2nd Test, Lord's, London

[mr_mister]

Australians really talking about players/captains cheating? Oh dear.

i'm saying the rules in place are currently stupid

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australians really talking about players/captains cheating? Oh dear.

I don't know why it's being made such a big deal of now. This is nothing compared to England's systematic ball-tampering circa 2005 and for years after.

 

[vcs]

Anderson would have made a difference in the first Test but Australia deserve to be ahead 1-0 having played better cricket overall. Archer is not a bad replacement to have up your sleeve.

 

[TheJediBrah]

and ftr, no one is really claiming that Root was cheating, it's the umpires that were at fault

 

[Starfighter]

Not that I know much about this but isn't a shortish run up to bowl super quick bad for the body?

The stress on the body will depend more on the mechanics of the action I think. De Lange really heaves his body through with a high kick and a lot of sideways flex. Archer stays very upright, although I can espy some twisting it's hardly dramatic. One thing I'll note here is that except for the fact he bowls chest-on Archer has a very strong resemblance to what was a standard bowling method from prior to the seventies, when, I think inspired mainly by Wes Hall and to a lesser extent Fred Trueman and cemented by Dennis Lillee, bowers began greatly elongating their run-ups. Thirteen paces, shorter stride or two coming into delivery, no real leap was perfectly standard.

a lot of stress on his shoulder & elbow IMO. That's not a crack at his action btw, even if he is 100% clean he must get a lot of hyper-extension

I'll be interested to see how he goes as the early twenties flexibility dissipates. However, speaking of elbows, after actually managing to rustle up some footage that I could slow down and replay (I tend to miss reply on TV for some reason, usually typing!), he certainly does have a decent amount of what appears to be hyperextension in the elbow, and I'd suggest variations in this are why he varies in pace so much both between and in spells (any where from mid 130's to 150's for no obvious reason) and why his very short bouncer is faster than his length ball. He's actually not unique amongst England bowlers in this regard, Harold Rhodes in the late fifties and early sixties had similar hyperextension and was supposed to have been lightning at his quickest. His chances of a test career were ruined by allegations of throwing, which is something to keep in mind.

Readers may notice the similarity:

 

[Burgey]

i'm saying the rules in place are currently stupid

and ftr, no one is really claiming that Root was cheating, it's the umpires that were at fault

That's not true. I'm definitely saying he cheated. He's a desperate man under pressure, staring down the barrel of losing the Ashes at home. Of course he knew it bounced, and he didn't care. Shades of Strauss in 09, though Strauss' was even more reprehensible given the entire slips cordon would have seen the ball bounce.

And because it was the Prince.

 

[GIMH]

Yes, history has repeatedly shown us how Jimmy Anderson tames Steve Smith.

He would have ran out of partners in the first innings if Anderson hadnt pulled up

But he did so its immaterial really

 

[hazsa19]

That's patently ridiculous. You lost the first test by 250ish runs. If Jimmy is fit, Archer doesn't play this game and Aus probably win quite comfortably.

While you can't predict these things 100% of course, almost certainly if Jimmy didn't get injured it would still be 1-0 to Aus at best for England

Why? You’re telling me the best bowler in the world in these conditions doesn’t bowl better than Stokes on that first morning/ afternoon? They get bowled out for 150 it’s game over. Archer would’ve come in for Lords regardless, probably for Woakes.

I’m not saying we should’ve won or should be ahead, injuries are part of the game, just trying to show how important he is to us. I’d put him on a level with Smith in terms of significance to their relative sides.

 

[Burgey]

He would have ran out of partners in the first innings if Anderson hadnt pulled up

But he did so its immaterial really

Rubbish, Patto would have tonned up if Anderson was there.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Australians really talking about players/captains cheating? Oh dear.

Not one person has suggested that Root cheated, as far as I can see.

 

[Woodster]

I don't know why it's being made such a big deal of now. This is nothing compared to England's systematic ball-tampering circa 2005 and for years after.

