Eng v Aus - Limited Overs Thread

by **LondonTiger** Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:30 am

First topic message reminder :

Fixtures:

31 Aug: T20, Cardiff, 15:00 BST

3 Sep: 1st ODI, Southampton, 14:00
5 Sep: 2nd ODI, Lord's, 10:30
8 Sep: 3rd ODI, Old Trafford, 14:00
11 Sep: 4th ODI, Headingley, 10:30
13 Sep: 5th ODI, Old Trafford, 10:30

Squads:

England T20:
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex, capt), Moeen Ali (Worcestershire), Sam Billings (Kent), Jos Buttler (Lancashire, wk), Steven Finn (Middlesex), Alex Hales (Nottinghamshire), Adil Rashid (Yorkshire), Jason Roy (Surrey), Ben Stokes (Durham), Reece Topley (Essex), James Vince (Hampshire), David Willey (Northamptonshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire).

England ODI
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex, capt), Moeen Ali (Worcestershire), Sam Billings (Kent), Jos Buttler (Lancashire, wk), Steven Finn (Middlesex), Alex Hales (Nottinghamshire), Liam Plunkett (Yorkshire), Adil Rashid (Yorkshire), Jason Roy (Surrey), Ben Stokes (Durham), James Taylor (Nottinghamshire), David Willey Northamptonshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham)

Australia
David Warner, Joe Burns, Steve Smith (capt), Shane Watson, George Bailey, Matthew Wade, Mitch Marsh, Marcus Stoinis, Glenn Maxwell, Ashton Agar, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, James Pattinson. Cameron Boyce (T20 only)

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:38 am

Neither of course had anything to do with Morgan.

by Duty281 Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:40 am

I'm basing it on normal speed and Stokes was out.

If he wanted to protect himself from injury, he would have attempted to shield his head with both arms, not extend one arm outwards.

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:44 am

Duty281 wrote:I'm basing it on normal speed and Stokes was out.

If he wanted to protect himself from injury, he would have attempted to shield his head with both arms, not extend one arm outwards.

I think you're over-exaggerating how much time he had to think and instinct is just that an instinctive movement so you can't say what he would have done sitting behind a computer. It would seem obvious sitting here to use that big thing in his stronger hand but he didn't.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:57 pm

No, Duty, that's not how instinct works. You don't throw your arms to your face just blindly. I don't think anyone's instinct is to protect the face and nothing else.

He throws his whole body round to protect his front and an arm out to block the danger. Kind of thing I've done 50 times over the course of my life playing football. If you really think he was doing that to protect his stumps then you are paying the man a high compliment because he has reacted mentally and physically extremely quick if there was intent to save his wicket.

It seemed petty and cheap to appeal for that and I'd rather watch a team compete with pride than scratch for wins without it.

by Duty281 Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:05 pm

Yes, you turn your body around and protect your head with at least one arm. At least, that's how I think I would react in such a scenario.

And of course Stokes can react extremely quickly to protect his wicket in such a case - batsman have around half a second to react to a conventional 90mph delivery, I don't see why he couldn't have done something similar here.

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:08 pm

He has half a second to react to a delivery he knows is coming.

by Duty281 Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:18 pm

He knows the throw from Starc is coming as well, and has a similar time to react.

I would estimate Starc's throw was less than 90mph as well.

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:22 pm

He doesn't know it's coming until Starc releases the ball, you're making far too many assumptions.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:24 pm

To be honest it didn't really have a great effect on the outcome, we were well beaten

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:26 pm

At 141-3 and coming up 60 runs short I think you can say it had quite a big effect on the outcome of the match.

by kingraf Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:12 pm

Of course it was instinctive. I don't however think it was a protective instinct. He could have gotten himself really hurt. Think instinctively went after the ball. Out and deservedly so.

I also think it's a little rich to pretend it was accidental given the fact that the ball went straight into his pouch. Nothing is that flukey

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:53 pm

Absolutely baffled people think he instinctively protected his wickets, and that throwing an arm towards something to block it isnt protective.

