*Official* IPL 2019

[h_hurricane]

Very acceptable when one is referring to captains who have been exposed as cheats; particularly international captains. Sandpaper Asshole, Mint Asshole etc.

May also be acceptable when referring to batsmen who cheat in their running between the wickets and to cheating bowlers who try to Mankad such cheating batsmen.

and also to fielding captains who claim wickets for bump catches and declare batsmen out when asked for their word by umpires.

 

[Andy1993]

Munbai post 187-8 against RCB

 

[trundler]

****ing AB. **** is still clearly the best in the world. Should be playing the WC.

Dammit Hetty.

 

[slippy888]

DE GROMMEND is not a ipl standard player

 

[Cow Corner]

Bumrah magic beating De Villiers magic. I've been loving watching Bumrah bowl over the past year....he's really quite something.

 

[slippy888]

Why AB take single off last ball off over

 

[mr_mister]

Bumrah is insanely good and CDG is dreadful

 

[slippy888]

All Colin had to do was rotate strike but he failed again i think he the most overrated 1 million dollar player in history

 

[BSM]

Was thinking about the mankading incident again, and the idea of warning the batsmen beforehand. People seem conflicted on this. People on the side of no warning have been comparing mankading to stumpings and that's probably a fair comparison to make, considering both are instances where the batsmen's lack of awareness may be punished. However, wouldn't a fairer comparison be to a bowler running across the middle of the wicket? It would certainly be unfair to give the bowler no warning and to take them off at any given point after they've done it successively right? I'd like to argue that the same is true for manakding the batsmen. Afterall, the argument that the batsmen has been caught out for being unaware can also be made in the case of the bowler consistently taking his follow through across the wicket . In both cases they will know that they are getting close and to not shows some lapse in concentration. It's just interesting that there seems to be less acceptance for batsmen in comparable circumstances.

 

[TheJediBrah]

IPL must really be struggling for overseas players this year if de Gandholm is playing

 

[vandem]

IPL must really be struggling for overseas players this year if de Gandholm is playing

He can play 200 SR innings but is a slow starter and struggles against wrist spin. Not ideal for IPL. Not sure why IPL teams haven't tried him as opener or #3 pinch hitter.

 

[Athlai]

He'll probably just get dropped. The frustrating thing in NZ is that whenever we really start to bad mouth CDG he'd play a gun knock. It was uncanny.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Was thinking about the mankading incident again, and the idea of warning the batsmen beforehand. People seem conflicted on this. People on the side of no warning have been comparing mankading to stumpings and that's probably a fair comparison to make, considering both are instances where the batsmen's lack of awareness may be punished. However, wouldn't a fairer comparison be to a bowler running across the middle of the wicket? It would certainly be unfair to give the bowler no warning and to take them off at any given point after they've done it successively right? I'd like to argue that the same is true for manakding the batsmen. Afterall, the argument that the batsmen has been caught out for being unaware can also be made in the case of the bowler consistently taking his follow through across the wicket . In both cases they will know that they are getting close and to not shows some lapse in concentration. It's just interesting that there seems to be less acceptance for batsmen in comparable circumstances.

No.

A batsman if he wants could stay back in his crease and not move an inch, even if his partner is desparately shouting at him to run. He has complete control over how far out he moves.

A bowler by the nature of how bowling works will be carried up the pitch towards the protected zone, particluarly if he is a fast bowler as they have considerable momentum. They have control over where they land on the crease and and whether they decide to run the whole length of it like Philander, but they in general cannot avoid moving some way up the pitch towards that protected area.


Being run out as a non-striker is less defensible than being stumped because one does not have to consider, y'know, playing the ball when one is at the other end. A non-striker may understandably lunge that little bit extra out at a ball that's not as full as he expected and drag his foot out of the crease in doing so; the non-striker has no such excuse.


Anyway, I think this article by Monga (no, not that one!) makes the point pretty well.

