No no no! LBW is perfectly easy to understand! But it would really help to be able to make an infallible judgment. This is where that Anglican Pope from the Purgatory thread would really come in handy, because then cricket could reasonably be regarded as a question of faith and morals...
He was asked by a lady where he stood with God. He replied,
"I am a member of the MCC"
"I do not think that will help you on the last day!"
"Madam," said Adrian, "membership of the Marylebone Cricket Club always guarantees one entry to the Lord's enclosure."
Or perhaps, unkindly, Bernard-Shaw: “The English are not a very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. ”
...Or perhaps, unkindly, Bernard-Shaw: “The English are not a very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. ”
YMMV
AFZ
I think I used that as a sig back in the day.
Meanwhile, I was pleasantly surprised to wake up and find Pakistan nine down and the day's play to end with England only five down. Despite two (!) runouts.
Australia won the tests against West Indies with one hand tied behind their backs. It was sad to see such a collapse by the West Indies when they used to be at the top of the cricket world.
Yes - how often do you see the highest score of the match in the fourth innings, the seamers doing the damage on a subcontinent bunsen, and the team with the highest innings still losing? This is Test Cricket!
This must be the first time England have won two on the trot in Pakistan in my lifetime, possibly ever. Blimey!
Yes - how often do you see the highest score of the match in the fourth innings, the seamers doing the damage on a subcontinent bunsen, and the team with the highest innings still losing? This is Test Cricket!
This must be the first time England have won two on the trot in Pakistan in my lifetime, possibly ever. Blimey!
Yes - how often do you see the highest score of the match in the fourth innings, the seamers doing the damage on a subcontinent bunsen, and the team with the highest innings still losing? This is Test Cricket!
This must be the first time England have won two on the trot in Pakistan in my lifetime, possibly ever. Blimey!
I understand it's a rare occurrence.
Only the fourth we've ever won in Pakistan, it seems, so quite an achievement.
Ah no no no - there are other exceptions too - the off-side LBW law is even more complicated and can involve the umpire having to decide whether there was an intention to hit the ball with the bat. It is a very well-crafted rule though and I think has just about the right balance between bat and ball!
As others have said an astounding win by England and great captaincy by Stokes. I wish more people in the UK were still sufficiently interested in Test cricket to appreciate it!
The LBW law has evolved over the years. At one time the ball had to land wicket to wicket either on the pitch or on the body. The offside was treated the same as the leg side is now treated.
Lucky captain.
That was a risky declaration given his limited spin attack. The Pakistanis were suckered into hitting short-Pitched leg-side bowling from Woods which could gave been ignored..and they had heaps of time. The game was theirs to lose and they did but Australia or India would have won from that Day 4 position. (NSHO I know)
Lucky captain.
That was a risky declaration given his limited spin attack. The Pakistanis were suckered into hitting short-Pitched leg-side bowling from Woods which could gave been ignored..and they had heaps of time. The game was theirs to lose and they did but Australia or India would have won from that Day 4 position. (NSHO I know)
I don't think there was a declaration in the 2nd test
Ah no no no - there are other exceptions too - the off-side LBW law is even more complicated and can involve the umpire having to decide whether there was an intention to hit the ball with the bat. It is a very well-crafted rule though and I think has just about the right balance between bat and ball!
As others have said an astounding win by England and great captaincy by Stokes. I wish more people in the UK were still sufficiently interested in Test cricket to appreciate it!
The LBW law has evolved over the years. At one time the ball had to land wicket to wicket either on the pitch or on the body. The offside was treated the same as the leg side is now treated.
That must have been a long time ago though. The latest rule change was in the 1950s I think and introduced the "intention to play a shot" rule. Prior to that batsmen would thrust their pad out onto the off-side so that the ball would be intercepted outside the line of the off-stump, thus preventing LBW. From this you can see that even under the old rule, merely pitching outside off was not enough to save the batsman. Otherwise thrusting out the pad would not have been necessary.
Ah no no no - there are other exceptions too - the off-side LBW law is even more complicated and can involve the umpire having to decide whether there was an intention to hit the ball with the bat. It is a very well-crafted rule though and I think has just about the right balance between bat and ball!
As others have said an astounding win by England and great captaincy by Stokes. I wish more people in the UK were still sufficiently interested in Test cricket to appreciate it!
The LBW law has evolved over the years. At one time the ball had to land wicket to wicket either on the pitch or on the body. The offside was treated the same as the leg side is now treated.
That must have been a long time ago though. The latest rule change was in the 1950s I think and introduced the "intention to play a shot" rule. Prior to that batsmen would thrust their pad out onto the off-side so that the ball would be intercepted outside the line of the off-stump, thus preventing LBW. From this you can see that even under the old rule, merely pitching outside off was not enough to save the batsman. Otherwise thrusting out the pad would not have been necessary.
