*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[mr_mister]

Do you really expect players to always consistently give chances to their opposition just for the sake of entertainment/embarrassment? They wanted to win and didn't need sandpaper, mints or sledging to do so.

We're on different wavelengths. FTR I think the sledging culture in Australian cricket is shameful and you won't find a post of mine defending it from the 7 years I've been here. Nor sandpaper obviously.

 

[TheBrand]

It's not illegal to fart in an elevator of crowded people, but you're still a dick if you do it.

Can't wait for this to happen to an Indian player in a high-stakes game and see what the reaction is.

 

[Xix2565]

We're on different wavelengths. FTR I think the sledging culture in Australian cricket is shameful and you won't find a post of mine defending it from the 7 years I've been here. Nor sandpaper obviously.

Yet this gets you? Something in the laws that got clarifications over the years? To me this is like complaining that the no-ball rule for bowlers overstepping is unfair when they only overstep by a small amount.

It's not illegal to fart in an elevator of crowded people, but you're still a dick if you do it.

Can't wait for this to happen to an Indian player in a high-stakes game and see what the reaction is.

It isn't illegal to gloat and showboat over taking a wicket but some people can find it unpleasant.

Considering how players get lambasted for overstepping, dropping catches or generally **** bowling I wonder what you think it'll be that's so different. And if people act like hypocrites they're not the only ones around.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Steve's right in that Mankading requires basically no skill. The main problem is that gamewise there's a high reward for doing this low-skill play successfully and currently no downside if you get it wrong.

 

[mr_mister]

Yet this gets you? Something in the laws that got clarifications over the years? To me this is like complaining that the no-ball rule for bowlers overstepping is unfair when they only overstep by a small amount.

Your... Cameroon example aside from yesterday, it seems nobody else feels comfortable doing this, even post Ashwin/Buttler. Must be a reason for that right? It's legal but feels dog. It feels like exploiting a sneaky loophole to snuff out an exciting finish.

It's a "I'm not mad I'm just disappointed" feeling I get seeing it. I'm not a big fan of "play to win at all costs"

 

[TheJediBrah]

The rule should be this:

Ball is live once the bowler begins their run up. At that point anything goes, batsman can start their run and the bowler can run them out. If the bowler does try to run them out then it's a no-ball because the delivery is illegal.

"Mankads" should be accepted as a normal way to dismiss the batsman, the only reason it's not at the moment is because of aesthetics.

umm this is the womens cricket thread you bigot

Seriously though, the only issue with this as you've described it is the bowler can still pretend to bowl and trick the batter into backing up then getting run out, even if they weren't trying to gain an advantage. It would require the batter to stop and wait, watch the ball leave the bowlers hand before looking over to the striker/leaving the crease which as I've made my opinion clear on, is completely impractical

 

[TheJediBrah]

They should have just kept the rule as the mankad can no longer happen "once bowler enters delivery stride"

It would solve virtually all the confusion

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Nobody is forcing the batter to leave the crease the millisecond after the ball is released. The bowler should also be allowed to fake them out, at the risk of bowling a no-ball.

 

[mr_mister]

It also reflects bad on offspiners. Since it's only them doing it. It's like we can't actually bowl batsmen out so gotta pull some sleight of hand conjob

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

They should have just kept the rule as the mankad can no longer happen "once bowler enters delivery stride"

It would solve virtually all the confusion

I would just keep running and never enter my delivery stride. Or change my action so that my delivery stride looks just like a normal step.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It also reflects bad on offspiners. Since it's only them doing it. It's like we can't actually bowl batsmen out so gotta pull some sleight of hand conjob

One of the most egregious examples was this:

Mankad controversy at Under-19 World Cup

A controversial Mankad has secured the West Indies a narrow two-run victory over Zimbabwe in the ICC Under 19 World Cup in Bangladesh

www.cricket.com.au

 

[Daemon]

You can tell by the players’ sheepish reactions they were a bit embarrassed. They didn’t exactly celebrate like they would’ve if it was a regular dismissal. There’s something about it that still feels a bit off, but I suppose attitudes will change over time.

