|
27 Aug 19 - 04:03 AM (#4005963) Subject: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman Australian media claim they were robbed when Ben Stokes was incorrectly given not out. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 04:06 AM (#4005964) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman it was a good effort by leach and stokes, but in reality akin to the charge of the light brigade, a waste of time .[england will lose the ashes when smith returns] stokes knew he was out and should have walked, but obviously he is not a gentleman |
|
27 Aug 19 - 04:39 AM (#4005967) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash Few are in 21st Century cricket. However Dick, instead of trying to sow dissension (as you are noted for) you could, like the rest of us, celebrate an amazing innings and an amazing win for England |
|
27 Aug 19 - 05:16 AM (#4005974) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: David C. Carter What Raggytash said. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 05:33 AM (#4005979) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Dave Hanson There is too much money in modern sport for it to be truly sporting anymore. Dave H |
|
27 Aug 19 - 05:42 AM (#4005982) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw The Aussies wasted their last review on a hopeless earlier case, so when Stokes was incorrectly given not out they had no reviews left. Has the decision been reviewed, that would have been it. It's not cricket, old boy... |
|
27 Aug 19 - 07:17 AM (#4005993) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Big Al Whittle Modern cricket is a funny game. The pitch of 22yards was decided in an age when everyone was a about a foot less tall. It would be interesting to know when these lethal deliveries started. The Stokes innings would still have been a good innings, even if we had lost the test and the series. There's no way to prove that he cheated., I agree - he should have walked if he definitely knew he was out, whatever the consequence. Still that sort of sneakiness, and getting away with what you can has been part of the game at least as long as Victorian times. There are accounts of WG Grace bending the rules. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 07:41 AM (#4005998) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman Nothing new - it’s been a common practice... I particularly like the one where WGG tells the official, “Play on - people have come to see me bat, not you umpire”. I’m sure he had a point... |
|
27 Aug 19 - 09:01 AM (#4006004) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash Well there's the "Bodyline" series of 1932-33 Al. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 09:36 AM (#4006009) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: SPB-Cooperator If it had been the other way, and the Umpire gave out when it was an obvious wrong decision and England had no more reviews left, would Australia have asked the umpire to change his decision? Sometimes a player just gets lucky. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 09:36 AM (#4006010) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw I think it's a bit unfair to accuse Stokes of not walking. It was an LBW shout, not a snick or something. The batsman is hardly in the best position to know whether he is directly in front, etc. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 09:52 AM (#4006015) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: SPB-Cooperator Well if Stokes had eyes in the back of his head, then he would be able to tell if the ball hitting. In the end it is just sour grapes on Australia's part. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 09:59 AM (#4006016) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman SPB, Steve - pretty much my thoughts too. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 10:40 AM (#4006024) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw To be fair to the Aussie team, they seem to be philosophical about the whole thing and lament their own mistakes rather than cast nasturtiums at Stokes or the umpire. It's the Aussie media doing that. Bloody whingeing anti-poms... |
|
27 Aug 19 - 11:18 AM (#4006032) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: MikeL2 hi What a load of c**p - I have played and watched cricket for many years. I have played with and against Australians for many years. Great guys. But I have never seen an Aussie walk. They wait for the umpire to decide. I don't think any Australian of the recent game held nothing but admiration for Stokes. As they walked off the pitch at the end. I noticed that every Australian player made a point of congratulating Stokes. The press are just trying to create problems. Cheers Mike |
|
27 Aug 19 - 01:40 PM (#4006055) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Jon Freeman "But I have never seen an Aussie walk." Adam Gilchrist, the Australian wicket keeper/batsman, was known for his belief in walking but I don’t think you would find many “walkers” from any country within professional cricket. Incidentally, Stokes has said that he believes the DRS verdict is wrong and that he was not LBW. Any feelings regarding the reliability of the technology? |
|
27 Aug 19 - 02:39 PM (#4006065) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman Sowing dissension? no,encouraging discussion. Raggy, i watch your antics below the line, along with about six others, fighting over who has the biggest mouth or willy. you are along with about six others arguing from an entrenched position and achieving nothing. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 03:53 PM (#4006079) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash Dick, I have no desire to fall out with you but I'm sure that you are well aware of your reputation on this site. Your second post was, to my mind, deliberately antagonistic. "stokes knew he was out and should have walked, but obviously he is not a gentleman" The batsmen cannot know for CERTAIN just where the ball in heading, it is up to the umpire to adjudge whether or not the ball will hit the stuffs. The umpire made an error. But all of this detracts from a stunning innings from Stokes, with stalwart defense from Jack Leach. One that should be celebrated by every cricket fan in the country. |