This isn't a fielder crouched low with full focus in the slip field.

There's no way you throw two arms to your head to protect yourself. If you're doing that every time something is thrown at you then you're a mistake of evolution! (The exclamation mark makes that humorous rather than aggressive Wink

)

by kingraf Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:09 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Absolutely baffled people think he instinctively protected his wickets, and that throwing an arm towards something to block it isnt protective.

This isn't a fielder crouched low with full focus in the slip field.

There's no way you throw two arms to your head to protect yourself. If you're doing that every time something is thrown at you then you're a mistake of evolution! (The exclamation mark makes that humorous rather than aggressive )

I don't see how it's protective. What exactly does leaving your arm dangling out protect? He's lucky Starc was actually aiming for the stumps, unlike other naughty bowlers, or he'd have protectively left himself open to real danger

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:05 pm

What was he doing following the ball? That's what it looked like. If he was protecting anything, it was his stumps.......

by **LondonTiger** Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:45 pm

Bairstow called up to replace Buttler.

(ps any debate on Stokes is pointless - we will all see it how we choose to, and none of us will change our point of view. For me the hand goes up and the body moves away hence why arm looks to extend. why anyone would trust Wade's view after his pathetic use of the TMO in game 1 astounds me)

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:43 pm

Buttler rested they say. His poor batting form has anything to do with it I wonder. Is he dropped? He has been struggling of late with the bat, and rested or otherwise, perhaps some time away could do some him good.
Good opportunity for Bairstow. He didn't make much of his test return, but when he stood in for an injured Buttler during the ODI series, did play a match winning hand and would be hoping to do more of the same.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:54 pm

kingraf wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Absolutely baffled people think he instinctively protected his wickets, and that throwing an arm towards something to block it isnt protective.

This isn't a fielder crouched low with full focus in the slip field.

There's no way you throw two arms to your head to protect yourself. If you're doing that every time something is thrown at you then you're a mistake of evolution! (The exclamation mark makes that humorous rather than aggressive )

I don't see how it's protective. What exactly does leaving your arm dangling out protect? He's lucky Starc was actually aiming for the stumps, unlike other naughty bowlers, or he'd have protectively left himself open to real danger

The post about "seeing it how you want" could never be more illustrated than by "dangling out" there from Raf. He throws his arm at the ball to block it. It looks further extended because he also throws his body away. Both are very obviously protective instincts. He's not following a swinging delivery, its a ball chucked at him. Following the ball? Beggars belief this. Stokes is livid about it, as were the crowd, as was Morgan and even the commentator's first reaction was a bit of shock about what looked like something that could have hurt, followed by assuming Starc was apologising.

No one is gonna change their mind but I can't help be utterly bewildered by some reactions.

by GSC Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:06 pm

Slow motion clearly distorts it. In real time its obviously an instinctive move to defend himself.

by alfie Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:28 am

Just seen the youtube of the Stokes dismissal.

Honestly astonished that anyone can believe Stokes' actions were anything other than pure reflex - he had nanoseconds to "assess"the situation ; and if he could calculate in that time (A) that the ball threatened his stumps and (B) where to place his hand to intercept it - all while turning and diving for his crease : well he is superman.

Ridiculous appeal , daft umpiring to uphold it. Suppose you can watch the slomo and convince yourself the hand was protecting stumps rather than face but if you consider the actual time involved I reckon that's crazy.
Probably quite irrelevant as I think Australia were going to win anyway , but something we could surely have done without. Smith seems intent on presenting himself as hardnosed. I think there are better ways.

by kingraf Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:58 am

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
kingraf wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Absolutely baffled people think he instinctively protected his wickets, and that throwing an arm towards something to block it isnt protective.

This isn't a fielder crouched low with full focus in the slip field.

