[the saint]

Mike Hussey can consider himself unlucky.

[jikl]

NZ beating WI has made it a little easier for England. In some ways during the Super 8 England should be hoping for Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to beat everyone except them.

Sean

[GeeGee]

cardsharp, on Mar 29 2007, 08:45 AM, said:

Wisden Cricketers of the Year 2007

Paul Collingwood, Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammad Yousuf, Monty Panesar, Mark Ramprakash

Ramps continues to frustrate everyone by showing the form and freedom in county cricket that he never really showed at Test level.

Spot on. For over 20 years Ramps has been a pleasure to watch at county level. Why hasn't he acheived at test level? Just like Graeme Hick

Geoff

[paulg]

Graeme Hick Test average: 31.32 (65 matches, 6 100s, 18 50s) First-class: 52.68 (500)
Mark Ramprakash Test average: 27.32 (52 matches, 2 100s, 12 50s) First-class: 51.40 (386)


Surprisingly similar records!

[mr1303]

Why are there 3 Englishmen in the cricketers of the year?

I'm sorry, but we've been awful over the last year. Unless you have to have played cricket in England to qualify for that.

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Mar 30 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

Why are there 3 Englishmen in the cricketers of the year?

Yes, and no Geraint Jones??? Appalling!

Roland

[jikl]

I am not even going to comment on cricketer of the year.

Sean

[the saint]

A player cannot be named Wisden cricketer of the year more than once. Clearly there are some players who would have received such an honour more than once, but of those who haven't been named before, the selection isn't that grotesque. Wisden will also tend to have a somewhat Anglo-centric stance - hence Ramps inclusion for his mesmeric season in county cricket, but Ramps also won Strictly Come Dancing and his Argentinian Tango pissed all over Shahidi Afridi's pirouette on the pitch! Like I say, however, Hussey can consider himself unlucky.

[jikl]

Hey, I just meant where is Ashley Giles

Sean

[mr1303]

What a match!!

12 to win off of 6 balls

Come on England!!!

[FrancesHinden]

Sorry. I watched the last few overs when I should have been revising Business Law.

[the saint]

What have we told you about this...

[GeeGee]

Weird, I just cannot understand how you could have dragged yourself away from Business Law.......

Geoff

[EricK]

With regards to the run out of Bell. Do you think the law is right in this sort of case? Or what about the case of a guy running his bat in and it bobbles on the surface? It doesn't seem right to me that a guy is in his ground then out then in again and so on and the exact split second the bails come off determine whether he stays or goes.

A better rule IMO is that once a batsman has grounded something behind the line he is in until he leaves the crease again because he is setting off for another run.

[jikl]

Well there are some technical problems with this change in the laws.

How do you define someone setting off for another run? The most obvious definition is that some portion of their body has made contact with the ground outside the crease. Or that their is no part of their body in contact with the ground behind the crease. (This actually happens quite often about 4-5m past the crease when deceleration after this single is happening, have a look sometime) The first one has problems in that it means you could take a running leapfrom behind the crease to set off for a run but technically have not left the crease. The latter means that every time you are turning for a run you have a problem as you are outside of the crease, (apart from the grounded bat). It is a real can of worms.

Sean

[jikl]

Bangladesh beating South Africa has certainly opened the window for England progessing, and even the West Indies have a chance again now.

Go Bangladesh!

Sean

[EricK]

jikl, on Apr 8 2007, 12:43 AM, said:

Well there are some technical problems with this change in the laws.

How do you define someone setting off for another run? The most obvious definition is that some portion of their body has made contact with the ground outside the crease. Or that their is no part of their body in contact with the ground behind the crease. (This actually happens quite often about 4-5m past the crease when deceleration after this single is happening, have a look sometime) The first one has problems in that it means you could take a running leapfrom behind the crease to set off for a run but technically have not left the crease. The latter means that every time you are turning for a run you have a problem as you are outside of the crease, (apart from the grounded bat). It is a real can of worms.

Sean

I would say you are setting off for another run if your body weight is moving in that direction, and you are not setting off for a run if your body weight is moving in the other direction.

This covers the guy who's sliding his bat in and suffers an unintended bobble on the surface, and the guy who is out of his crease turning and putting the bat down but getting an unintended bounce.

[the saint]

Banger is back

This is what England needed. I can't tell you how much we have missed him up the top of the order.

[jikl]

Now we come to the really important game. South Africa win they are basically through. England win they are almost certainly through. (It would take WI to seriously thrash England to make up nett run rate)

Last night's match was basically a nothing match becuase they rested all their good bowlers.

Sean

[the saint]

This South Africa match is turning into a non-match cos we have left all our Batsmen at home. Who they are though is still a complete mystery to me.