|
Post by franklin66 on Jun 13, 2019 9:46:37 GMT
Having watched the ball strike the stumps a couple of times without dislodging the bails is it time to do away with them. My understanding was that you are out if the ball hit the stumps and the bails were introduced to help the umpires see this had happened. Now with technology you can see if the ball has hit so bails are redundant. So get rid I say..... Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jun 13, 2019 11:49:49 GMT
Does anyone know.....what is the minimum amount of overs that can be bowled in a 50 over World Cup match for it to achieve a result?
Or does the first batting team have to face 50 overs?
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jun 13, 2019 12:16:17 GMT
Does anyone know.....what is the minimum amount of overs that can be bowled in a 50 over World Cup match for it to achieve a result? Or does the first batting team have to face 50 overs? 20 overs a side minimum. (Or maybe more usually the side batting second has to have time for at least 20 overs, unless they win or lose in less).
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jun 13, 2019 12:26:51 GMT
Having watched the ball strike the stumps a couple of times without dislodging the bails is it time to do away with them. My understanding was that you are out if the ball hit the stumps and the bails were introduced to help the umpires see this had happened. Now with technology you can see if the ball has hit so bails are redundant. So get rid I say..... Thoughts? But probably 99%+ of cricket matches are played without the aid of technology. There have always been occasions when the ball has hit the stumps without dislodging the bails ever since bails were first introduced. The "new" Zing stumps and bails have been in use in cricket for at least 5 or 6 years without any issue, so unless there has been a change in the design (or the way the stumps are set in the ground) for this World Cup there is no obvious reason why there should have been such a cluster of cases. It may be that the grooves are slightly deeper to maintain the correct height, the stumps are now heavier or are set firmer into the ground and therefore don't transmit the vibration as well or it may just be sheer coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jun 13, 2019 12:34:04 GMT
Having watched the ball strike the stumps a couple of times without dislodging the bails is it time to do away with them. My understanding was that you are out if the ball hit the stumps and the bails were introduced to help the umpires see this had happened. Now with technology you can see if the ball has hit so bails are redundant. So get rid I say..... Thoughts? But probably 99%+ of cricket matches are played without the aid of technology. There have always been occasions when the ball has hit the stumps without dislodging the bails ever since bails were first introduced. The "new" Zing stumps and bails have been in use in cricket for at least 5 or 6 years without any issue, so unless there has been a change in the design (or the way the stumps are set in the ground) for this World Cup there is no obvious reason why there should have been such a cluster of cases. It may be that the grooves are slightly deeper to maintain the correct height, the stumps are now heavier or are set firmer into the ground and therefore don't transmit the vibration as well or it may just be sheer coincidence. Maybe just first class and internationals? Has the game swung too much in the batsmen favour?
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jun 13, 2019 12:58:03 GMT
But probably 99%+ of cricket matches are played without the aid of technology. There have always been occasions when the ball has hit the stumps without dislodging the bails ever since bails were first introduced. The "new" Zing stumps and bails have been in use in cricket for at least 5 or 6 years without any issue, so unless there has been a change in the design (or the way the stumps are set in the ground) for this World Cup there is no obvious reason why there should have been such a cluster of cases. It may be that the grooves are slightly deeper to maintain the correct height, the stumps are now heavier or are set firmer into the ground and therefore don't transmit the vibration as well or it may just be sheer coincidence. Maybe just first class and internationals? Has the game swung too much in the batsmen favour? As technology improves I don't see any reason why the flashing stumps and bails shouldn't become exactly the same size and weight of the traditional stumps and bails. (I hold my hands up and admit I like the flashing stumps and bails) Prior to the World Cup I was thinking that it was getting too batsman friendly, but so far the balance looks pretty reasonable, probably because with the exception of Dale Steyn all the best bowlers in the world are playing. The highest score to win by a side batting second is only 248 and any score over 300 batting first looks as though it is going to be very difficult to successfully chase. (I think scores in the range of 300-350 a side is probably about right for a good competitive game to give plenty of entertainment for the spectators and tv audience while giving both batsman and bowlers good opportunities to show their abilities) Wether that will still be the same if we finally get some hot sunny weather I don't know but the ball hasn't been seaming or swinging too much so far, so other than a bit less bounce I don't see life getting too much harder for the seamers and drier pitches might start turning , so it could even get tougher for the batsmen.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jun 13, 2019 13:01:43 GMT
