*Official* England in New Zealand 2019

[Prince EWS]

Well yeah but surely short bowling at a crap batsman is always likely to both hit them and get them out?

I definitely think at times when someone is truly hopeless, repeatedly bowling balls that won't hit the stumps isn't really the best method to get them out. Sometimes it's "you bounced me in the first innings" bowling and sometimes it's just "hey I'm a ****" bowling. When it's justifiably a plan to get them out quickly the umpires tend to be fine with it. Tbh they tend to be fine with it even in the former situations, but those are the reasons the law hasn't been altered/scrapped. They just interpret it that way now insofar as they consider it at all.

And yeah while we're in a more safety-conscious era, we're also in an era with more protective gear, and perhaps even more importantly a more professional one. The idea that you could lose an international cricket game because the #11 set up camp on the front stool and scored 22 in a hundred run partnership because the bowlers weren't allowed to bowl to where he sucked would just been seen as ridiculous now. I think we're more likely to go down a path of thirteen a side Tests than that sort of thing if the player safety lobby grows (not that I think either is particularly likely in the near future).

 

[91Jmay]

Said i liked Curran on this deck. Key player out.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Inside edge

 

[_Ed_]

Why would he not review that?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

We need a review coach

 

[NZTailender]

That's not the first time Latham hasn't reviewed when he should've in the last 18 months iirc

 

[91Jmay]

Big edge as well. Must not have felt it because of big contact with pad.

 

[thierry henry]

Cricinfo is saying they reckon he didn't nick it? I don't trust you guys anymore after everyone told me that Cummins "no-ball" was obvious

 

[Athlai]

Cricinfo is saying they reckon he didn't nick it? I don't trust you guys anymore after everyone told me that Cummins "no-ball" was obvious

You trust cricinfo though. They're absolute muppets.

 

[Athlai]

Jeet Raval won't last an hour.

 

[straw man]

He definitely edged it imo - if that mark on the bat came from the pad knee roll like they speculated I expect it would look more blurred. Plus it happened at exactly the spot the ball went past bat.

It's pretty bloody unlucky - very similar to the non-dismissal of Burns off the thinnest of edges at the start of England's innings. Noone can blame the umpire, nor really NZ for not appealing it, it's just unfortunate.

.... though we also can't complain about luck when we drop catches.

 

[Spark]

I definitely think at times when someone is truly hopeless, repeatedly bowling balls that won't hit the stumps isn't really the best method to get them out. Sometimes it's "you bounced me in the first innings" bowling and sometimes it's just "hey I'm a ****" bowling. When it's justifiably a plan to get them out quickly the umpires tend to be fine with it. Tbh they tend to be fine with it even in the former situations, but those are the reasons the law hasn't been altered/scrapped. They just interpret it that way now insofar as they consider it at all.

And yeah while we're in a more safety-conscious era, we're also in an era with more protective gear, and perhaps even more importantly a more professional one. The idea that you could lose an international cricket game because the #11 set up camp on the front stool and scored 22 in a hundred run partnership because the bowlers weren't allowed to bowl to where he sucked would just been seen as ridiculous now. I think we're more likely to go down a path of thirteen a side Tests than that sort of thing if the player safety lobby grows (not that I think either is particularly likely in the near future).

I could definitely see some of the hyper-experimental short formats (like The Hundred++ or something) taking the notion of "specialists" to the logical extreme - i.e. you have specialist batsmen whose job it is literally to just bat and are ineligible to do anything else, specialist bowlers whose job is to literally just bowl and are ineligible to do anything else, and so on.

 

[Prince EWS]

I could definitely see some of the hyper-experimental short formats (like The Hundred++ or something) taking the notion of "specialists" to the logical extreme - i.e. you have specialist batsmen whose job it is literally to just bat and are ineligible to do anything else, specialist bowlers whose job is to literally just bowl and are ineligible to do anything else, and so on.

Yeah they're actually considering doing this in the next IPL.

Professionalism meeting player safety standards will eventually just make tailend batting not a thing rather than letting them live on the front foot IMO.

 

[thierry henry]

Crazy how Archer can get such steep bounce even when his pace isn't registering as express and he's not actually that tall. Just something generally uncanny about his bowling.

 

[thierry henry]

(once again though, I'm getting all this off cricinfo comms and assuming the umpires didn't just miss obvious wide calls)

 

[Sanjay kumar]

Jofra getting some bounce. I don't think this is a slow pitch. Some carry...

 

[Immenso]

I definitely think at times when someone is truly hopeless, repeatedly bowling balls that won't hit the stumps isn't really the best method to get them out. Sometimes it's "you bounced me in the first innings" bowling and sometimes it's just "hey I'm a ****" bowling. When it's justifiably a plan to get them out quickly the umpires tend to be fine with it. Tbh they tend to be fine with it even in the former situations, but those are the reasons the law hasn't been altered/scrapped. They just interpret it that way now insofar as they consider it at all.

And yeah while we're in a more safety-conscious era, we're also in an era with more protective gear, and perhaps even more importantly a more professional one. The idea that you could lose an international cricket game because the #11 set up camp on the front stool and scored 22 in a hundred run partnership because the bowlers weren't allowed to bowl to where he sucked would just been seen as ridiculous now. I think we're more likely to go down a path of thirteen a side Tests than that sort of thing if the player safety lobby grows (not that I think either is particularly likely in the near future).

Remenber when Danny Morrison played an immaculate forward defence to Carl Rackemann with the top of his helmet?

Restrictions on intimidatry bowling maybe died that day.

 

[Athlai]

I suspect a gypsy has cursed me which is somehow giving Raval tremendous luck.

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah they're actually considering doing this in the next IPL.

Professionalism meeting player safety standards will eventually just make tailend batting not a thing rather than letting them live on the front foot IMO.

Sounds like super subs

 

[ataraxia]

Why does umpire's call cover impact? No one knows. But very slightly outside anyway.