands that, during discussions, the idea of abandoning LBW dismissals was considered.
The worst thing is it's not even a radical change, like T20 was. It's just twenty balls off of a standard T20 match. Difference for the sake of difference itself.
I just hate the obsession with RUNS. Making it more and more a batter's game turns it into basketball where the points accumulated mean far less. Having a "death bowler" who can concede like 9 runs and it still be considered pretty good is frustrating.
Like, I love a good slog, but it's about context. Someone like Flintoff or Gilchrist coming in at 160/6 or something at 4pm on the first day of a test and smacking a run-a-ball 50 is great entertainment, having 20/20 games where par score is about 1.5 runs a ball is not. For me anyway.
I just like the battle between bat and ball, rather than the battle between two sets of batters with the bowlers essentially there to lob it up for them. I'm not smart enough to articulate why, but I also really don't like how limited overs cricket, especially in the bits and pieces of English domestic 20/20 I see, seems to mostly reward 65mph trundlers and part-time spinners who don't spin it. It's like being good is counterproductive for bowlers.
This arsehole Sanjay Patel who keeps going on the telly chatting absolute bullshit is, I'm reliably informed, a complete thicko know nothing prick who has been rewarded for fucking up his other ECB jobs by being given the job of heading this up.
The short version of this is they have gone as far as literally changing the game to get the BBC to take a few games. The free to air thing is a complete red herring and I wish people would shut up about it.
I love how surprised he is with himself when he gets up.
Everything about that is lol, from the fact that he caught it, to the fact it was Virat Kohli basically patting a high full bunger to square leg, to the crowd SEETHING. And Bumble always finds a way of being on commentary for these things.
In the spirit of generosity, let's try and solve the ECB's problem. They clearly have an issue with the length of the game. They want it to fit within predictable television windows. Everything else is just a blind to accomplish this goal. However I, and I suspect many others, would prefer whatever they're lift with to vaguely resemble cricket in some fashion, rather than racquetball to cricket's squash.
Let's try this on for size:
- 12 overs per team. That's seventy-two balls, ECB.
- Six batsmen only. They should prize their wicket, rather than hit and hope. The game moves faster when batsmen aren't hitting it into the crowd every ball, and it brings back a role for exciting pace bowlers, who are the unexpected dying breed in T20 cricket. This is by far the most important change - every time you reduce the length of the game without reducing the number of batsmen, you diminish the value of a wicket (and every time you do that, you tilt the game further in favour of the chasing side, which we're seeing in T20 now).
- Four bowlers permitted, each of whom must bowl three overs, barring injury. I'd like to say that there has to be at least one pace bowler and one spin bowler in every team, but that could be hard to enforce.
- One player who is there only for their wicketkeeping. This has the advantage of encouraging more skilled wicketkeepers. A spectacular keeper catch is a nice highlight generator, and the higher level of keeping ability would ensure that they come along more regularly. I would be willing to entertain a permitted keeper-batsmen, with a fielding specialist taking their place. Same deal though - a specialist fielder would have more skill in their speciality, allowing for more spectacular dismissals.
Each player can only fit in one of the three categories. No overlap. Sure, it penalises all-rounders a little bit, and possibly keepers who can bat if we don't permit keeper-batsmen (but let's be honest, the list of keepers who can actually bat properly is rather short). I'd rather watch specialists than sloggers and trundlers. This streamlined version of the game has no place for part-timers. If the optimal strategy is military medium pace and spinners who don't spin, the game has a problem.
EDIT: Also, put the rope back where it belongs - about a yard or two from the edge of the field. Rope creep is one of the most irritating things to have happened in short form cricket.
That's basically baseball and I approve.
It does start to get disconcertingly similar, I'll acknowledge.
I could countenance 14 overs/7 batsmen. The over/batsman ratio is critical though.
We'll always have the picture.
Kohli at Surrey - I lolled. The best/worst thing about it is loads of people complaining that it'll allow him to get his eye in before the Tests. Erm, good? What's wrong with that?
We want him to be shit so we can roll them like usual of course :rolleyes:
I see some Yawkshuh teenager called Harry Brook has scored a century. How big a deal is that at his age? Should we be GETTING HIM ON THE PLANE? (Or the appropriate cricket equivalent.)
We're getting Justin Langer as coach, which is probably the best non-Jason Gillespie option.
Brook is a Root clone iirc. Plays it late.
Kevin O'Brien :thbup:
If any team can manage to lose this, it's Pakistan.
And follow it up with a series win over England no doubt
James Vince getting a double ton today has certainly dampened my expectations.
Leach broke his thumb too today.
Delighted to see Ireland playing tests. Give 'em Morgan.
Ireland is such a welcome Nation to Test cricket.
13/2 hello
Holy shit this is amazing. Murtagh is unplayable.
I was going to post this morning that there was no way we wouldn't lose this were we in Pakistan's position.
Cricinfo talking about Buttler being called up. Does he even know what a red ball looks like?
Been in great nick for the Rajasthan Royals. Which is more important obvs.
Yeah, BBC said he hasn't played any first class but has 5 50s for the Wherever Whoevers. Great.
With Buttler in the team, wouldn't it make more sense for Bairstow to be the specialist batsman at 5, rather than Buttler at 7?
I'm on board with abolishing the toss. Anything it takes to get vaguely fairer pitches.
I like the idea, but I doubt it will make much of a difference at International level, where lack of acclimitasiation/decent practice in conditions is always going to be a problem. I suppose if they go the whole hog and let you choose bat or bowl then you can at least prepare with some certainty as to what you are going to do. Australia will never bat first again at home though, you'd think (nor will most countries for the most part).
I haven't really noticed if it has made a difference in England. We're still seeing early season 50-all-outers so maybe it wasn't that the pitches were being prepared a certain way, but rather that seasonal conditions lend themselves to nibbley minefields.
The standard of batting in England is far below the standard of bowling. The opposite thing to what India has where Ranji games all end up 587/3 declared because their bowlers just can't get anyone out. Sure the pitches have an effect, but pitches produce cricketers as well.
That said, it won't come close to eliminating home advantage, because different teams have different strengths. Choosing not to bat last on an Indian dustbowl won't change the fact that their spinners will have their way with you.
De Villiers had a fantastic career. There's no real argument there at all - he might be South Africa's greatest post-ban batsman. But somehow I feel like he should have made just a tiny bit more of an impact than he did.
He's always been a bit soft if you ask me, and retiring because he is 'tired' is a continuation of that. A great talent, but not a tough competitor.
Must admit I never really warmed to him and I’m not sure why, great player though.
One of the only very few world class in all three formats players. Probably only Williamson and Kohli can say that.
The obvious contrast is with Dale who is still fighting on to the bitter end.
England 43/3. Summer has arrived.
The Gingers will save us.
Does Mohammad Abbas look good? I've not seen him.
Moves it both ways in the air and off the seam at about 80mph. Poor mans Mohammad Asif but looks good in these conditions.
Bit worrying we are 100/4 with Amir having looked way off the pace. If he gets involved could get messy.