Author Topic: The cricket... (Read 259731 times)

Peter · « **Reply #2400 on:** 06 September, 2021, 05:06:33 pm »

And now twice out of 4.

but at least today's result on a sunny day and a flat wicket will get the new boys used to losing in Australia......

Peter · « **Reply #2401 on:** 07 September, 2021, 01:08:00 am »

A proper score card:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKO51590

Everyone in the runs and Extras the lowest scorer. This is possible.

Up the Prince Bishops!

Wowbagger · « **Reply #2402 on:** 07 September, 2021, 09:27:34 am »

That is indeed an impressively high score without a centurion.

At the opposite end of the scale, it was Essex's last game at Chalkwell Park in Southend. Worcestershire, including such interesting people as Basil d'Oliviera and Imran Khan, were the opponents. 1976. Gooch scored 136, at the time his highest first class score. One of the biggest cheers of the day was when the Essex extras went past 50. Essex scored 499, innings closed (100 over rule).

Peter · « **Reply #2403 on:** 07 September, 2021, 12:38:37 pm »

Famous names indeed. Did Worcestershire have NZ's mighty glen Turner playing for them at that time? Possibly I'm mixing my eras - and my counties!

Wowbagger · « **Reply #2404 on:** 07 September, 2021, 07:54:23 pm »

I don't remember him playing in that match, although Wiki tells me his Worcs career started in 1970. But then we really only saw Essex bat and he would have been just another fielder.

I watched him play once at Worcester. It was the 1979 B & H semifinal. It was a lovely sunny day but there had been overnight rain. The outfield was like a sodden bathsponge. Essex fielded first. Play started at 2pm, despite the fact that it had been hot and sunny all morning. Even then, some of the Essex fielders rolled their trouser legs up when they walked out onto the pitch. They were still getting splashed as they ran.

We saw 50 minutes' cricket before it rained again and the match was completed the following day. The only wicket we saw fall was indeed Turner himself, caught behind or in the slips off the bowling of John Lever.

Edit: my memory fails me. It was 1980 that the Worcs. v Essex semifinal took place.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-cup-1980-481441/worcestershire-vs-essex-semi-final-481488/full-scorecard

hatler · « **Reply #2405 on:** 10 September, 2021, 08:50:43 am »

No play at today's OT test. Just announced.

Blimey.

matthew · « **Reply #2406 on:** 10 September, 2021, 09:02:54 am »

No play at this years OT test full stop according to the BBC. Match cancelled due to Covid cases in the Indian touring party (coaches and support staff rather than players).

Jaded · « **Reply #2407 on:** 10 September, 2021, 09:04:27 am »

I knew we could ensure that we drew the series!

matthew · « **Reply #2408 on:** 10 September, 2021, 10:49:16 am »

Quote from: Jaded on 10 September, 2021, 09:04:27 am

I knew we could ensure that we drew the series!

TMS is now talking about the match being rescheduled rather than forfeited. Therefore the series is still 2-1. There are different spins from the ECB and the BCCI.

Jaded · « **Reply #2409 on:** 10 September, 2021, 10:54:08 am »

Yes, I've seen reports of the backtracking.

Intersting...

spesh · « **Reply #2410 on:** 10 September, 2021, 12:21:25 pm »

Quote from: Jaded on 10 September, 2021, 10:54:08 am

Yes, I've seen reports of the backtracking.

Intersting...

The Indian Premier League resumes on the 19th - the players are on huge contracts and it's worth £300 million to the BCCI.

Go figure...

robgul · « **Reply #2411 on:** 10 September, 2021, 01:32:08 pm »

Quote from: spesh on 10 September, 2021, 12:21:25 pm

Quote from: Jaded on 10 September, 2021, 10:54:08 am
Yes, I've seen reports of the backtracking.

Intersting...

The Indian Premier League resumes on the 19th - the players are on huge contracts and it's worth £300 million to the BCCI.

Go figure...

Indeed, that's undoubtedly why the Indians "couldn't field a team" - despite the whole 11 testing negative yesterday afternoon.

Bloody outrageous - especially in that cancellation was only announced at 0900 on the first (scheduled) day - what about the spectators that had travelled/were travelling/staying overnight/taking time off work etc. OK they'll get their ticket money back but that's not much comfort.

I stopped attending international cricket matches when at a One-dayer at Edgbaston we waited around as it drizzled . . eventually gave up and set off for home to hear on the car radio that they came out and played the requisite handful of overs, still in light drizzle, to ensure that ticket refunds weren't available.

citoyen · « **Reply #2412 on:** 18 September, 2021, 10:18:27 pm »

Teamwork in the field…

T20 Blast final: Jordan Cox and Matt Milnes combine for magnificent relay catch
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/58612343

Peter · « **Reply #2413 on:** 18 September, 2021, 10:38:00 pm »

Little puzzled as to why he didn't "just" catch it. I'm guessing because he knew he was out of bounds. In which case, I would have thought it was a six, though I don't know what the law says. I think that's very hard on the batsman. It's also very hard on the viewer - the way Cox manages to hold his frog-like look of instant astonishment for about twenty minutes! All great entertainment, though.

