***Official*** Australia in India 2012/13

[ganeshran]

Any reason why Johnson isn't getting a game? Thought he looked a bit better during the summer (more controlled run up, higher arm at point of delivery). Plus, he's done well in India before.

 

[centurymaker]

Well, he's hardly competing, with say, Ryan Harris for a bowling spot - as he'd lose out. But Maxwell and Doherty ahead of him? Eh?

LOOOOOOOOOL

 

[dermo]

Well, he's hardly competing, with say, Ryan Harris for a bowling spot - as he'd lose out. But Maxwell and Doherty ahead of him? Eh?

are you talking about this particular test? or the previous two? ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its the latter in which case pretty much our selectors were stupid enough to think maxwell is a test cricketer but if it wasnt for homeworkgate he would have in all probability got a game here

 

[social]

Johnson was arguably our best bowler last summer

Something has obviously happened in India (before last week) for him to lose out to Maxwell and Doherty in the 2nd test

 

[benchmark00]

Very very very very very arguably.

 

[dermo]

Johnson was arguably our best bowler last summer

Something has obviously happened in India (before last week) for him to lose out to Maxwell and Doherty in the 2nd test

nah nothing happened our selectors are just that stupid

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Johnson was arguably our best bowler last summer

Something has obviously happened in India (before last week) for him to lose out to Maxwell and Doherty in the 2nd test

There was unholy pressure on the selectors to pick two spinners for the second Test and MJ was last in the seamers' pecking order. Was DOA either way; homeworkgate probably did him a favour for not being responsible for the rise of Shikar 'Tip Foster' Dhawan.

 

[greg]

Cricinfo commentary asks:

How different would this have been had they appealed for that accidental mankading?

Has the law changed or something? I though that you could only be runout before the bowler had entered his delivery stride. In this case Starc had not just entered his delivery stride but practically completed it before the ball hit the stumps! Is this wrong?

 

[benchmark00]

Cricinfo commentary asks:



Has the law changed or something? I though that you could only be runout before the bowler had entered his delivery stride. In this case Starc had not just entered his delivery stride but practically completed it before the ball hit the stumps! Is this wrong?

Yeah the law has changed back to what is was before.

 

[social]

Very very very very very arguably.

Look at his figures

Tests

6 wickets @ 27 vs SA

9 @ 19 vs SL

ODIs

14 @ early 20s with good economy

If his name wasnt Johnson, he would have been one of the first chosen for the first test

 

[benchmark00]

Look at his figures

Tests

6 wickets @ 27 vs SA

9 @ 19 vs SL

ODIs

14 @ early 20s with good economy

If his name wasnt Johnson, he would have been one of the first chosen for the first test

Don't need to look at his figures. I looked at him bowl. Bowling short may work against the little Sri Lankans but against a proper team it would be absolute cannon fodder.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Don't need to look at his figures. I looked at him bowl. Bowling short may work against the little Sri Lankans but against a proper team it would be absolute cannon fodder.

Thanks, Richard.

 

[benchmark00]

Thanks, Richard.

**** post.

 

[greg]

Yeah the law has changed back to what is was before.

Surely the reversion was just to allow it at all...?

I've checked the laws:

15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon possible.

So Dhawan couldn't have been given out, I think.

EDIT: Well cricinfo seems to think it's about "delivery swing", whatever that is...

 

[benchmark00]

Nah I'm sure you're allowed to mankad during delivery stride now.

 

[Dan]

Surely the reversion was just to allow it at all...?

I've checked the laws:



So Dhawan couldn't have been given out, I think.

EDIT: Well cricinfo seems to think it's about "delivery swing", whatever that is...

Test cricket isn't played under the MCC laws. There are quite a few playing conditions that overrule them.

 

[ganeshran]

Johnson was arguably our best bowler last summer

Something has obviously happened in India (before last week) for him to lose out to Maxwell and Doherty in the 2nd test

In the second test there were Pattinson and Siddle on a turning track which led to Johnson missing out because selectors wanted to play the X-man and Maxwell.

On this track he would be competing with Starc and would have probably still missed out had he not been sent back

 

[ganeshran]

would have been interesting had Clarke appealed for the run out. Imagine the contrast in fortunes for Shikhar Dhawan

 

[DingDong]

Thanks, Richard.

looks like the forum's got another know it all


great innings by dhawan. looks like the new rutherford

 

[greg]

Test cricket isn't played under the MCC laws. There are quite a few playing conditions that overrule them.

You're right. Apologies.

Must be a nightmare for local club umpires when many players will get their interpretation of the laws from television.