Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Timeless Test Continued

1101113151622

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Proper preparation and acclimatisation is essential for a touring test side. I await with interest England's performance in the final two tests.

    I urge Geoff Boycott to stay calm until the end of the series.

    I worry for the National Treasure that is Sir Geoffrey.

    I remember him having a similar rant in 2010-11 when the series was tied 1-1. He left it a little late this time.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Pendragon wrote: »

    On the subject of cricket coverage in the UK, I did laugh when Gee D talked about watching the last 2 matches. Here I'd say cricket is pretty synonymous with the radio and Test Match Special. Apart from a few very special occasions, like the world cup final in 2019 which was hurriedly arranged as we were in the final, the full coverage has been on subscription channels for 20? years now, and you only get "highlights" in the evening on 5. Saying that, the Hundred had quite a few matches, both Men's and Women's, broadcast on BBC television.

    Listening to cricket on the radio takes us back to the 50's/early 60's listening at a beach. Nostalgia.....
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2021
    I will explain my contentious remark about cricket being a game to play rather than to watch.

    I was first introduced to cricket at school when I was ten. It was a game of non-stop with a couple of plastic cones. My contributions with the bat were, I think, 1 and 3. My team won. It was exhilarating. Until then football had been my preferred sport but from that point cricket took over. If I had ever watched it before I don't remember doing so. So I first tasted blood from playing it.

    When I left the UK two decades ago sport had, in my view, become mainly a spectator activity, chiefly watching football, and I doubt that's really changed. Enjoyment of cricket is massively enhanced by knowledge of technique that in turn comes from playing it. It transforms cricket from a slow game to the absorbing thing that exists under the sun. People here by and large understand those things and so enjoy watching cricket. In the UK that's not so.

    I take the point that the are fewer things nicer than relaxing at a cricket game in an afternoon. In reality I haven't had the time for that since I don't know when and I suspect that's very normal.

    For the last decade or so I've played a modified version of the game that brings it down to a manageable time - a match typically lasts 2 hours.

    What I love most about cricket is the subtlety and the cleverness. Cricket's health depends on playing numbers. That means judicious use of modified versions. It doesn't so much rely on spectator numbers or the strength of any particular Test team.

    Perhaps I'm becoming a bit of an iconoclast. But it's in a noble cause.

    I love the rhythm of watching live cricket at the MCG, with the radio commentary on the trannie and the binoculars going up and down with each ball. In the past, I would go through the process of getting half-tanked in the pub on Boxing Day and be a Bay 13 yobbo with my smuggled whiskey and a couple of joints. That was fun for a few years. Nowadays I avoid Boxing Day and like to go on Day 2 or 3. Not this year, nor the last. I was going to take a client like I usually do, but I copped a workplace injury and am off work for a bit. I hope he got to go.

    You used to miss some of the nuance at the G. But these days they have tellys all around the ground, for people who can't see the big screen. So you can see the replays, and added to the radio commentary you don't miss much at all. The SCG is a better ground for spectators.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    My daughter (who lives in Sydney) gave me a ticket for Day 1 of the Sydney test, but with 20,000 COVID cases in Sydney yesterday and that number doubling every couple of days, I am hesitant to go. The more so, as I'd be travelling round Sydney on public transport.

    With cases in the English camp, and at least one Ausssie player ruled out for that reason, perhaps the match will be postponed.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Good thing she didn't buy tickets for day 5. We're only up to lunch on day3, after several hours lost to drizzle, and already England are 4/36 in reply to Australia 8/416 declared. Khawaja got a century for Australia, but no-one got a duck; most made 30 or so.

    And when Australia's first change bowler , Scott Boland, came on he got 2 wickets for no runs, thus improving his already sensational test average from his first test. His bowling average to date of 6.1 now looks like the batting average of several of the England batters.
  • Tukai wrote: »
    Good thing she didn't buy tickets for day 5. We're only up to lunch on day3, after several hours lost to drizzle, and already England are 4/36 in reply to Australia 8/416 declared. Khawaja got a century for Australia, but no-one got a duck; most made 30 or so.

    And when Australia's first change bowler , Scott Boland, came on he got 2 wickets for no runs, thus improving his already sensational test average from his first test. His bowling average to date of 6.1 now looks like the batting average of several of the England batters.

    Day 5 might well be interesting. Australia don't need to win but I suspect that they want a 5-0. At some stage they will have to declare and give England a sniff.

    Well done Bairstow and Stokes.

    Wood did very well but he's not a number 8.

    I would drop Buttler and Hameed for the last test.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    England was still batting at stumps and was 258 for 7 - a deficit of 158 runs and probably little chance of making that up with the uninspiring tail-enders.
  • The weather could intervene to make it difficult to achieve a result which might lead to a drawn test.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Quite a bit of rain overnight here, but some sunshine now. It could be too wet.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    England all out for 294, which is far more respectable. Australia 2 for 66, not a good start to the second innings.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 2022
    It's now pretty straightforward.