There's no way you throw two arms to your head to protect yourself. If you're doing that every time something is thrown at you then you're a mistake of evolution! (The exclamation mark makes that humorous rather than aggressive )

I don't see how it's protective. What exactly does leaving your arm dangling out protect? He's lucky Starc was actually aiming for the stumps, unlike other naughty bowlers, or he'd have protectively left himself open to real danger

The post about "seeing it how you want" could never be more illustrated than by "dangling out" there from Raf. He throws his arm at the ball to block it. It looks further extended because he also throws his body away. Both are very obviously protective instincts. He's not following a swinging delivery, its a ball chucked at him. Following the ball? Beggars belief this. Stokes is livid about it, as were the crowd, as was Morgan and even the commentator's first reaction was a bit of shock about what looked like something that could have hurt, followed by assuming Starc was apologising.

No one is gonna change their mind but I can't help be utterly bewildered by some reactions.

Of course he's following the ball. Look at the slow mo. He follows the ball with his eyes until about its about two meters from him. You don't catch a ball straight in your pouch because you were trying to save yourself. Come on. The only reason he didn't complete the catch is because he still had to kiss the floor. I've never seen a cricketer catch a ball they were hiding from. It doesn't even happen in the silly region. Those catches generally happen after the poor fielder has been hit somewhere and then managed to hold on. I' cant remember a silly fielder or any batsman caught backing up "instinctively" protecting themselves by fully extending their arm in the direction of the danger

by Gooseberry Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:38 am

msp83 wrote:Buttler rested they say. His poor batting form has anything to do with it I wonder. Is he dropped? He has been struggling of late with the bat, and rested or otherwise, perhaps some time away could do some him good.
Good opportunity for Bairstow. He didn't make much of his test return, but when he stood in for an injured Buttler during the ODI series, did play a match winning hand and would be hoping to do more of the same.

Bit of both. They probably see he is shot ...hes had a huge workload build up over the last couple of years and it looks like hes broken. Time away will give him a chance to get his head staright and work on the basics.

"Resting" says you are still number one, and makes it clear to the guy replacing him that they shouldnt assume that even if they do well they will keep the spot. England havent been afraid to openly drop players on form in the past (most recently Ballance).

Bairstow deserves a shot, he could stake a claim as a pure batsman alone allowing Buttler to return as a finisher/keeper.
Maybe Billings could feel he should be next in line but they have already dropped him, and its not like he did any better than Buttler has been doing.

Its all gap filling though, the real issue for me is still a lack of wickets from the seamers.

by Gooseberry Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:42 am

Olly wrote:Random cricket thought - how comes you can be out handling the ball but kicking it is allowed

Someone should tell Shane Watson

by guildfordbat Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:05 am

alfie wrote:Just seen the youtube of the Stokes dismissal.

Honestly astonished that anyone can believe Stokes' actions were anything other than pure reflex - he had nanoseconds to "assess"the situation ; and if he could calculate in that time (A) that the ball threatened his stumps and (B) where to place his hand to intercept it - all while turning and diving for his crease : well he is superman.

Ridiculous appeal , daft umpiring to uphold it. Suppose you can watch the slomo and convince yourself the hand was protecting stumps rather than face but if you consider the actual time involved I reckon that's crazy.
Probably quite irrelevant as I think Australia were going to win anyway , but something we could surely have done without. Smith seems intent on presenting himself as hardnosed. I think there are better ways.

Alfie - thanks for your input, again appreciated. I first saw the incident only in slomo (several times!) when it was being continually assessed on Sky. That made me (slightly?) sympathetic to the appeal. However, seeing it in real time gives it a very different slant as you suggest.

As I posted on that evening, I feel that if intent is being assessed that best belongs to the on field umpires and their perception at the actual time. As well, Starc was very aggressive in his manner and action of throwing the ball - probably as much geared towards intimidation as trying for a dismissal; that again encourages me towards a not out decision.

by guildfordbat Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:10 am

Gooseberry wrote:

Its all gap filling though, the real issue for me is still a lack of wickets from the seamers.

Maybe but I don't feel our spin duo should put their feet up and enjoy a cigar just yet - particularly whilst their figures are falling some way short of Maxwell's.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:11 am

alfie wrote:Just seen the youtube of the Stokes dismissal.

