[Walddk]

mr1303, on Jul 14 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

Danish Kaneria is no Muralitharan.

Monty Panesar isn't either, so a draw is indeed most likely. With this said, it was quite amazing to see how much spin the pitch took on day 1. Very unusual for a test match at Lord's.

Roland

[the saint]

A few more friendly umpiring decisions, but at least we are taking advantage of them.

[mr1303]

Gah! Why haven't we declared yet? Plunkett and Hoggard aren't even trying to score runs here. It's not like we're going to lose the match from here.

[Walddk]

Goes to show that Strauss doesn't have much confidence in his bowlers. First of all he wants to make sure that England don't lose the match. Destructive approach if you like.

"Horrible bridge, waste of time", said Christopher Martin-Jenkins on Test Match Special just now. I guess that sums it up.

Now England can't even get a second new ball.

Roland

[the saint]

Walddk, on Jul 17 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

Goes to show that Strauss doesn't have much confidence in his bowlers. First of all he wants to make sure that England don't lose the match. Destructive approach if you like.

"Horrible bridge, waste of time", said Christopher Martin-Jenkins on Test Match Special just now. I guess that sums it up.

Now England can't even get a second new ball.

Roland

Totally agree. I was listening to it at work and going completely nuts at England's inertia. The seeds were sown last night by their stodgy approach to the game after Bell was run out.

Would the Aussies have played the same way? Definitely not. And that is one very big reason why they are the best side in the world.

[Walddk]

And a vivid example of why outsiders don't understand that cricket is such a fascinating game. They played for 5 full days, no weather interruptions, and yet they were far away from getting a result.

It's negative cricket when a captain is more concerned about not losing the match rather than trying to win it.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Jul 17 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

"Horrible bridge, waste of time", said Christopher Martin-Jenkins on Test Match Special just now. I guess that sums it up.

Did he really? I hope you weren't commentating on BBO Vugraph at the same time....

I even left the country on Sunday evening to encourage them to try harder on Monday but no use.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2006, 09:48 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 17 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

"Horrible bridge, waste of time", said Christopher Martin-Jenkins on Test Match Special just now. I guess that sums it up.

Did he really? I hope you weren't commentating on BBO Vugraph at the same time....

Whoops, typos are wonderful, but not the worst I have made in my time. CMJ is actually a capable bridge player, and he was spot on. It was also horrible bridge.

Roland

[Walddk]

Cricket has lots of idioms and funny expressions which, understandably, are almost impossible for outsiders to comprehend. So, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain some of them. Let me start with the

No ball Law
A no ball is a delivery which does not count as one of the bowler's six legitimate balls in one over.

The fielding team are penalised one run every time a no ball is bowled, which is added to the extras tally of the batting team. The extra run will also be added to the bowler's overall figures.

The umpire will call a no ball by raising an arm at shoulder height and the fielding team must bowl another legitimate delivery.

If the batsman scores off a no ball, the runs will be added to their individual score.

There are a couple of anomolies, though.

In domestic English 40 and 50-over cricket, a no-ball concedes two runs. In Twenty20 cricket, a no-ball is followed by a 'free-hit', a delivery from which the batsman can not be bowled or caught out, but can still be run out.

They cannot be dismissed off a no ball - only except if the batsman is run-out.

The umpire will call a no ball in 13 instances, namely if:

1. The heel of the bowler's front foot lands on or in front of the popping crease (the front line of the batting crease).

2. However the front foot can be raised over the line as long as the heel does not go beyond the popping crease.

3. The bowler's back foot is touching or outside the return crease.

4. The bowler unfairly notifies the umpire of a change in their mode of delivery. So if a player says they are a right-arm bowler to the umpire and then bowl left-arm, the umpire will call a no ball.

5. The umpire believes the bowler is throwing the ball.

6. The bowler bowls the ball before entering their delivery stride.

7. If the ball bounces more than twice before it reaches the batsman.

8. If the ball rolls all along the ground.

9. The ball stops in front of the batsman without having touched the bat.

10. If the wicket-keeper encroaches beyond the stumps before the ball has been struck by the batsman or has passed the stumps.

11. More than two fielders are positioned on the leg side behind square.

12. A full toss - a ball which does not bounce - is bowled above waist height.

13. The umpire deems the bowler to be bowling dangerously and unfairly.

....

This is just one of 42 complex laws the umpire must know, most of them by heart. No wonder you must pass an exam in order to become a first class cricket umpire.

