***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[chaminda_00]

Pretty sure Muburak paid the umpires as well, maybe he might come in handy in future after all.

Nice to see Malinga take some wickets, been a tough couple months for him.

 

[Richard]

Oh but you can. If the fielding side is silly enough to drop catches, that's their problem. OTOH batsmen are entitled not to be give leg before when the ball is missing the stumps.

The team can complain, but Cook can't. He shouldn't have got more than 8.

 

[Pup Clarke]

He shouldn't have got more than 8.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cook's decision was a shocker. Borderline whether it pitched outside leg, definitely struck him outside the line & was clearly going down. Not much going for it TBH.

Bopara got a pearler first up, can't blame him too much but I feel he needs something in excess of 50 in the second to be retained now. With our tail (admittedly shortened somewhat by Broad's inclusion) we need our middle order to contribute.

 

[Jamee999]

Well TBF we didn't - Cook would've been gone had that catch been taken.

Did think about the similarities to 2003\04 myself when Vaughan was hitting it as absurdly easily as he was in the first session, as it was so similar to what Trescothick did that season. So far, though, the middle-order's looked far better than it did then.

What's more, you never know - our catching might be less awful that it was that game and SL's has been so far, and SL might not get 600 this time.

Even for you, claiming that we did lose a wicket before lunch is a bit weird

 

[wpdavid]

The team can complain, but Cook can't. He shouldn't have got more than 8.

Sure he shouldn't, but that was within the laws of the game. Anyway, we'll see what they're made of now. The team could easily go into freefall after being cheated out of 2 key wickets. A rapid deterioration in the light would be very welcome indeed.

 

[Richard]

There's absolutely no disputing this, it's stone-cold fact. Had that catch been taken, which it should have been, Cook would have been gone for 8.

 

[Richard]

Even for you, claiming that we did lose a wicket before lunch is a bit weird

Meh, we played our part in the losing of a wicket, which is all we can do.

And Murali is back on with the new-ball - beware the non-turning Off-Break.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's absolutely no disputing this, it's stone-cold fact. Had that catch been taken, which it should have been, Cook would have been gone for 8.

That's not how cricket works tho. Chances are grassed (even those that are claimed, judging by KP's dismissal ) and edges whistle through for 4. You take the rough with the smooth as a batsman.

 

[Richard]

That's not how cricket works tho. Chances are grassed (even those that are claimed, judging by KP's dismissal )

And right now, bad Umpiring decisions are also how it works.

edges whistle through for 4. You take the rough with the smooth as a batsman.

You do, and hence when you get smooth early in one innings you don't have any right to complain when you get rough later.

 

[The_Bunny]

And right now, bad Umpiring decisions are also how it works.

You do, and hence when you get smooth early in one innings you don't have any right to complain when you get rough later.

1 is part of the game of cricket, the other shouldnt be, thats my opinion on the matter.

 

[Richard]

I agree that it shouldn't be, but as of the current time it is. I'd love it if dropped catches weren't part of cricket too, and I enjoy it immensely whenever there's any extended time where they don't happen.

The fact is, currently bad Umpiring decisions do happen. It's as fruitless to moan about them as it is to moan about the pointing-out of dropped catches.

 

[Langeveldt]

WTF - Cricinfo Headline of "Rapid Malinga rocks England" who are 252/5?? That doesn't make sense

 

[Richard]

Yeah, thought that was exceedingly odd. Think a bit before writing your in-play headlines, dumbaesses.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You do, and hence when you get smooth early in one innings you don't have any right to complain when you get rough later.

Of course you do. As wpd said, if SL want to go about dropping catches that's their problem. If you've been given out when you palpably aren't it's the umpire's problem, not the batsman's.

Where does it end? Is every false stroke a wicket? Play and misses? The bowler has bested the batsman every bit as much as when the ball is grassed.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nice deployment of the euphemism from Strauss for the umpire dropping bollocks "two decisions that might've gone the other way". Hmmm, a career in the diplomatic service awaits Andy, clearly.

 

[Richard]

Of course you do. As wpd said, if SL want to go about dropping catches that's their problem. If you've been given out when you palpably aren't it's the umpire's problem, not the batsman's.

Where does it end? Is every false stroke a wicket? Play and misses? The bowler has bested the batsman every bit as much as when the ball is grassed.

The batsman's never going to be out when he plays-and-misses though.

Simple fact of the matter is, dropped catches (and bad "not out" decisions) are good luck; bad "out" decisions are bad luck. As far as the batsman is concerned, there is no difference between the two.

Neither dropped catches nor Umpiring decisions are the batsman's "problem". He benefits from one, loses-out from the other. He deserves no credit when he benefits, no discredit when he loses-out.

It doesn't matter in the slightest who's at fault for either, as far as the batsman is concerned. Neither of them are something he has had an impact on.

 

[Pup Clarke]

There's absolutely no disputing this, it's stone-cold fact. Had that catch been taken, which it should have been, Cook would have been gone for 8.

What gives the right for the catch to be taken though?, I'll admit that it was a tough chance as Jayawardene (I think) dived across Sangakkara. Human beings are not machines or robots who will catch everything thrown at them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The batsman's never going to be out when he plays-and-misses though.

Simple fact of the matter is, dropped catches (and bad "not out" decisions) are good luck; bad "out" decisions are bad luck. As far as the batsman is concerned, there is no difference between the two.

Neither dropped catches nor Umpiring decisions are the batsman's "problem". He benefits from one, loses-out from the other. He deserves no credit when he benefits, no discredit when he loses-out.

It doesn't matter in the slightest who's at fault for either, as far as the batsman is concerned. Neither of them are something he has had an impact on.

I can see where this is headed so I'll simply state flat out you're wrong and ignore any subsequent replies you make.

Catching is a skill like any other in cricket; if it wasn't we wouldn't have discussions about "best catches". The batsmen (& in fact the bowlers) do have a right to have the laws of the sport correctly applied. QED.

 

[Richard]

I can see where this is headed so I'll simply state flat out you're wrong and ignore any subsequent replies you make.

That's a mature response. I'm not wrong - as I've said before, I'd not have said what I said if it'd been wrong.

Catching may be a skill but that doesn't mean any batsman ever has a right to be dropped.