Honestly astonished that anyone can believe Stokes' actions were anything other than pure reflex - he had nanoseconds to "assess"the situation ; and if he could calculate in that time (A) that the ball threatened his stumps and (B) where to place his hand to intercept it - all while turning and diving for his crease : well he is superman.

Ridiculous appeal , daft umpiring to uphold it. Suppose you can watch the slomo and convince yourself the hand was protecting stumps rather than face but if you consider the actual time involved I reckon that's crazy.
Probably quite irrelevant as I think Australia were going to win anyway , but something we could surely have done without. Smith seems intent on presenting himself as hardnosed. I think there are better ways.

Stokes is one of, if not the best fielders in the world. We saw in the ashes his reaction times (that slip catch!) - tbh I think he probably did know on some level

by Gooseberry Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:13 am

guildfordbat wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:

Its all gap filling though, the real issue for me is still a lack of wickets from the seamers.

Maybe but I don't feel our spin duo should put their feet up and enjoy a cigar just yet - particularly whilst their figures are falling some way short of Maxwell's.

Ture but these arent spinners wickets. Arguably they should only be selecting one anywa, but they clearly have an eye on India. Weve also seen Rashid take a big handfull of wickets in the previous game with his "loose" style. Theres 30 overs of seam from 4 players to 20 from 2 of spin.,..we have yet to see one of those "quicks" really trouble the Australians.

by guildfordbat Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:14 am

Olly - you've got proper work to do on the Celebration thread. Smile

by guildfordbat Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:20 am

Gooseberry wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:

Its all gap filling though, the real issue for me is still a lack of wickets from the seamers.

Maybe but I don't feel our spin duo should put their feet up and enjoy a cigar just yet - particularly whilst their figures are falling some way short of Maxwell's.

Ture but these arent spinners wickets. Arguably they should only be selecting one anywa, but they clearly have an eye on India. Weve also seen Rashid take a big handfull of wickets in the previous game with his "loose" style. Theres 30 overs of seam from 4 players to 20 from 2 of spin.,..we have yet to see one of those "quicks" really trouble the Australians.

True from you too. I just feel that Maxwell is a very ordinary bowler. Either our batsmen shouldn't be allowing him an analysis of 10-0-44-2 or our slowies should be bettering it.

by Gooseberry Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:33 am

Bring back Yardy?

by **LondonTiger** Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:05 am

guildfordbat wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:

Its all gap filling though, the real issue for me is still a lack of wickets from the seamers.

Maybe but I don't feel our spin duo should put their feet up and enjoy a cigar just yet - particularly whilst their figures are falling some way short of Maxwell's.

Is that the spinners or our batsmen?

by Gooseberry Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:15 am

LondonTiger wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:

Its all gap filling though, the real issue for me is still a lack of wickets from the seamers.

Maybe but I don't feel our spin duo should put their feet up and enjoy a cigar just yet - particularly whilst their figures are falling some way short of Maxwell's.

Is that the spinners or our batsmen?

Arguably both. Its frustrating though because the recent theory has been that you need "proper" bowlers and that the days of part time dobbers are gone.

by guildfordbat Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:22 am

Tiger - England spinners and batsmen should be doing better. No way either should be looking second best when up against or compared to Maxwell's bowling. Even allowing for his Yorkie connections and your usual bias, you have to accept he is very ordinary with the ball. Wink

Btw, you off to Lord's later this week?

by **LondonTiger** Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:54 am

Maxwell is shockingly average with the ball, yet his returns always seem to flatter.

May pop down on Friday to Lords, but it will be a shame that we will (probably) secure the title with so many key players elsewhere.

by alfie Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:42 am

I haven't watched a lot of the England innings in these two games ; but I wonder if Maxwell's success isn't built largely on the fact that England are always chasing 300 plus , and with some fairly handy seam bowling coming down the bats are feeling obligated to go after him rather indiscriminately instead of just milking him at first ? As I say , not seen enough to really judge ; but perhaps some who have might have a view ?