Yet a lot more subtle.

 

[Woodster]

Well how about that! Root cheated. Just like Strauss in 2009. Decidedly a dodgy lot the poms. For a country that claims it doesn't like them it seems being a cheat is a requirement to captain England.

What's this about the English captain cheating

Good to wake up to joe root continuing the Strauss tradition of england captains claiming bounced catches at Lord’s. I suppose he had to do something to have an impact on the game.

and ftr, no one is really claiming that Root was cheating, it's the umpires that were at fault

That's not true. I'm definitely saying he cheated. He's a desperate man under pressure, staring down the barrel of losing the Ashes at home. Of course he knew it bounced, and he didn't care. Shades of Strauss in 09, though Strauss' was even more reprehensible given the entire slips cordon would have seen the ball bounce.

And because it was the Prince.

Not one person has suggested that Root cheated, as far as I can see.

Hmmm, there's been a couple from what I can see!

 

[Spark]

Yet a lot more subtle.

Is this meant to be a positive? Does it confer moral superiority? And is there some sort of transitive property for moral fibre, a sort of "condemned by blood to be a cheat" by nationality?

 

[Spark]

Why? You’re telling me the best bowler in the world in these conditions doesn’t bowl better than Stokes on that first morning/ afternoon? They get bowled out for 150 it’s game over. Archer would’ve come in for Lords regardless, probably for Woakes.

I’m not saying we should’ve won or should be ahead, injuries are part of the game, just trying to show how important he is to us. I’d put him on a level with Smith in terms of significance to their relative sides.

Smith is scoring, like, 40% of the team's runs. Are we saying that Anderson is 40% of the team's bowling output?

 

[Woodster]

Is this meant to be a positive? Does it confer moral superiority? And is there some sort of transitive property for moral fibre, a sort of "condemned by blood to be a cheat" by nationality?

No mate, it was said in jest.

Having said that, I'm sure every side 'cheats' to some degree, just not all in such a braindead fashion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yet a lot more subtle.

Oh there's no disputing that. Vaughan's Englishmen were 1000x better tamperers than the Aussie hacks

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why? You’re telling me the best bowler in the world in these conditions doesn’t bowl better than Stokes on that first morning/ afternoon? They get bowled out for 150 it’s game over. Archer would’ve come in for Lords regardless, probably for Woakes.

very debatable. I highly doubt that Woakes would have been left out for Archer. And of course Anderson would have made a difference at Edgbaston, but 250 runs difference? Potentially I guess, but unlikely.

I’m not saying we should’ve won or should be ahead, injuries are part of the game, just trying to show how important he is to us. I’d put him on a level with Smith in terms of significance to their relative sides.

Well that's just wrong. As I said, England maybe lose a little by not having Anderson there and having one of Woakes, Archer or Broad instead. Maybe.

Without Smith, Australia lose nearly half their runs, their best fielder and whatever else he brings to the rest of the team by being unstoppable in the middle order.

It's not even close which one the bigger loss is.

 

[Spark]

very debatable. I highly doubt that Woakes would have been left out for Archer. And of course Anderson would have made a difference at Edgbaston, but 250 runs difference? Potentially I guess, but unlikely.



Well that's just wrong. As I said, England maybe lose a little by not having Anderson there and having one of Woakes, Archer or Broad instead. Maybe.

Without Smith, Australia lose nearly half their runs, their best fielder and whatever else he brings to the rest of the team by being unstoppable in the middle order.

It's not even close which one the bigger loss is.

This isn't really how causality in sport works though, it's not that linear. Indeed if Aus is bowled out for 150 on Day 1 then you could easily look at a truly catastrophic loss by an innings in some instances.

 

[mr_mister]

Was Athertons dirt in the pocket episode subtle

 

[Woodster]

Was Athertons dirt in the pocket episode subtle

Nope, nor was it "circa 2005 and for years after".