Apologies, my bad. Should have checked. Still tinny though.
WTF is "tinny"?
Lucky…I like his style of cricket though. He seems to take risks that pay off. Correct me but wasn’t that more test wins in a row than in living memory for England?
Apologies, my bad. Should have checked. Still tinny though.
WTF is "tinny"?
Lucky…I like his style of cricket though. He seems to take risks that pay off. Correct me but wasn’t that more test wins in a row than in living memory for England?
It's only the 4th win a row. I believe the England record is 8 in 2004.
Apologies, my bad. Should have checked. Still tinny though.
WTF is "tinny"?
Lucky…I like his style of cricket though. He seems to take risks that pay off. Correct me but wasn’t that more test wins in a row than in living memory for England?
That makes sense now, never come across that usage before.
It's hard to tell thus far, but I think it's more about backing the players to make their own luck than being lucky himself.
I suspect in terms of wins, you've possibly misheard about the two in a row in Pakistan which doubles the number of times England have won there in ever.
*no - just spotted elsewhere - first team to chase 4 250+ targets in a year*
In other news - and I think again this is backing players to make their own luck - England will give a debut to Rehan Ahmed, the youngest man ever to play for them, tomorrow. Looking forward to England sending some leg spin down!
Ah no no no - there are other exceptions too - the off-side LBW law is even more complicated and can involve the umpire having to decide whether there was an intention to hit the ball with the bat. It is a very well-crafted rule though and I think has just about the right balance between bat and ball!
As others have said an astounding win by England and great captaincy by Stokes. I wish more people in the UK were still sufficiently interested in Test cricket to appreciate it!
The LBW law has evolved over the years. At one time the ball had to land wicket to wicket either on the pitch or on the body. The offside was treated the same as the leg side is now treated.
That must have been a long time ago though. The latest rule change was in the 1950s I think and introduced the "intention to play a shot" rule. Prior to that batsmen would thrust their pad out onto the off-side so that the ball would be intercepted outside the line of the off-stump, thus preventing LBW. From this you can see that even under the old rule, merely pitching outside off was not enough to save the batsman. Otherwise thrusting out the pad would not have been necessary.
Yes that was interesting! I didn't realise the current rule only dated from 1980. Still you have to go back to 1937 to be entirely immune from LBW for balls pitching outside off-stump.
Apologies, my bad. Should have checked. Still tinny though.
WTF is "tinny"?
Lucky…I like his style of cricket though. He seems to take risks that pay off. Correct me but wasn’t that more test wins in a row than in living memory for England?
That makes sense now, never come across that usage before.
It's hard to tell thus far, but I think it's more about backing the players to make their own luck than being lucky himself.
I suspect in terms of wins, you've possibly misheard about the two in a row in Pakistan which doubles the number of times England have won there in ever.
*no - just spotted elsewhere - first team to chase 4 250+ targets in a year*
In other news - and I think again this is backing players to make their own luck - England will give a debut to Rehan Ahmed, the youngest man ever to play for them, tomorrow. Looking forward to England sending some leg spin down!
I am not impressed by the debut of Ahmed after just 3 first class matches, in which he took just 9 wickets at an average of just over 30. If they wanted a leg spinner they should have been persuading Rashid to play.
In other news - and I think again this is backing players to make their own luck - England will give a debut to Rehan Ahmed, the youngest man ever to play for them, tomorrow. Looking forward to England sending some leg spin down!
From my home county too. Go Leicestershire! Two wickets.
Meanwhile In Australia, we saw two excellent bowling attacks from South Africa and Australia wrap up a test match in only 2 days. Hardly a "timeless test"! Each of the 4 innings had the batting side at 4/30 or worse. Admittedly the wicket at the Gabba was friendly for fast bowling, and SA in particular don't have any worthwhile batting from their 5 bowlers.
While there were some poor shots, most of the top orders were undone by straight , seaming, fast bowling. Starc's inswinging yorker to take his 300th test wicket would have nailed most good batters.
Top scorer for the match was Travis Head of Aust with 92, but he got 0 in the second innings, exceeded by sundries which topscore with 19 out
David Warner's individual innings has just passed the South African first innings total. He only has eight to get to achieve his double century. This is 100th Test Match,
David Warner's individual innings has just passed the South African first innings total. He only has eight to get to achieve his double century. This is 100th Test Match,
Yes Great effort, he was unable to continue because of cramping after reaching 200. Apparently he has an option of returning later.
Very hard day in the for SA. 35degree heat in Melbourne
David Warner's individual innings has just passed the South African first innings total. He only has eight to get to achieve his double century. This is 100th Test Match,
Yes Great effort, he was unable to continue because of cramping after reaching 200. Apparently he has an option of returning later.