I am not over impressed with the England seam bowling so far. Adequate at best. They miss Broad. But in the interests of developing the new generation it makes sense to play these fellows.
I would play Willey though , if only for variety.

by Gooseberry Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:43 am

You'd think some of the England chaps would be happier having Willey to play with too.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:49 am

guildfordbat wrote:Olly - you've got proper work to do on the Celebration thread.

You've lost me mate?

by **LondonTiger** Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:04 pm

Gooseberry wrote:You'd think some of the England chaps would be happier having Willey to play with too.

Dunno, they all seem happily married.

by alfie Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:27 pm

Picking up on a point guildford made above : was Starc seriously trying to effect a run out ? Or was the throw more just an aggressive gesture (of the type fast bowlers not uncommonly indulge in) Fairly sure intimidation was the main factor.
Oh I've no doubt he'd rather have hit the stumps and got a wicket than hit the batsman ; but I cannot remember the last time any of these return throws have actually resulted in a run out...
The batsman generally grounds his bat in time anyway - or the ball misses the stumps - or both. It isn't a % play : and I can't help having a laugh when it results in overthrows.

The laws are clear enough in this case . The umpire must be satisfied the striker wilfully interfered with a legitimate action of the fielding team...hard to call an action like that "wilful" : at the time the ball hits his hand , Stokes is no longer even looking at it , being twisted around in his dive.
Seems to me that attempts at what one might call " a stumping from the bowlers's end " , given there is no attempt by the striker to take a run , are a bit more complicated ; as there is always some risk of injury to the batsman - which might conceivably cause him to fail to make his ground purely because of an apprehension of being struck...Should a man lose his wicket in the process of taking evasive action after the original delivery and play thereof has been completed?
I don't think so. And I certainly don't think we should encourage bowlers to go pinging the ball around either in hopes of a lucky run out or just out of a desire to intimidate/demonstrate their aggressive nature/macho bulls..t (strike out as desired)

Reckon decisions in cases like this should be judged very much with the burden of proof on the appellant ...in other words the batsman gets the benefit of any doubt whatsoever. In this case the third umpire erred - though he probably shouldn't have even been consulted.
I will revise something i said earlier : I called the appeal ridiculous ; which was perhaps unfair. It was reasonable enough to ask , in the heat of the moment. But common sense would have been for the umpires to then say to Smith "Do you really want to proceed with this ? Think about it for a minute" . If he still insisted ; then again , I reckon a straight not out would have been appropriate : wonder if the Aussies would have chanced their referral ?

I see Stokes says he wants England to just put it behind them and concentrate on playing better ; which seems eminently sensible.

But it does make a fascinating talking point...

by Stella Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:06 pm

So are we saying as long as you're in the way of the stumps, you can stay out of your ground, because you'll be protecting yourself? This rule of wilfully protecting yourself is very grey, hence all the debate.

by alfie Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:19 pm

Stella wrote:So are we saying as long as you're in the way of the stumps, you can stay out of your ground, because you'll be protecting yourself? This rule of wilfully protecting yourself is very grey, hence all the debate.

Some canny chaps might try that on , eh ? They do , to be honest , though , do they not ...how many batsmen run with half an eye to being between fielder and stumps ? And they usually get away with it.

Agreed it is grey. But I am not advocating total batsmen's rights ; just that when a ball is suddenly flung at or near them from a close distance they should be given a bit of latitude in their movements...I think their first instinct will be to regain their ground anyway rather than wear a ball in perhaps an uncomfortable spot trying to block a throw. I copped one right in the back from a bullet armed ,but on this occasion inaccurate , cover fielder once - it hurt !

Probably can't legislate to make it any easier - really is down to sensible umpiring.

by kingraf Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:08 pm

alfie wrote: at the time the ball hits his hand , Stokes is no longer even looking at it , being twisted around in his dive.