    If England can progess to tea on the last day without losing a wicket, they can consider going for the win.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    England is 0 for 30 at stumps - so they have tomorrow to make 388 to win.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    England is 0 for 30 at stumps - so they have tomorrow to make 388 to win.

    Easy.

    Nah. They'll be skittled for 150 by lunch.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    England is 0 for 30 at stumps - so they have tomorrow to make 388 to win.

    Easy.

    Nah. They'll be skittled for 150 by lunch.

    If they get as far as that. 0 for 30 is about their best performance so far.
  • Yes it is. And Ollie Pope is a much better wicket keeper than the usual suspects.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    England may be saved - it's been raining lightly here for over an hour. We're about 25 km in a straight line from the SCG.
  • Dragonlets 1 and 2 were playing at controlling the weather earlier. (like the weather clerk in the Rupert Bear stories) Dragonlet 1 was going to make it snow in the UK, so his sister said she would make it rain in Australia! I must admit that I did suggest Sydney as a target. I see it's resuming shortly though.

    Admittedly he's been in the Big Bash, rather than multi day cricket, but I am hoping a tiny bit that Sam Billings can emulate Marnus Labuschagne from the last Ashes series: called up in a hurry mid series as they needed another player, and turned out (alas) to be remarkably good.

    I see in other cricketing news that Bangladesh are making headlines again. Having defeated New Zealand last time, they managed to concede 7 runs off 1 ball due to some bad fielding!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    5 for 198, so England could still draw. Rain has eased here.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And it is a draw.
  • Quite an exciting draw at that, with only one wicket left for the last 12 balls.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    And it is a draw.

    This was proper test match cricket.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Given that a number of overs were lost to rain 'twas a lucky escape...
  • Surely it's not Proper Test Match Cricket without rain?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Given that a number of overs were lost to rain 'twas a lucky escape...
    Who for though ?
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    The England escape was made possible partly by rain, but equally by uncharacteristically missed wicket chances by Australia. Harris' drop off Stokes, then on 15, was the most costly as Stokes, though injured battled on to make 60-odd. Admittedly it was not an easy catch, being hit hard at a distance of about 7 metres, though straight into his midriff. (Harris was at short square leg.)

    But it was a good match for several players who were omitted from the first 2 or 3 games: Khawaja (who made a century in both innings!) ,Bairstow (one century plus a useful second innings) and Crawley (the only English opener to make a 50 in this series), not to mention Boland (who took another 5 wickets in this his second test, to follow up his sensational debut in the previous one).
  • I would be interested in comments on (what I observe to be) a common batting technique among the English top order: standing in front of the stumps.

    I remember being taught to take guard on middle and leg, ie, leave my off stump exposed. I don't remember being told why, but it occurs to me that there are advantages. The ball will normally be away from your body, and it's one step with your left foot to attack the ball if playing forward, and one step with the right if attacking the ball by playing back. Playing off the pads carries a reduced risk of LBW as the ball will probably be going down leg. It is easy to use your balance to get momentum behind the shot.

    But quite a few of the England players - Burns, Hameed, Bairstow (to an extent) and Crawley yesterday seem to stand plumb in front. By doing this, ISTM, they are putting themselves in line with the ball, making driving and cutting much more difficult, and making it more necessary to play around the front pad, something I remember being discouraged from doing. Once again, I don't remember why, but it does make footwork complicated, LBWs more likely and a greater risk of edging the moving ball. They look shuffly and cramped.

    Thoughts?
  • I reckon my lack of preparation theory is still open. England are not a great Test team right now, but the lack of time to adjust must have impaired their performances. The last day was great cricket, and I'm looking forward to Hobart. I'd like to move to Tassie, but my wife won't be in it :smile:
  • I would be interested in comments on (what I observe to be) a common batting technique among the English top order: standing in front of the stumps.

    I remember being taught to take guard on middle and leg, ie, leave my off stump exposed. I don't remember being told why, but it occurs to me that there are advantages. The ball will normally be away from your body, and it's one step with your left foot to attack the ball if playing forward, and one step with the right if attacking the ball by playing back. Playing off the pads carries a reduced risk of LBW as the ball will probably be going down leg. It is easy to use your balance to get momentum behind the shot.

    But quite a few of the England players - Burns, Hameed, Bairstow (to an extent) and Crawley yesterday seem to stand plumb in front. By doing this, ISTM, they are putting themselves in line with the ball, making driving and cutting much more difficult, and making it more necessary to play around the front pad, something I remember being discouraged from doing. Once again, I don't remember why, but it does make footwork complicated, LBWs more likely and a greater risk of edging the moving ball. They look shuffly and cramped.