Maybe just first class and internationals? Has the game swung too much in the batsmen favour? As technology improves I don't see any reason why the flashing stumps and bails shouldn't become exactly the same size and weight of the traditional stumps and bails. (I hold my hands up and admit I like the flashing stumps and bails) Prior to the World Cup I was thinking that it was getting too batsman friendly, but so far the balance looks pretty reasonable, probably because with the exception of Dale Steyn all the best bowlers in the world are playing. The highest score to win by a side batting second is only 248 and any score over 300 batting first looks as though it is going to be very difficult to successfully chase. (I think scores in the range of 300-350 a side is probably about right for a good competitive game to give plenty of entertainment for the spectators and tv audience while giving both batsman and bowlers good opportunities to show their abilities) Wether that will still be the same if we finally get some hot sunny weather I don't know but the ball hasn't been seaming or swinging too much so far, so other than a bit less bounce I don't see life getting too much harder for the seamers and drier pitches might start turning , so it could even get tougher for the batsmen. I think with the reverse sweep etc it gives batsman the edge so I think yes if they can sort out the stumps and bails to be as sensitive as they were then fair do's. The old ball hits the stumps out though might add a slight advantage back to the bowlers.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 13, 2019 13:31:50 GMT
Having watched the ball strike the stumps a couple of times without dislodging the bails is it time to do away with them. My understanding was that you are out if the ball hit the stumps and the bails were introduced to help the umpires see this had happened. Now with technology you can see if the ball has hit so bails are redundant. So get rid I say..... Thoughts? The stumps are only one half of the "wicket" though, bails consist of the other half. So a wicket is only broken (MCC terminology) if the bails fall out or the stumps are knocked out of the ground. The latter of which is how a run out is enacted if the bails are already knocked off by the fielder. That's been part of the game since the dawn of time. There was a hugely peculiar incident in Australian grade cricket a few years ago when a middle stump was knocked out of the ground but the bails stayed on holding each other up like a pair of keystones. The batsman was correctly given out because the stump was out of the earth and thus the wicket was broken. There is the archaic law (8 I think) of playing without bails, but this was only really used in the old days if wind was knocking the bails off. With runouts being so close these days even with bails lifting out of the groove, I'm not sure they could use this now without causing massive controversy.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jun 13, 2019 15:18:59 GMT
Having watched the ball strike the stumps a couple of times without dislodging the bails is it time to do away with them. My understanding was that you are out if the ball hit the stumps and the bails were introduced to help the umpires see this had happened. Now with technology you can see if the ball has hit so bails are redundant. So get rid I say..... Thoughts? The stumps are only one half of the "wicket" though, bails consist of the other half. So a wicket is only broken (MCC terminology) if the bails fall out or the stumps are knocked out of the ground. The latter of which is how a run out is enacted if the bails are already knocked off by the fielder. That's been part of the game since the dawn of time. There was a hugely peculiar incident in Australian grade cricket a few years ago when a middle stump was knocked out of the ground but the bails stayed on holding each other up like a pair of keystones. The batsman was correctly given out because the stump was out of the earth and thus the wicket was broken. There is the archaic law (8 I think) of playing without bails, but this was only really used in the old days if wind was knocking the bails off. With runouts being so close these days even with bails lifting out of the groove, I'm not sure they could use this now without causing massive controversy. You might be right but I understand bails were only introduced to assist the umpire when the ball hit the stumps. So they were an after thought and all I'm saying is it's a bit unfair to bowlers hitting the stumps only for the modern bail to stay put they must be too heavy. The name of the game was to hit the stumps with the ball not removing a bails which is a modern addition. I'm not saying it's the answer just asking why we need them given the technology available. Again run outs if the ball hits the stumps and the batsmen is out of his ground? No mention of bails until the modern era.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 9:13:09 GMT
England will have a bowl on what should be a fresh wicket. Russell back for the Windies after his knee injury, England unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 9:53:43 GMT
Fierce start from Woakes and Archer here!
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jun 14, 2019 10:03:58 GMT
England won't win the World Cup unless their catching improves.
They can't afford to keep dropping the opposition's best batsmen.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 10:30:25 GMT
Said it before, I'll say it again.
Liam Plunkett is the most crucial member of this side yet no one talks about him. So reliable.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 10:32:48 GMT
3 down! Hope given out on review, but it was stone dead in front.