It's been proven that athletes do not track the entire movement of the ball. It would be nearly impossible, as the reflexes required would be too great. They look at the release point and then "predict" where the ball will be when it is near them. It's why so many batsman play down the wrong line when faced with reverse swing (poor Haddin playing a cover drive at a ball smashing his middle stump off Steyn twice, springs to mind). Nevertheless, the takeaway is that he wouldnt need to look at the ball's entire flight path to have a rough idea of where it would have landed. To me, it's a nit like if my 12-year old sister comes to me and says she accidentally deleted the entire FBI criminal database, and when Julian Assange says the same thing. A layman couldn't ostensibly fluke his way to catching a ball while "protecting" himself, but I find a professional doing that a bit of a stretch.

by kingraf Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:19 pm

As an aside, I thought Morgan was pretty poor basically subtly bashing the umpire and everyone who didn't think the "Spirit of Cricket" was irreparably broken this weekend. My opinion of him was lowered somewhat. Comes across as whiny, and funny enough, by not accepting the umpires decision as final, certainly not in keeping with the Spirit Of Cricket. I also think McCullum has done his reputation of playing to the gallery no good by taking a high horse approach. Smith of course maybe doesn't come off to good, but anybody who followed the Indian series would have seen that there's a street fighter element to him which Clarke didn't have, and as such this should really serve as no surprise

by Hammersmith harrier Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:26 pm

So basically what you're saying Raf is that Clarke had actual class and respect something Smith is sadly lacking, you can see the look of embarrassment on the face of some of the Aussies when he insisted on upholding the decision.

by kingraf Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:30 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So basically what you're saying Raf is that Clarke had actual class and respect something Smith is sadly lacking, you can see the look of embarrassment on the face of some of the Aussies when he insisted on upholding the decision.

Do I think upholding that appeal is classless? No, I honestly don't.
DO I think that Smith is probably not gonna be a "high road" captain? Yep. All about the "W".

To be fair, I'd probably have a bit more sympathy for Stokes if Morgan didn't start bleating on about the Spirit of Cricket. Red rag for me, because it's the most hypocritical, nonsensical phrase in cricket.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:46 pm

At least 4 changes in personnel due tomorrow with Buttler, Warner, Watson and Coulter-Nile all out of the series.

by msp83 Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:19 pm

kingraf wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:So basically what you're saying Raf is that Clarke had actual class and respect something Smith is sadly lacking, you can see the look of embarrassment on the face of some of the Aussies when he insisted on upholding the decision.

Do I think upholding that appeal is classless? No, I honestly don't.
DO I think that Smith is probably not gonna be a "high road" captain? Yep. All about the "W".

To be fair, I'd probably have a bit more sympathy for Stokes if Morgan didn't start bleating on about the Spirit of Cricket. Red rag for me, because it's the most hypocritical, nonsensical phrase in cricket.

Totally agree with the last point. and every team would use it mostly according to convenience. Though Morgan was talking up a good game of never carrying on with the appeal, I am pretty sure he would have done exactly the same as Smith if he was in the same position.
And alfie, give the batsman an inch, they will take the entire country! Look how the non-striker almost always abuse the spirit of cricket protection to gain an unfair advantage while taking quick single. And if any bowler dares to challenge this nonsense and stop the abuser on his track, the moral police would surely be up in arms! Only the team loyalty would be differing according to the team of the batsman!

by **LondonTiger** Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:07 am

I think you are unfair there msp. Take Buttler last year - he was taking the urine, the Sri Lanka bowler had stopped his bowling stride several times and Buttler deserved to be out. sure the england team whined about it, but the fans less so.

this time my issue is not with Smith, and I agree that Morgan (and Maxwell) should STFU. I firmly believe that the TMO umpire got it wrong in over-ruling the on field umpires and should have watched the replay at full speed and not slo-mo.

Not many rugby fans here, but we are rather used to slo-mo making incidents look much worse and much more deliberate than they actually were.

