Cricket Thread: Indian Summer

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I think that's good for cricket.
 
Mego Red said:
I think that's good for cricket.
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for. If you are happy for this, expect far fewer runs in cricket as teams tell their batsman to back up a metre so they they can see if the ball gets bowled. This means no quick singles, no 2s into 3s. we will see slow boring cricket again. There was nothing wrong with the system we had. Changing it now is purely for the asian cricket where they play this type of cowardly crap because they are too scared to play bat v ball. The goal of the game at all times is to play bat v ball. this is not it. It should never be a rule, it should be left for umpires to rule on legitimacy on runs, the bowler should be made to bowl the ball. Mankad is nothing more than ridiculous pandering to indian cricket. I like how everyone acts tough on here and forums and say its a great rule and if you are in your crease its all good. But it never happens in Australian cricket anywhere. No one puts their money where their mouth is and plays cricket like this and if you say you do your lying. Never happens anywhere. I hope the first bowler in Australia who tries it likes running because they will need to pack their crap into a car pretty quick.
 
Nothing wrong with a mankad if a batsman is leaving the crease before you've bowled it.

Dummying the delivery then whipping off the bails when they back up in normal fashion however is poor sportsmanship imho

It used to be that you could leave the crease once the bowler has entered their delivery stride ie at back foot landing. Maybe that was too early?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

adelaidecrows said:
Be careful what you wish for. If you are happy for this, expect far fewer runs in cricket as teams tell their batsman to back up a metre so they they can see if the ball gets bowled. This means no quick singles, no 2s into 3s. we will see slow boring cricket again. There was nothing wrong with the system we had. Changing it now is purely for the asian cricket where they play this type of cowardly crap because they are too scared to play bat v ball. The goal of the game at all times is to play bat v ball. this is not it. It should never be a rule, it should be left for umpires to rule on legitimacy on runs, the bowler should be made to bowl the ball. Mankad is nothing more than ridiculous pandering to indian cricket. I like how everyone acts tough on here and forums and say its a great rule and if you are in your crease its all good. But it never happens in Australian cricket anywhere. No one puts their money where their mouth is and plays cricket like this and if you say you do your lying. Never happens anywhere. I hope the first bowler in Australia who tries it likes running because they will need to pack their crap into a car pretty quick.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to read this word soup, but I can't make any sense out of it.

Would maybe doing a paragraph break or two have killed you?

In any event, I hardly think it's "Asian cricket" that pushing for cheating to not be in the game.

There are massive advantages being brought in for batsman. Every single dismissal is being double checked to make sure a heel hasn't creeped over the line, less the batsman be brought back. It's getting ridiculous.

If the batter wants to sneak out their crease, then do it - but realise it's like stealing a base, and the bowler has the right to run you out.
 
adelaidecrows said:
Be careful what you wish for. If you are happy for this, expect far fewer runs in cricket as teams tell their batsman to back up a metre so they they can see if the ball gets bowled. This means no quick singles, no 2s into 3s. we will see slow boring cricket again. There was nothing wrong with the system we had. Changing it now is purely for the asian cricket where they play this type of cowardly crap because they are too scared to play bat v ball. The goal of the game at all times is to play bat v ball. this is not it. It should never be a rule, it should be left for umpires to rule on legitimacy on runs, the bowler should be made to bowl the ball. Mankad is nothing more than ridiculous pandering to indian cricket. I like how everyone acts tough on here and forums and say its a great rule and if you are in your crease its all good. But it never happens in Australian cricket anywhere. No one puts their money where their mouth is and plays cricket like this and if you say you do your lying. Never happens anywhere. I hope the first bowler in Australia who tries it likes running because they will need to pack their crap into a car pretty quick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, any matches I have played and lots I have watched it is always a warning. To be honest though, I just thought in the example a couple of days ago that the captain would withdraw the appeal, to win a game...in a dead rubber, just seemed a bit shit.
 
Deepti said Monday that India had repeatedly warned Dean for stealing ground by backing up and was adamant they had done nothing wrong.

“That was our plan because she was repeatedly doing it and we had warned them too,” the off-spinner said on the team’s arrival in Kolkata.

“We had also informed the umpires. But still she was right there so there wasn’t much we could do. We did everything according to the rules and guidelines.”

Tweeting in response to Deepti’s comments, Knight acknowledged that Dean was dismissed legitimately but she said: “No warnings were given.” “They don’t need to be given, so it hasn’t made the dismissal any less legitimate,” she said.

“But if they’re comfortable with the decision to affect the run out, India shouldn’t feel the need to justify it by lying about warnings.”
 
Mankading is good, and the MCC changes to 'legitimise' it are also good. Strange that nobody had ever seriously tried the now outlawed "Reverse Mankad" method of running out the striker batting out of his crease though.