Roland

[jikl]

I am not sure if 11 is correct, as I have seen a leg gully and a fine leg used at the same time on many occasions. I thought the rule was more than 5 fielders on the leg side.

Also, there is another rule for one day cricket. Not having the required number of fielders within the circle for the corresponding point of the game.

Sean

[Walddk]

jikl, on Jul 25 2006, 12:28 PM, said:

I am not sure if 11 is correct, as I have seen a leg gully and a fine leg used at the same time on many occasions. I thought the rule was more than 5 fielders on the leg side.

Also, there is another rule for one day cricket. Not having the required number of fielders within the circle for the corresponding point of the game.

Sean

Your last point is valid, your 11. reference is not. If you have seen two people behind square on the leg (on) side, the square leg umpire should call "no ball". That's why you will see the square leg fielder in front of square if they have a leg gully or leg slip.

Law41:
5. Limitation of on side fielders:

"At the instant of the bowler's delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side. A fielder will be considered to be behind the popping crease unless the whole of his person, whether grounded or in the air, is in front of this line.

In the event of infringement of this Law by the fielding side, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal no ball".

However, the umpires don't always notice, especially not if the square leg fielder is positioned behind the umpire. Maybe he should have a camera attached to the back of his neck

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Supporters of Surrey CCC have BBO to thank for their emphatic victory over Kent in the Pro40 game on Sunday.

We were thinking of going to watch this as it was a nice day, and it was part of the Festival week in Guildford which is easy for us to get to. It has a tiny ground so you sit close to the action and there tend to be some very high scores (if you sit near the front you need to keep your eye on the ball at all times).

But we worked out we wouldn't have a chance of seeing all the match and getting back in time for the set we were commentating on in the Spingold final, so we didn't go, allowing Surrey (my team) to win easily.

With perfect timing we watched it on TV instead, and as Surrey won with overs to spare they finished just it time.

[paulg]

Alex and I returned from Chicago yesterday and he immediately set off for the Twenty20 game at Chelmsford. Thinking of Essex (our team), I disappeared in the other direction taking the train back to Scotland and thus avoided jinxing them again.

Unfortunately the match finished before I got home, but the free WiFi on the trains (this month only) allowed me to keep in touch.

As Surrey also qualified for the finals something will have to break, as I'm not going and I expect Frances will be playing bridge at Brighton. But I'm sure twinkle-toes will see us through

Paul

[the saint]

SUPERESSEX!!! I am thinking about going to Trent Bridge to see the boys bring the 20-20 trophy home!!

For the non-experts, the leg-side fielding rule was brought in after the infamous 1932/33 'Bodyline' Series in Australia. A series that caused so much ruckus that diplomatic relations between the two countries were strained. The gist of it was that the English captain, Douglas Jardine, devised a plan to combat master Aussie batsman Don Bradman by ordering his fast bowlers (and Harold Larwood was as quick and accurate as any there have been) to bowl AT the batsmen with a ring of close fielders behind square on the legside to take catches from the batsman fending off fast, short-pitched deliveries.

The silly thing was that most of it was a storm in a teacup. The Australains that got hurt, did so during periods of play where this tactic wasn't employed (this in an era where no-one wore helmets, and batsmen wore much less padding than today), and Jardine used the tactic less often than people realised. The simple facts of the matter were that England had probably the best XI they have ever fielded (Sutcliffe, Hammond, Ames, Larwood and Verity would be certainties or contenders for England's all-time team) at any one time and the Aussies hated Jardine with a passion. England would have won that series anyway. When the Aussies had a pair of quicks (Lillee and Thompson) they didn't hesitate to give it the short-pitched stuff, but then it was described as a mans game. Noticeably last year when England had a fiery pace quartet, the Aussies started whinging again!!!

[the saint]

For the record, England All-Time XI:

Sutcliffe
Hobbs
Hutton ©
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Verity

Underwood or Barnes depending on the pitch.

[Impact]

No W. G. Grace?

[GeeGee]

Just for interest: -

http://www.timesonli...2285378,00.html



Geoff

[Walddk]

Impact, on Jul 26 2006, 11:54 AM, said:

No W. G. Grace?

He has been gracefully omitted. Sunstroke, Alan?

Roland

[the saint]

Definitely not. Which one of that top 5 would you replace?

The only change I might make is Laker for Underwood.

[the saint]

Oh a wonderful day to be an England fan! Harmison in the (all too rare) form where he is the most lethal quick on the planet. Been listening to TMS at work and its made up for the complete lack of air-conditioning in our building!