Fears that a deterrent could end up becoming a tactical tool to entrap batsmen are not entirely unjustified. It could lead to bowlers farcically pausing in their delivery strides to wait for the non-striker to slide over so they can run him out. Well, boo hoo. Just watch the bowler release the ball before backing up. Watch it for yourself, don't rely on a projection of the normal release of the ball. It's not that hard. What's more, it might give you a tip or two on picking the ball from the hand. If Ashwin's action brings about this revolutionary change in our attitudes, it will be one of the big turning points in our sport. It will not be a moment too soon.

 

[sledger]

Very acceptable when one is referring to captains who have been exposed as cheats; particularly international captains. Sandpaper Asshole, Mint Asshole etc.

May also be acceptable when referring to batsmen who cheat in their running between the wickets and to cheating bowlers who try to Mankad such cheating batsmen.

er... right

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can we stop comparing mankading to stumpings? It is not even close to a valid comparison.

A batsman can get stumped easily without deliberately leaving their crease, more often than not it's overbalancing/slipping etc.

The only apt analogy of comparing a stumping to Ashwin's mankading would be one of those funny videos of the keeper pretending that he missed the ball and then stumping the batsman when he goes for a run, or holding on to the ball until the batsman thinking the ball is dead and walks out of his crease and then trying to stump him

 

[BSM]

No.

A batsman if he wants could stay back in his crease and not move an inch, even if his partner is desparately shouting at him to run. He has complete control over how far out he moves.

A bowler by the nature of how bowling works will be carried up the pitch towards the protected zone, particluarly if he is a fast bowler as they have considerable momentum. They have control over where they land on the crease and and whether they decide to run the whole length of it like Philander, but they in general cannot avoid moving some way up the pitch towards that protected area.


Being run out as a non-striker is less defensible than being stumped because one does not have to consider, y'know, playing the ball when one is at the other end. A non-striker may understandably lunge that little bit extra out at a ball that's not as full as he expected and drag his foot out of the crease in doing so; the non-striker has no such excuse.


Anyway, I think this article by Monga (no, not that one!) makes the point pretty well.

Okay, but your first point seems to disregard the escalated importance of backing up and completing runs in t20 cricket. It could be argued that there is more importance in the batsmen backing up as much as possible so that those vital runs can be completed, and hence the possibility of ending up marginally out of the crease by the time of the bowlers release is increased.

And this is certainly comparable to where a bowler is taken through the wicket and the way that they must coordinate themselves so as not to do it. A batsmen must be treading the fine line between backing up well and too well so that they could potentially be run out. To not be doing this afterall, would be against the very premise of attempting to score runs as quick as possible

Hence, I reckon a warning and nothing more for the first offence is justified, and a dismissal should only be attempted if this warning has subsequently been ignored. It would be extremely negative for the game if bowlers were to have to be in constant fear of running across the middle of the wicket in case they were instantly taken out of the attack, and this is why warnings make it better. The warning for mankading is really the same principle.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kohli really ****-talking the umpiring post-match. Will be interesting to see if they try to fine him like would normally be the case.

 

[TheBrand]

He can play 200 SR innings but is a slow starter and struggles against wrist spin. Not ideal for IPL. Not sure why IPL teams haven't tried him as opener or #3 pinch hitter.

I've said that he should open instead of Munro in ODI's. Plays straight and only 2 fielders outside, could be devastating. When he played for KKR a couple of seasons ago he opened/3 a couple of game but in typical IPL fashion they didnt give him enough of a go to actually see how he went. I thought he really had turned a corner against leg spin after seeing his innings against India at Eden Park a couple of months ago. To be fair this morning he was facing Bumrah who is just unplayable when on song.

 

[Daemon]

Disgusting how Kohli is blaming the umpire. The man had to go back to his hotel and send his uniform for laundry before reception closed. How was he expected to pay attention to the crease under all that pressure?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This ipl is bending all the rules of the game.