The only problem I had with the Sixers - Strikers "Retired Out" incident in the BBL this year, is that Adelaide didn't immediately try to Mankad the new runner, knowing full well he was going to be sprinting out of the blocks.

There's been a weird puritanism over this that has crept into Australian cricket commentary recently. It's sad because all the past controversies were "Yes it's a bit iffy, but the idiot batter should stay in their crease", vs now "Yes it's the batter's fault and technically they should have been in ground, but I hope the bowler has a 500 word justification and three character references because IMHO there should be criminal charges."
 
What I've never understood with the mankad controversy is that bowlers are allowed to deceive the batsman with deliveries like the wrong'un and doosra, but apparently deceiving the non-striker by 'bowling' a mankad is unfair and bad conduct? The non-striker needs a warning but the batsman doesn't need a warning before a wrong'un is bowled?

Deceiving your opponent with clever tactics has always been part of sport
 
Interloperer said:
Mankading is good, and the MCC changes to 'legitimise' it are also good. Strange that nobody had ever seriously tried the now outlawed "Reverse Mankad" method of running out the striker batting out of his crease though.
Click to expand...
How, precisely, do you think it would be possible to run out a striker batting out of his crease? This makes no sense at all.
 
Vader said:
How, precisely, do you think it would be possible to run out a striker batting out of his crease? This makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
If the batter is taking guard outside of their crease you are permitted (until October) to just throw the ball at the stumps and run them out.

I presume if you threw the ball at a batter/the stumps there'd be a good chance they would forget to get back in their crease in the confusion.
 
Scorpus said:
What I've never understood with the mankad controversy is that bowlers are allowed to deceive the batsman with deliveries like the wrong'un and doosra, but apparently deceiving the non-striker by 'bowling' a mankad is unfair and bad conduct? The non-striker needs a warning but the batsman doesn't need a warning before a wrong'un is bowled?

Deceiving your opponent with clever tactics has always been part of sport
Click to expand...
There's always been a spirit of the game however. In fact the Laws of Cricket have a preamble:

"Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this Spirit causes injury to the game itself".

Which is pretty non-specific of course but there are multiple examples of things that occur (or don't occur) purely because they're not in the spirit of the game.

Things like the close in fielders or keeper calling runs "yes.... yes... run" as though they're the other batsmen for instance

A batsman gets hit in the chest and collapses on the pitch in pain. The fielders can run him out but don't

If a throw hits the batsmen and deflects into the outfield it is etiquette not to run for overthrows even though it says that you can in the rules.

If a shot is heading for runs but hits the square leg umpire and creates a run out it is etiquette not to appeal

Fielders 'faking' picking up the ball and throwing it in to trick the batters actually did get specifically written into the rules.

The 'dummy' mankad is along those lines imho

Whether these things matter to people...? Everyone's different I guess.
 
Interloperer said:
If the batter is taking guard outside of their crease you are permitted (until October) to just throw the ball at the stumps and run them out.

I presume if you threw the ball at a batter/the stumps there'd be a good chance they would forget to get back in their crease in the confusion.
Click to expand...
When does the ball become "live" under this intrepretation?
 
Vader said:
How, precisely, do you think it would be possible to run out a striker batting out of his crease? This makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
Interloperer said:
Mankading is good, and the MCC changes to 'legitimise' it are also good. Strange that nobody had ever seriously tried the now outlawed "Reverse Mankad" method of running out the striker batting out of his crease though.

The only problem I had with the Sixers - Strikers "Retired Out" incident in the BBL this year, is that Adelaide didn't immediately try to Mankad the new runner, knowing full well he was going to be sprinting out of the blocks.

There's been a weird puritanism over this that has crept into Australian cricket commentary recently. It's sad because all the past controversies were "Yes it's a bit iffy, but the idiot batter should stay in their crease", vs now "Yes it's the batter's fault and technically they should have been in ground, but I hope the bowler has a 500 word justification and three character references because IMHO there should be criminal charges."
Click to expand...

Its complicated but the bowler can throw the ball at the strikers end during the bowlers run up, but of course before delivery stride. So highly unlikely.

Laws were different back then but I reckon Hookesy tried it on Dean Jones in a 1 day game as Jones was literally walking at the bowler during his run up.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket Thread: Indian Summer

Similar threads

Punchy Bassett
General advice thread.
Replies
4
Views
378
Mutineer
Mutineer
Cap
  • Locked
The Cookers/Conspiracy thread
Replies
1
Views
537
relapse
relapse
Cap
The Wine thread
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
4K
Blue Red and Gold
Blue Red and Gold
Punchy Bassett
The Bakery Thread.
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
arrowman
arrowman
Mutineer
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics Thread Part 4
387 388 389 390 391
Replies
10K
Views
134K
Scorpus
Scorpus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top