Batsmen should just stay in their crease until they see the ball (even if they’re staring at the striker).

There needs to be a rule to prevent the delayed action trickery stuff but that wasn’t applicable in this instance.

 

[Xix2565]

Your... Cameroon example aside from yesterday, it seems nobody else feels comfortable doing this, even post Ashwin/Buttler. Must be a reason for that right? It's legal but feels dog. It feels like exploiting a sneaky loophole to snuff out an exciting finish.

It's a "I'm not mad I'm just disappointed" feeling I get seeing it. I'm not a big fan of "play to win at all costs"

The fact that not everyone is aware or capable isn't a reason for it being "bad". It's like saying that spin bowling is bad because not everyone can be Murali/Warne. If it was a sneaky loophole like you feel why didn't the powers that be remove/modify it all the way back in the late 19th/early 20th century when people were doing it? Clearly they thought it wasn't super outrageous like Bodyline or WI pace short ball bowling so why is it bad now for you?

Besides, this thread on Twitter shows a consistent pattern by Dean in the game, as well as how some of her teammates weren't stepping out of the crease:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573979090784223234

I guess it's too much to ask of batters to consistently preserve their wicket even when they're not batting.

It also reflects bad on offspiners. Since it's only them doing it. It's like we can't actually bowl batsmen out so gotta pull some sleight of hand conjob

"Anderson is a total fraud for not warning batters that he can move the ball both ways before bowling."

"Ashwin is a total fraud for not warning batters that he can move the ball both ways before bowling."

And so on...

Do you consider it to reflect badly on the fielding team if a star batter is only dismissed by a fluke that they could've easily negated?

 

[Xix2565]

People talking about needing rules for delayed actions act like batters are incapable of watching the bowler. If you see it being delayed are you going to be stepping out of the crease? I would hope not.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

If it was a sneaky loophole like you feel why didn't the powers that be remove/modify it all the way back in the late 19th/early 20th century when people were doing it? Clearly they thought it wasn't super outrageous like Bodyline or WI pace short ball bowling so why is it bad now for you?

This is actually a terrible reason for not wanting the rules to be changed now.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I'm the red arrows pointing at the batter's head for some reason.

 

[mr_mister]

You can tell by the players’ sheepish reactions they were a bit embarrassed. They didn’t exactly celebrate like they would’ve if it was a regular dismissal. There’s something about it that still feels a bit off, but I suppose attitudes will change over time.

Batsmen should just stay in their crease until they see the ball (even if they’re staring at the striker).

There needs to be a rule to prevent the delayed action trickery stuff but that wasn’t applicable in this instance.

Yeah that too. The guilty feeling they had when actually going for the dismissal. Plus the captain in the press conference said something akin to "I don't know why you're asking about that and not the other 9 dismissals we took". Really? You don't know why a mankad finish is a talking point? I can't handle that bullshit lol

 

[TheJediBrah]

People talking about needing rules for delayed actions act like batters are incapable of watching the bowler. If you see it being delayed are you going to be stepping out of the crease? I would hope not.

lol try backing up to someone bowling 150kph and watching the ball leave the bowlers hand. Great way to get ****ed by a ball being hit back at you.

I would hope no one would be dumb enough to try that

 

[Xix2565]

A bit hilarious to see all the fuss about something clearly given in the playing conditions and then a sudden consensus over subjective nonsense like body language "reading".

 

[Daemon]

People talking about needing rules for delayed actions act like batters are incapable of watching the bowler. If you see it being delayed are you going to be stepping out of the crease? I would hope not.

What I meant was we need a rule to stop them from trying it out every now and then just to try their luck. If you fail you get penalised somehow perhaps.

This actually happened in a game I played in recently where someone tried it unsuccessfully three times.