BS: cricket terrible decision

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Sep 19 - 01:59 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 19 - 01:27 PM

correction they will win the ashes

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 19 - 01:25 PM

As i predicted Australia win the ashes

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 09:48 AM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 09:26 AM

I've been looking for a T-towel with that an for a Irish friend.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 09:14 AM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 08:19 AM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 04:23 AM

There’s always hope Dave... ;-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 04:01 AM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 08:23 PM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 08:14 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 04:16 PM

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...?

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 03:40 PM

But then I love polo - on ponies that is!!!

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 03:33 PM

For once I was trying to be polite Backwoodsman!!

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:58 PM

Agreed, Raggy. It takes intelligence....

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:25 PM

Anyone who doesn't like Cricket has my full sympathy. You really don't understand just what your missing.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:21 PM

Every cloud has a silver lining...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:16 PM

Well that's something anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:50 PM

I dislike cricket with every bone in my body, as much as I dislike the blonde idiot pm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:40 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 19 - 10:08 AM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Aug 19 - 08:01 AM

Crikey, cricket snobs, bloody stupid game !!

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 07:01 PM

Dammit, not the Mudcat article. I meant wiki.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 07:00 PM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 04:24 PM

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."

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: MikeL2
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 02:46 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 01:41 PM

fair point back woodsman,

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 09:33 AM

”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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 09:18 AM

Do batsmen ever walk after an LBW shout? Intriguing...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 08:48 AM

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"

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 08:12 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 07:10 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 05:10 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 04:42 AM

maybe, but Archer did well,What alternative batting strengths are there?

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 04:02 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 03:31 AM

So should Roy be dropped and who would replace him , or any other suggestions to improve batting?

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 02:57 AM

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 -

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 02:45 AM

”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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 02:27 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 02:09 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 01:58 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 06:24 PM

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"

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 04:13 PM

I never fight over who has the biggest willy. There's simply no contest. It can be a scourge at times...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 03:53 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 02:39 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 01:40 PM

"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?

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: MikeL2
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 11:18 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:40 AM

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...

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 09:59 AM

SPB, Steve - pretty much my thoughts too.

Subject: RE: BS: cricket terrible decision
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 09:52 AM

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.