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Jun 14, 2019 10:38:16 GMT
Good start by England but overshadowed somewhat by the injury to Roy. That’ll be his World Cup over if he’s pulled his hamstring which would be a massive blow to our chances.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 10:40:17 GMT
Good start by England but overshadowed somewhat by the injury to Roy. That’ll be his World Cup over if he’s pulled his hamstring which would be a massive blow to our chances. All depends if it's a tweak, a pull or a tear, I was way more concerned about Buttler and his hip as I thought he'd given himself a hernia. Guess we'll see what happens but James Vince is more than capable (in the white-ball format at least!) We also have some softer games coming up we could feasibly rest Roy for (Afghanistan and Sri Lanka)
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Jun 14, 2019 10:44:09 GMT
Good start by England but overshadowed somewhat by the injury to Roy. That’ll be his World Cup over if he’s pulled his hamstring which would be a massive blow to our chances. All depends if it's a pull or a tear, I was way more concerned about Buttler and his hip as I thought he'd given himself a hernia. Guess we'll see what happens but James Vince is more than capable (in the white-ball format at least!) We also have some softer games coming up we could feasibly rest Roy for (Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) Fingers crossed it’s just tightness or a strain. Vince is ok but doesn’t go on to get the big scores that Roy does.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 10:46:50 GMT
All depends if it's a pull or a tear, I was way more concerned about Buttler and his hip as I thought he'd given himself a hernia. Guess we'll see what happens but James Vince is more than capable (in the white-ball format at least!) We also have some softer games coming up we could feasibly rest Roy for (Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) Fingers crossed it’s just tightness or a strain. Vince is ok but doesn’t go on to get the big scores that Roy does. ECB have reported "tightness" and that he's being assessed ahead of batting.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 11:52:05 GMT
Is that Joe Root or Jim Laker?
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Jun 14, 2019 12:27:05 GMT
Now Morgan injured. That’s two key batsmen picking up potentially serious injuries just by running in the outfield.
Bad luck or something not right with the fitness/conditioning work?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 12:52:48 GMT
West Indies 212 all out with 5.2 overs left.
I've missed this morning's play - were England well in control, were the W Indies playing badly, or is it the pitch ?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 13:16:34 GMT
West Indies 212 all out with 5.2 overs left. I've missed this morning's play - were England well in control, were the W Indies playing badly, or is it the pitch ? Windies got sucker punched by Joe Root after applying themselves well in the middle overs. Hetmeyer and Pooran played excellently. Hetmeyer chipped one straight back though before Root got Holder with a lovely knuckle ball that was seam up and Holder played for turn producing a leading edge. After that Andre Russell showed why he's a good T20 batsman but not a good ODI one when he couldn't resist pulling Wood when the shot really wasn't on, the Windies tail is long so it was easy pickings for Wood and Archer. Morgan has a back spasm, which can be managed with pain-killers and rest. So again, more a twinge than anything else. Roy's hammy is tight but can't bat until 7 because he was off the field for so long but he should be ok. Pitch was good with consistent bounce albeit varying with how much pace is on the ball, so some adjustments but see out those first 10 overs and we should cruise home.....should...that is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 14:05:09 GMT
Good start to our innings 👍
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 14:18:49 GMT
Russell off the field, he's genuinely falling apart in the longer format.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 14:43:47 GMT
Woakes in at 3.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Jun 14, 2019 15:16:16 GMT
146-1.
Going well.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 15:20:34 GMT
Gayle turning his arm over is an absolute pisser.
He's still 150 odd more wickets than me in ODIs but bloody hell.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jun 14, 2019 15:40:28 GMT
Winning the toss was crucial today. As comfortable a victory as we'll have in this years world cup against potentially difficult opponents.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jun 14, 2019 16:19:47 GMT
A complete display if ever there was one. Big advantage with the toss but executed perfectly in the bowling department. Easy chase for even a depleted batting lineup.
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Jun 14, 2019 16:32:00 GMT
Does anyone know.....what is the minimum amount of overs that can be bowled in a 50 over World Cup match for it to achieve a result? Or does the first batting team have to face 50 overs? 20 overs a side minimum. (Or maybe more usually the side batting second has to have time for at least 20 overs, unless they win or lose in less). I think your getting confused with abandoned matches? In theory a side could be dismissed with just 10 balls. This would lead to a result. If a game is reduced because of the weather I believe 20 overs must be bowled to constitute a match
|
|