Jaded · « **Reply #2414 on:** 18 September, 2021, 11:28:02 pm »

You need to see the not-six a few balls before…

Peter · « **Reply #2415 on:** 18 September, 2021, 11:36:01 pm »

Jaded · « **Reply #2416 on:** 19 September, 2021, 07:37:50 am »

Or not-wicket…. Depends on your view

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/58612346

citoyen · « **Reply #2417 on:** 19 September, 2021, 09:12:12 am »

I’ve seen it before where a fielder is touching the rope when taking a catch so the six is awarded, but never a fielder touching a teammate who is touching the rope.

I’ve also seen an airborne fielder over the rope knocking the ball back inside the rope, preventing a six being given. The boundary is only awarded if the ball or catching fielder makes contact with the ground outside/on the rope.

Never seen an airborne fielder over the rope knock the ball back to a teammate for the catch like that - although I’m sure that can’t be the first time it has happened.

Of course, back the old days, Kent used to have a tree inside the boundary. It was always a four if it hit the tree, even if it would have been a six without the tree in the way. And you could never be out if the fielder caught a rebound off the tree.

Funny old game.

The Family Cyclist · « **Reply #2418 on:** 19 September, 2021, 09:23:01 am »

The catch then throw back before landing is pretty common these days although that wad a good example as only time to bat it back

As for the chain of people being a six no idea if that's the correct decision. One for next time ask the umpires on TMS

Wowbagger · « **Reply #2419 on:** 19 September, 2021, 10:17:08 am »

The law on whether it is a catch or a 6 also depends to a degree on whether the boundary is marked by a rope or an advertising board.

If it's a rope and the fielder puts a foot on it in the process of taking a catch, then it's 6. If it's a board and the fielder steadies him/herself or leans against the board, it's out.

Peter · « **Reply #2420 on:** 19 September, 2021, 10:58:49 am »

Quote from: Jaded on 19 September, 2021, 07:37:50 am

Or not-wicket…. Depends on your view

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/58612346

There's no other possibility than that that is just a completely wrong decision. Cox (of the blowfish face) caught the ball fairly and inside the rope and before he was barged into by Drummond, who should have been completely irrelevant to the decision-making. The batsman was out - no question. The decision was wrong.

Wowbagger · « **Reply #2421 on:** 19 September, 2021, 02:42:06 pm »

Quote from: Peter on 19 September, 2021, 10:58:49 am

Quote from: Jaded on 19 September, 2021, 07:37:50 am
Or not-wicket…. Depends on your view

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/58612346

There's no other possibility than that that is just a completely wrong decision. Cox (of the blowfish face) caught the ball fairly and inside the rope and before he was barged into by Drummond, who should have been completely irrelevant to the decision-making. The batsman was out - no question. The decision was wrong.

Agreed. The catch was complete and the ball was in Fielder 1's hands before Fielder 2 collided with him.

Jaded · « **Reply #2422 on:** 19 September, 2021, 02:45:12 pm »

I am always taken by the difference that high speed HD footage makes. Whether in showing there was a fraction of a second that the fielder had the ball in this instance, or in decisions like Run Out.

The humane umpires have no chance...

Peter · « **Reply #2423 on:** 19 September, 2021, 07:39:24 pm »

That's a reasonable point J and I accept that I assumed that such a prestigious match (albeit in toytown cricket) would have had TV umpiring, too. Was that not the case? If it was indeed up to the field umpire alone, then I can see the possibility of getting it wrong, though in my ancient mind I've always thought the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt in close cases. Did that tradition disappear with my youth, or was it always a myth?

drgannet · « **Reply #2424 on:** 19 September, 2021, 07:53:28 pm »

Quote from: Peter on 19 September, 2021, 07:39:24 pm

That's a reasonable point J and I accept that I assumed that such a prestigious match (albeit in toytown cricket) would have had TV umpiring, too. Was that not the case? If it was indeed up to the field umpire alone, then I can see the possibility of getting it wrong, though in my ancient mind I've always thought the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt in close cases. Did that tradition disappear with my youth, or was it always a myth?

It was the subject of a lengthy review by the third umpire. Andy Zaltzman on the 5 live sprots extra commentary dug out the obscure rule that related to it and on which the third umpire made his decision, but I have no hope of remembering it now.

Those of us there thought the right decision should have been out, because Cox has the ball in hand before colliding with Bell-Drummand, but it was all considered to be part of the same action in the same way that if you catch the ball then drop it without having control it not considered a catch.

It had no impact on the match and Smeed was caught by Cox 2 balls later.