|
27 Aug 19 - 04:13 PM (#4006081) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw I never fight over who has the biggest willy. There's simply no contest. It can be a scourge at times... |
|
27 Aug 19 - 06:24 PM (#4006095) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: WalkaboutsVerse All sports have their weaknesses but "test" cricket has a huge one in that there is no punishment for an air-swing - unlike limited over cricket (a far better game, in my opinion) where the bowler, of course, gets rewarded with a "Dot-Ball" |
|
28 Aug 19 - 01:58 AM (#4006132) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman well the positives are the series is well balanced.and still alive Raggytash cricket is a sport, a game, it is not a political war, your comment about sowing dissension was out of order and unpleasant. The game was exciting and stokes and leach did very well In reality England lost the game, they won because of a bad umpiring decision, their first innings was very bad and their are questions about their batting line up that need to be sorted Steve Smith will be back, and in my opinion the aussies have a good chance of winning the series. Raggy, your rep on this site is one of being a part of a group who regularly mess up and insult people of opposing views below the line your post about sowing dissension is just another example |
|
28 Aug 19 - 02:09 AM (#4006133) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman my suugestion is raggy that if there is a post that encourages discussion that instead of responding with a personal criticism, you actually concentrate on discussing the cricket.England have abatting fragilty, what should they do, drop Roy?play root in a different position in batting order |
|
28 Aug 19 - 02:27 AM (#4006136) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Jon Freeman In reality England lost the game, they won because of a bad umpiring decision If Lyon had taken a simple run out chance, we wouldn’t have got to the debated lbw. If Australia had been more prudent with their reviews, they would have been able to review the Stokes one. And there are possibly other “if only’s” that just might have altered the outcome of the game. Umpires can make mistakes, players are entitled to (and usually do) stand their ground and there was nothing sinister about what happened. Get over it. |
|
28 Aug 19 - 02:45 AM (#4006139) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman ”Umpires can make mistakes, players are entitled to (and usually do) stand their ground and there was nothing sinister about what happened. Get over it.” Absolutely correct, Jon. It’s always been so, there is nothing in the Laws of Cricket requiring a batsman to ‘give himself out’, and it’s understood by true lovers of the art of the greatest game in the world. |
|
28 Aug 19 - 02:57 AM (#4006140) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman yes jon, but not a question of getting over it, more a question of sorting out the weak batting order, 69 in first innings, a feeble score. England had a bit of luck austraklia ran out of reviews they were approaching the end of the game and made one mistake about a review. none of which alters the question of englands first innings debacle, if they are to win the ashes they need to bowl and bat better, they need to get smith out early and they need to also get Labuschagne out. this article says it all theEngland were dismissed for a humiliating 67 as their hopes of reclaiming the Ashes were left hanging by a thread on a day that could prove a line in the sand for their misfiring Test batsmen. Joe Root's side arrived at Headingley on the second morning of the third Test with a huge chance to play their way into a series-levelling position after toppling Australia for 179 but turned in a sorry, insipid display. They were sunk inside 28 overs for England's third-lowest Ashes score on home turf and the eighth worst overall. Australia responded by reaching 171 for six at stumps, a lead of 283 that positions the holders to go 2-0 ahead with two to play. The tourists deserve considerable credit for a fine bowling performance, not least Josh Hazlewood's highly-skilled five for 30, but the horror collapse has become a frustratingly frequent flaw. This was the fourth time since the start of 2018 that England have been blasted out in double figures - with three of those in the past seven Tests - and it increasingly looks like a structural problem that requires serious and immediate attention. england England were dismissed for a humiliating 67 as their hopes of reclaiming the Ashes were left hanging by a thread on a day that could prove a line in the sand for their misfiring Test batsmen. Joe Root's side arrived at Headingley on the second morning of the third Test with a huge chance to play their way into a series-levelling position after toppling Australia for 179 but turned in a sorry, insipid display. They were sunk inside 28 overs for England's third-lowest Ashes score on home turf and the eighth worst overall. Australia responded by reaching 171 for six at stumps, a lead of 283 that positions the holders to go 2-0 ahead with two to play. The tourists deserve considerable credit for a fine bowling performance, not least Josh Hazlewood's highly-skilled five for 30, but the horror collapse has become a frustratingly frequent flaw. England were dismissed for a humiliating 67 as their hopes of reclaiming the Ashes were left hanging by a thread on a day that could prove a line in the sand for their misfiring Test batsmen. PLEASE NOTE This was the fourth time since the start of 2018 that England have been blasted out in double figures - with three of those in the past seven Tests - |
|