All irrelevant anyway as due to our bowling and primarily lack of wickets from the seamers we are struggling to get close to Aus.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am

Hoping we see Willey in the side today, and Billings for Buttler (he's a far better gloveman than bairstow, and he can bat at 7 allowing Moeen to go upto 6)

by **LondonTiger** Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:28 am

Olly wrote:Hoping we see Willey in the side today, and Billings for Buttler (he's a far better gloveman than bairstow, and he can bat at 7 allowing Moeen to go upto 6)

I think I have only seen Billings keep once, and was looking forward to it based on the pre-hype from these boards. Sadly he had an absolute shocker. Dropped about 4 chances and missed a simple stumping. I have to assume that was just a rare off day. Agree Bairstow not a great keeper, but as with his batting he has been in good form with the gloves for us this season. Will be really annoyed if they have called him up merely to carry drinks. Whiel we pretty much have the Championship sealed it would be nice to break the record for most points in a season - a job made harder by having 5 players unavailable this week due to international call-ups.

Willey for Woakes has to happen. Plunkett is not good enough at this level so Wood should return. Even so that still does not scream wicket taking.

by alfie Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:44 am

LondonTiger wrote:I think you are unfair there msp. Take Buttler last year - he was taking the urine, the Sri Lanka bowler had stopped his bowling stride several times and Buttler deserved to be out. sure the england team whined about it, but the fans less so.

this time my issue is not with Smith, and I agree that Morgan (and Maxwell) should STFU. I firmly believe that the TMO umpire got it wrong in over-ruling the on field umpires and should have watched the replay at full speed and not slo-mo.

Not many rugby fans here, but we are rather used to slo-mo making incidents look much worse and much more deliberate than they actually were.

All irrelevant anyway as due to our bowling and primarily lack of wickets from the seamers we are struggling to get close to Aus.

Agree with all that. I had no sympathy with Buttler last year ; and am not a big fan of captains taking high moral ground over these incidents - though in fairness to Morgan I believe he was asked what he would have done in similar circumstances - he couldn't really have responded any other way , considering he had questioned the umpires at the time.

The point I think some people are missing is that there is a subtle difference between this particular case and the ones in which batsmen are typically guilty of taking advantage : Stokes was not in any way seeking to do that. He was not intending to run ; he had completed his stroke.
Starc attempted to "catch him out " with a quick return (which he is entitled to do , of course) But this is very different from a batsman trying to gain a yard or two for a quick single - or , for that matter , trying to shield his wicket while taking a run. It is in fact the bowler who is taking maximum advantage from the rules - as shying the ball back - of necessity close to the batsman - just might cause an unwary batsman to panic and fail to regain his ground...
Please note ; I am not suggesting such a tactic should be illegal. Just that it is not at all comparable with stealing runs /mankad attempts.

At the risk of boring people : surely all the laws of cricket proceed directly from two competing aims - the bowler attempting to hit the stumps ; the batsman trying to score runs. LBW , Run Out , No ball and wide - even hitting the ball twice ...all are just there to make sure neither of these pursuits are unfairly impeded by the opponent. (Stumping derives from the need to prevent a batsman from striking the ball from an unexpected position - which would otherwise be without risk)
The "return throw" when no run is being attempted really doesn't deserve any special privileges , as it is only possible as a side effect of the requirement for a batsman to remain in his ground while the ball is in play - which it is ; just. It differs from the "handled the ball" law ; as in that case any interception of the ball , even a reflex one , typically has the effect of preventing a "normal" dismissal - or at least , the threat of one ; and so rightly incurs the penalty of a dismissal. Seems to me the law makers concede the difference with the emphasis on "wilful" in the obstructing the field law...the batsman is not automatically penalised for an accidental interference with the play.

Of course those who think Stokes - or anyone- really could sum all this up in the tiny moment he had and make a conscious decision to stop the ball (quite regardless of his skill in catching a ball with his back turned) probably won't be convinced. Suggest they try it sometime...even forewarned I'd be surprised if the success rate is high Smile

Anyway enough I think. Pardon my rabbiting on about it but I did want to make clear that this isn't some partisan issue (for me at any rate) but an issue of cricketing ethics ; about which I do have an interest.

Let us hope controversy is absent tonight...

by Sponsored content