    Thoughts?

    As an amateur player I had the reputation of hitting hard, high and seldom.

    I would be loath to criticise the technique of international batters.

    In the last over of the game we had the world's top batter bowling to the world's top bowler in order to win the game. Who would have predicted that ?

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 2022
    Not that anything a dumpty-dum year old who doesn't make the village main team tells you much about the professional game, but my last two dismissals were both being bowled to the off stump, so I'm going to be more in front this season. Sooner risk LBW if I don't get the bat in line than guarantee being bowled.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Not that anything a dumpty-dum year old who doesn't make the village main team tells you much about the professional game, but my last two dismissals were both being bowled to the off stump, so I'm going to be more in front this season. Sooner risk LBW if I don't get the bat in line than guarantee being bowled.

    When I was a league umpire, my main reasons for turning down appeals were:-
    Probably pitched outside leg stump
    Probably made contact outside off stump.
    Just too much doubt.

    You are more likely to get away with LBW than bowled. !!!!!!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Not that anything a dumpty-dum year old who doesn't make the village main team tells you much about the professional game, but my last two dismissals were both being bowled to the off stump, so I'm going to be more in front this season. Sooner risk LBW if I don't get the bat in line than guarantee being bowled.

    When I was a league umpire, my main reasons for turning down appeals were:-
    Probably pitched outside leg stump
    Probably made contact outside off stump.
    Just too much doubt.

    You are more likely to get away with LBW than bowled. !!!!!!

    Exactly. As long as a stroke is played it's got to pitch in line with the stumps to be given out.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Not that anything a dumpty-dum year old who doesn't make the village main team tells you much about the professional game, but my last two dismissals were both being bowled to the off stump, so I'm going to be more in front this season. Sooner risk LBW if I don't get the bat in line than guarantee being bowled.

    When I was a league umpire, my main reasons for turning down appeals were:-
    Probably pitched outside leg stump
    Probably made contact outside off stump.
    Just too much doubt.

    You are more likely to get away with LBW than bowled. !!!!!!

    Exactly. As long as a stroke is played it's got to pitch in line with the stumps to be given out.

    That used to be the law back in the day. They then changed it to allow the ball to pitch outside off stump as long as the contact was made in line with the stumps.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 2022
    It's been a long time since I played grade cricket, but I'm pretty sure that the rule was to never give your teammate out LBW, unless you wanted to have a compulsory exclusion from umpiring duties and a very uncomfortable afternoon. At my level, we did not have neutral umpires.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It's been a long time since I played grade cricket, but I'm pretty sure that the rule was to never give your teammate out LBW, unless you wanted to have a compulsory exclusion from umpiring duties and a very uncomfortable afternoon. At my level, we did not have neutral umpires.

    This is all true but it applies to both sides. It becomes a different game.

    One afternoon about 15 years ago, I officiated at a local derby. The home team were batting second chasing a modest target. I gave the first 5 wickets to fall lbw. All very plumb and for the same bowler who declined my suggestion to have a go at the other end. Very embarrassing.

  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Few things are less excusable from a test batter than leaving a ball that's close to off stump, only to find it hit the stump after all. It happened to Hameed in the first test, and (more excusably, as he doesn't claim to be a top-order batter) to Leach in Sydney.

    Perhaps also excusable was Colin Cowdrey many years ago (obviously) who facing one of the Pakistani big-swing bowlers on a humid day in England let one go that was pitched at least 30 cm outside off, only to be clean bowled.
  • LatchKeyKidLatchKeyKid Purgatory Host
    I will explain my contentious remark about cricket being a game to play rather than to watch.

    I was first introduced to cricket at school when I was ten. It was a game of non-stop with a couple of plastic cones. My contributions with the bat were, I think, 1 and 3. My team won. It was exhilarating. Until then football had been my preferred sport but from that point cricket took over. If I had ever watched it before I don't remember doing so. So I first tasted blood from playing it.

    I remember starting playing cricket in our garden and in the local park. Apart from 2nd XI for my school house I started to really enjoy playing when I joined the Stanmore Baptist XI playing other teams in friendlies. I was asked to try wicket keeper and came to enjoy it. I remember my first catch was low down on the leg side.

    My father was a member of the Surrey Cricket Club and in the summer holidays I would go to the oval for three day county matches, filling out the scorecard religiously, and enjoying being in the member's stand. I haven't been able to watch England this summer. Too depressing!