28 Aug 19 - 03:31 AM (#4006142) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman So should Roy be dropped and who would replace him , or any other suggestions to improve batting? |
|
28 Aug 19 - 04:02 AM (#4006148) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash Much has been written and spoken of in the media of how Australia were lacking their best batsman in Steve Smith. I could point out that England were lacking their best bowler in James Anderson. |
|
28 Aug 19 - 04:42 AM (#4006153) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman maybe, but Archer did well,What alternative batting strengths are there? |
|
28 Aug 19 - 05:10 AM (#4006160) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw You can only play the team who turn up. 'Twas ever thus. City won the league last year despite their unarguably best player, Kevin de Bruyne, missing for much of the season. Liverpool almost got there despite the absences of The Ox and Adam Lallana. The team that wins is the team that makes fewer mistakes. Umpires and referees are human beings in sports played by human beings. Errors of judgement are part and parcel of the passion in sport. As long as there's no deliberate partiality we should enjoy it for what it is. Or just don't follow it at all if it irks you so. |
|
28 Aug 19 - 07:10 AM (#4006174) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Dave the Gnome It would help if you credited the source of your post of 28 Aug 19 - 02:57 AM, Dick. Or, if you want to try and claim the words as your own, at least don't paste them twice. |
|
28 Aug 19 - 08:12 AM (#4006180) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman Time for pedantry Dave?do you dispute the content?breaking news here if you pssted it you would find it, here By Press Association England were dismissed for a calamitous 67 as their hopes of reclaiming the Ashes were left hanging by a thread on a day that could prove a line in the sand for their misfiring Test batsmen. Joe Root’s side arrived at Headingley on the second morning of the third Test with a huge chance to play their way into a series-levelling position after toppling Australia for 179, but ended up turning in a sorry, insipid display. They were sunk inside 28 overs for England’s third-lowest Ashes score on home turf and the eighth worst overall. Australia responded by reaching 171 for six at stumps, a lead of 283 that positions the holders to go 2-0 ahead with two to play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihSxLyly9_k |
|
28 Aug 19 - 08:48 AM (#4006188) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Dave Sutherland Possibly Stokes was under instructions to play to the umpire's decision? Apparently when Ian Botham was captain his normal team talk included the warning "don't anyone DARE walk" |
|
28 Aug 19 - 09:18 AM (#4006190) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Do batsmen ever walk after an LBW shout? Intriguing... |
|
28 Aug 19 - 09:33 AM (#4006191) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman ”Do batsmen ever walk after an LBW shout? Intriguing...” Intriguing indeed, Steve. I find it difficult to see how a batsman would be able to judge whether the ball would have been ‘hitting’, and he’s not likely to be able to judge that the ball was legal, e.g.. no foot-foul on the part of the bowler - he would be watching the bowler’s arm/hand, not his foot, and he probably wouldn’t be able to see where the bowler’s foot fell in relation to the popping crease. |
|
28 Aug 19 - 01:41 PM (#4006236) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman fair point back woodsman, |
|
28 Aug 19 - 02:46 PM (#4006244) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: MikeL2 Hi Steve " Do batsmen ever walk after an LBW shout?" Nowadays it is extremely seldom for any professional Cricketer to walk for anything. It is far more usual for a batsman to be angry and argue even when they are plum out on the photo evidence. Cheers Mike |
|
28 Aug 19 - 04:24 PM (#4006257) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw From the Mudcat article on appeals in cricket: "Some decisions, such as leg before wicket, always require an appeal and the umpire's decision, as no batsman will preempt the umpire on what requires fine judgment of several factors." |
|
28 Aug 19 - 07:00 PM (#4006285) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Nah then, Mike, plumb (or plum) relates only to blatantly out LBW, nowt else. "Bloody umpire never give 'im out ell-bee, though we could all sithat 'e were plumb..." sort of thing. I contend that a batter would rarely be in a good position to decide whether he's out leg-before. With LBW it's always best to let the umpire decide. In most cases, the batter may have an inkling as to whether he's out or not, but he can't be sure enough to walk. Walk if tha's bowled or if tha's nicked it, if tha's a gent, but 'ang on if tha thinks that t'fielder grassed t'catch... |
|
28 Aug 19 - 07:01 PM (#4006286) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Dammit, not the Mudcat article. I meant wiki. |
|
31 Aug 19 - 08:01 AM (#4006652) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Bonzo3legs Crikey, cricket snobs, bloody stupid game !! |
|
31 Aug 19 - 10:08 AM (#4006671) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Hmm. As cricket is so redolent of the sound of leather on willow on village greens while nannies push babes in Silver Cross Balmorals past the tea room to the duck pond and warm beer is served at dinky tables under the weeping willow outside the little thatched inn, and as so many of the best cricketers are the product of public schools, etc., I'd have thought that cricket would actually be right up your Tory alley, Bonzo... |
|
01 Sep 19 - 12:40 PM (#4006817) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: SPB-Cooperator The only terrible decision is to refuse to allow people in the UK to watch test matches on television (unless we agree to line the pockets of the Sky scum) - or to build 10-20 million seater cricket grounds, free entry and free transport/accomodation. |
|