Very hard day in the for SA. 35degree heat in Melbourne
While I'm glad to have Australia win again, it is sad that South Africa just seems totally unprepared for first class cricket this time. I like to see a bit of competition and some top level play.
Certainly the SA batting is way below test match standards, but their bowling is still good. Nortje in particular is usually both fast and accurate. After lunch on the hottest day of the match, having presumably enjoyed a few cold drinks he produced an over in which the slowest ball was 150 km/h * and all were on the spot. Both Warner and Smith looked very uncomfortable in that spell, playing and missing , with inside edges just missing the stumps and outside edges not quite carrying. He injured quite a few batter's fingers.
In an misguided effort to put him out of action, a cameraman hit him from behind with the ludicrous "spidercam", which slides along a wire, supposedly higher than even his 200cm.
* His fastest ball was 155 km/h, which is about 15km/h (10 Mph) faster than anyone else in the match; no wonder the batters looked startled.
In other news, Pakistan vs NZ in Karachi ends in a draw but credit to both teams to take it deep into the post-tea session on day 5. Kane Williamson scored a 200 not out and Ish Sodhi the leg spinner took 6 wickets on the final day.
There was a late second innings declaration by the Pakistan skipper with 8 wickets down only about 15 overs to bowl in the match and Pakistan 138 ahead. Light stopped play before they could be bowled.
Question: was this his way of ensuring a draw rather than a loss or did he know the light would stop play or was it a sporting declaration seeking an outcome…(but that could only have gone one way.) There is no way he expected to win so ..what then?
On 297 occasions, the Follow On has been enforced.
Test won by team enforcing follow on: 233 (78.4%)
Drawn: 60 (20.2%)
Won by team following on: 4 (1.3%)
(England vs Australia, 1894; England vs Australia, 1981; India vs Australia, 2001; New Zealand vs England, 2023).
On 111 occasions the Follow On was available and not enforced;
Won: 96 (86.5%)
Drawn: 13 (11.7%)
Lost: 2* (1.8%)
Therefore in 2494 Tests, the Follow On has been available on 398 occasions or 16.0% of all tests with the Follow On being enforced 62.8% of the time. It is often remarked that there has been a shift in thinking about enforcing the Follow On. Prior to the Famous Headlingly Test (England beating Australia after following on), the Follow On was enforced 86.8% of the time. From 1981 until 2001, When India beat Australia following on, it was enforced 90.8% of the time. Since then it has dropped to 54.5%.
Also there have now been 2 Test matches won by 1 run: West Indies beating Australia, 1993, being the other one. (There have also been 2 tied Test Matches).
[Sources: Cricinfo and Howstat]
*One of these Tests was England vs SA and may well have been a result of match-fixing.
On 297 occasions, the Follow On has been enforced.
Test won by team enforcing follow on: 233 (78.4%)
Drawn: 60 (20.2%)
Won by team following on: 4 (1.3%)
(England vs Australia, 1894; England vs Australia, 1981; India vs Australia, 2001; New Zealand vs England, 2023).
On 111 occasions the Follow On was available and not enforced;
Won: 96 (86.5%)
Drawn: 13 (11.7%)
Lost: 2* (1.8%)
Therefore in 2494 Tests, the Follow On has been available on 398 occasions or 16.0% of all tests with the Follow On being enforced 62.8% of the time. It is often remarked that there has been a shift in thinking about enforcing the Follow On. Prior to the Famous Headlingly Test (England beating Australia after following on), the Follow On was enforced 86.8% of the time. From 1981 until 2001, When India beat Australia following on, it was enforced 90.8% of the time. Since then it has dropped to 54.5%.
Also there have now been 2 Test matches won by 1 run: West Indies beating Australia, 1993, being the other one. (There have also been 2 tied Test Matches).
[Sources: Cricinfo and Howstat]
*One of these Tests was England vs SA and may well have been a result of match-fixing.
AFZ
Thanks for that. So this is the first time that England have enforced the follow on and lost.
Personally, I would always enforce the follow on. It's the quickest way of getting 20 wickets and avoids having to make a declaration decision.
What an amazing result. The penultimate ball by Neil Wagner should arguably have been a no ball on height. This would apparently have resulted in a drain test had he still taken that final wicket. Gotta love cricket.
Comments
My point exactly.
No no no! LBW is perfectly easy to understand! But it would really help to be able to make an infallible judgment. This is where that Anglican Pope from the Purgatory thread would really come in handy, because then cricket could reasonably be regarded as a question of faith and morals...
Piglet, rather baffled host
He was asked by a lady where he stood with God. He replied,
"I am a member of the MCC"
"I do not think that will help you on the last day!"
"Madam," said Adrian, "membership of the Marylebone Cricket Club always guarantees one entry to the Lord's enclosure."
Or perhaps, unkindly, Bernard-Shaw: “The English are not a very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. ”
YMMV
AFZ
Meanwhile, I was pleasantly surprised to wake up and find Pakistan nine down and the day's play to end with England only five down. Despite two (!) runouts.