    Until Covid hit I'd enjoyed social cricket with a few local teams that held a winter competition. That was a suitable climate in the sub-tropics. It was a 33 over innings for each side and each person bowled three overs. There was no LBW and anything over shoulder height was a no-ball - quite a few of us were over retirement age with not the fastest reactions. I can no longer throw from the boundary to the stumps. The outfield was pretty rough and balls had to be lofted a fair way to get to the boundary. Oh, and lots of blokes took a bottle of beer out when they were fielding. If the ball hit a bottle in the field that was counted as a boundary.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Not that anything a dumpty-dum year old who doesn't make the village main team tells you much about the professional game, but my last two dismissals were both being bowled to the off stump, so I'm going to be more in front this season. Sooner risk LBW if I don't get the bat in line than guarantee being bowled.

    When I was a league umpire, my main reasons for turning down appeals were:-
    Probably pitched outside leg stump
    Probably made contact outside off stump.
    Just too much doubt.

    You are more likely to get away with LBW than bowled. !!!!!!

    Exactly. As long as a stroke is played it's got to pitch in line with the stumps to be given out.

    That used to be the law back in the day. They then changed it to allow the ball to pitch outside off stump as long as the contact was made in line with the stumps.

    As long as no stroke is offered. That's still the rule for balls pitching outside off stump. It's gone one way and then the other as players adapt and abuse, I mean, make best use of it.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Not that anything a dumpty-dum year old who doesn't make the village main team tells you much about the professional game, but my last two dismissals were both being bowled to the off stump, so I'm going to be more in front this season. Sooner risk LBW if I don't get the bat in line than guarantee being bowled.

    When I was a league umpire, my main reasons for turning down appeals were:-
    Probably pitched outside leg stump
    Probably made contact outside off stump.
    Just too much doubt.

    You are more likely to get away with LBW than bowled. !!!!!!

    Exactly. As long as a stroke is played it's got to pitch in line with the stumps to be given out.

    That used to be the law back in the day. They then changed it to allow the ball to pitch outside off stump as long as the contact was made in line with the stumps.

    As long as no stroke is offered. That's still the rule for balls pitching outside off stump. It's gone one way and then the other as players adapt and abuse, I mean, make best use of it.

    You are confusing balls pitching outside off stump with contact being made outside off stump.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Telford is correct. A ball pitching outside off-stump that hits the pads between wicket and wicket and would have gone on to hit the stumps is LBW whether a shot is played or not.
  • I listened to the Wisden podcast on Spotify and Mark Butcher had an awful lot to say about English cricketers and dodgy technique. Unlike Telford, Butcher and his associates did not consider themselves bound by Matthew 7: 1-3 and it made for an interesting discussion.

    Apparently the current thinking is to let the player do what works for them. Which in an extreme case means that if a player chooses to take guard with their trousers down and their arse facing the bowler, that's their choice and that's their way of being the best they can be.

    In fairness, this isn't restricted to English players, as Marnus Labuschagne has just shown.
  • I listened to the Wisden podcast on Spotify and Mark Butcher had an awful lot to say about English cricketers and dodgy technique. Unlike Telford, Butcher and his associates did not consider themselves bound by Matthew 7: 1-3 and it made for an interesting discussion.
    It is the job of a cricket summariser to give their opinion. That's what they are paid for.

    When I was an umpire assessor, I had to make give my opinions on umpires but on reflection I was probably a bit of a soft touch.

    As an actual umpire I had to make judgements all the time and I tended to give the benefit of the doubt to the batter even though I used to be mainly a bowler.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Apparently the current thinking is to let the player do what works for them. Which in an extreme case means that if a player chooses to take guard with their trousers down and their arse facing the bowler, that's their choice and that's their way of being the best they can be.

    An interesting suggestion - it could not be worse than the performance in Sydney.
  • After a fabulous start, England allow the Aussies to get 300.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    After a fabulous start, England allow the Aussies to get 300.

    That is not the worst of it. Their reply is.
  • The wicket is demonic. Australia 3/37 at stumps.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Why was Anderson left out - is he injured?
  • Oh, and lots of blokes took a bottle of beer out when they were fielding. If the ball hit a bottle in the field that was counted as a boundary.
    That sounds eminently sensible and eminently sensible. Like.
  • Why was Anderson left out - is he injured?
    Apparently so.
  • When, I wonder, was the last time Warner got a pair?

    As I was on my way to work on Friday I was listening to Aggers interviewing Tom someone or other about the tour and they were talking about the lack of preparedness, and the lack of red ball cricket being played, not to mention the Rafiq affair and its fallout, and the chap seemed to be talking a certain amount of sense, but I sensed an undercurrent and when Aggers talked to George Dobell afterwards, I realised why.

    Tom Harrison is CEO of the ECB, and has been for SEVEN YEARS. He's presided over this whole mucking fuddle from start to finish, annd now is being wise after the event. Much as I love cricket, I don't think even the lesser known-sport of foot-shooting shoots itself in the foot as often as English cricket...
  • When, I wonder, was the last time Warner got a pair?

    Last Test pair: Old Trafford, 4th September 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.