01 Sep 19 - 12:50 PM (#4006819) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Bonzo3legs I dislike cricket with every bone in my body, as much as I dislike the blonde idiot pm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
01 Sep 19 - 02:16 PM (#4006829) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Well that's something anyway. |
|
01 Sep 19 - 02:21 PM (#4006830) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman Every cloud has a silver lining... |
|
01 Sep 19 - 02:25 PM (#4006834) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash Anyone who doesn't like Cricket has my full sympathy. You really don't understand just what your missing. |
|
01 Sep 19 - 02:58 PM (#4006841) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman Agreed, Raggy. It takes intelligence.... |
|
01 Sep 19 - 03:33 PM (#4006844) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash For once I was trying to be polite Backwoodsman!! |
|
01 Sep 19 - 03:40 PM (#4006845) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Bonzo3legs But then I love polo - on ponies that is!!! |
|
01 Sep 19 - 04:16 PM (#4006851) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Yeah but come on, Bonz, most of the buggers who play polo are the type of rich buggers who you were castigating as cricket snobs! Polo players are nearly always well minted! Oi, see what I just did there...? |
|
01 Sep 19 - 08:14 PM (#4006875) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: SPB-Cooperator My better half and I have spent several afternoons over the year sunning ourselves on a village green or park bench enjoying watching a club match. That hardly makes us rich buggers or cricket snobs We don't even have cucumber sandwiches. |
|
01 Sep 19 - 08:23 PM (#4006878) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw I know, me too. I was trying to parody John Major's pathetic "back to basics" thing which he concocted whilst shagging Edwina, which I thought might have been up Bonzo's alley. What a man of taste! I know that Kew Green isn't exactly what you might call a village green, but on one occasion in the early seventies I quaffed a pint or three there whilst watching a charity match in which Michael Parkinson and Elton John were playing. Not a bad batter, Parky. Not much good for owt else, mind... |
|
02 Sep 19 - 04:01 AM (#4006902) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Dave the Gnome Well, BWM, when it comes to test matches maybe I do not have the intelligence. Or maybe it is just an attention deficit disorder:-( I do enjoy fixed over matches though and also like sitting by a village pavilion for an hour or two while the sun shines and ale flows :-) Is there any hope for me? |
|
02 Sep 19 - 04:23 AM (#4006905) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Backwoodsman There’s always hope Dave... ;-) :-) |
|
02 Sep 19 - 08:19 AM (#4006936) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Jon Freeman A few random memories. Capital Radio used to play a game against the Kent village I lived in for a while. Michael Aspel came down a couple of times. On other “stars”, I remember some knock out thing in another Kent village where village players got paired with county players who came from a Kent vs Lancs match. Clive Lloyd was amongst the players bowling to and facing village opposition. Dad was a keen village cricketer and at lot of childhood summer Sunday afternoons involved going to these games even if there wasn’t always a lot of cricket watched by us. In the N Wales days when he played for Llanwrst which was about ½ hr by car from us, mum would often make her own way later. I used to prefer it that way, otherwise we would be stuck in the Eagles Hotel car park for what felt like ages (although, in fairness, I think he only had a pint) while dad had a post match drink with his team mates. In the Kent days, mum got roped in as chief sandwich maker. The wife of another player would join her at our house and they'd have there little “factory” going on the Sunday mornings. I think the only time I got roped in was once when they were stuck for a scorer. I wasn’t 100% sure what I was doing but think I did OK... |
|
02 Sep 19 - 09:14 AM (#4006951) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Steve Shaw Just in case any American reading this thread is bemused by the whole thing, here are the simplified rules of cricket, clear as mud: You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game. It's what makes Britain great, I tell you. And I should add that women play cricket too, even though my mum doesn't like it... |
|
02 Sep 19 - 09:26 AM (#4006955) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Raggytash I've been looking for a T-towel with that an for a Irish friend. |
|
02 Sep 19 - 09:48 AM (#4006960) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Jon Freeman even though my mum doesn't like it... In one sense, I’m not sure my mum would have had much choice in whether or not to like it! There was some element of “supporting wife” there but she does enjoy the game. I don’t think she ever played cricket. Netball and hockey (neither watched now) were her favourite games in school and her favourite outdoor activity became getting lost in the mountains – not in the sense of loosing your way but in meeting few people. That and getting lost in the garden... |
|
08 Sep 19 - 01:25 PM (#4007815) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman As i predicted Australia win the ashes |
|
08 Sep 19 - 01:27 PM (#4007816) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: The Sandman correction they will win the ashes |
|
08 Sep 19 - 01:59 PM (#4007819) Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision From: Big Al Whittle yes its a bit sad. like the 1970's all over again. Thompson, Lillee.... what Frances Edmunds called an afternoon of murderous deliveries. Its this business of the 22yards distance between wickets. it was designed at a time when most of the players were a footshorter, and some guys bowled underarm. Its hard to believe there was a time when the game was played without body armour. |