Four down only. 160ish runs to get. Favours England, but Pakistan definitely have a chance!
This must be the first time England have won two on the trot in Pakistan in my lifetime, possibly ever. Blimey!
I understand it's a rare occurrence.
Only the fourth we've ever won in Pakistan, it seems, so quite an achievement.
Eh?
The LBW law has evolved over the years. At one time the ball had to land wicket to wicket either on the pitch or on the body. The offside was treated the same as the leg side is now treated.
That was a risky declaration given his limited spin attack. The Pakistanis were suckered into hitting short-Pitched leg-side bowling from Woods which could gave been ignored..and they had heaps of time. The game was theirs to lose and they did but Australia or India would have won from that Day 4 position. (NSHO I know)
I don't think there was a declaration in the 2nd test
That must have been a long time ago though. The latest rule change was in the 1950s I think and introduced the "intention to play a shot" rule. Prior to that batsmen would thrust their pad out onto the off-side so that the ball would be intercepted outside the line of the off-stump, thus preventing LBW. From this you can see that even under the old rule, merely pitching outside off was not enough to save the batsman. Otherwise thrusting out the pad would not have been necessary.
WTF is "tinny"?
You might find this to be an interesting read.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-evolution-of-the-lbw-1074311
Lucky…I like his style of cricket though. He seems to take risks that pay off. Correct me but wasn’t that more test wins in a row than in living memory for England?
That makes sense now, never come across that usage before.
It's hard to tell thus far, but I think it's more about backing the players to make their own luck than being lucky himself.
I suspect in terms of wins, you've possibly misheard about the two in a row in Pakistan which doubles the number of times England have won there in ever.
*no - just spotted elsewhere - first team to chase 4 250+ targets in a year*
In other news - and I think again this is backing players to make their own luck - England will give a debut to Rehan Ahmed, the youngest man ever to play for them, tomorrow. Looking forward to England sending some leg spin down!
Yes that was interesting! I didn't realise the current rule only dated from 1980. Still you have to go back to 1937 to be entirely immune from LBW for balls pitching outside off-stump.
I am not impressed by the debut of Ahmed after just 3 first class matches, in which he took just 9 wickets at an average of just over 30. If they wanted a leg spinner they should have been persuading Rashid to play.
While there were some poor shots, most of the top orders were undone by straight , seaming, fast bowling. Starc's inswinging yorker to take his 300th test wicket would have nailed most good batters.
Top scorer for the match was Travis Head of Aust with 92, but he got 0 in the second innings, exceeded by sundries which topscore with 19 out
I hope they don't lose tomorrow... still possible!
Good that the series has been played in a good spirit.
Very hard day in the for SA. 35degree heat in Melbourne
NZ 165 /0 chasing 370 plus.
In an misguided effort to put him out of action, a cameraman hit him from behind with the ludicrous "spidercam", which slides along a wire, supposedly higher than even his 200cm.
* His fastest ball was 155 km/h, which is about 15km/h (10 Mph) faster than anyone else in the match; no wonder the batters looked startled.
There was a late second innings declaration by the Pakistan skipper with 8 wickets down only about 15 overs to bowl in the match and Pakistan 138 ahead. Light stopped play before they could be bowled.
Question: was this his way of ensuring a draw rather than a loss or did he know the light would stop play or was it a sporting declaration seeking an outcome…(but that could only have gone one way.) There is no way he expected to win so ..what then?
On 297 occasions, the Follow On has been enforced.
Test won by team enforcing follow on: 233 (78.4%)
Drawn: 60 (20.2%)
Won by team following on: 4 (1.3%)
(England vs Australia, 1894; England vs Australia, 1981; India vs Australia, 2001; New Zealand vs England, 2023).
On 111 occasions the Follow On was available and not enforced;
Won: 96 (86.5%)
Drawn: 13 (11.7%)
Lost: 2* (1.8%)
Therefore in 2494 Tests, the Follow On has been available on 398 occasions or 16.0% of all tests with the Follow On being enforced 62.8% of the time. It is often remarked that there has been a shift in thinking about enforcing the Follow On. Prior to the Famous Headlingly Test (England beating Australia after following on), the Follow On was enforced 86.8% of the time. From 1981 until 2001, When India beat Australia following on, it was enforced 90.8% of the time. Since then it has dropped to 54.5%.
Also there have now been 2 Test matches won by 1 run: West Indies beating Australia, 1993, being the other one. (There have also been 2 tied Test Matches).
[Sources: Cricinfo and Howstat]
*One of these Tests was England vs SA and may well have been a result of match-fixing.
AFZ
Personally, I would always enforce the follow on. It's the quickest way of getting 20 wickets and avoids having to make a declaration decision.