Spark
Global Moderator
no plsReply to spark since he owned you
no plsReply to spark since he owned you
Gotta say, I agree with grecian's take on this. I think it covers all relevant sides of the argument pretty well.
Not sure if anyone wants Rory Burns back.Gotta say, I agree with grecian's take on this. I think it covers all relevant sides of the argument pretty well.
He's saying what we've all thought this whole time you know, and what should have been really obvious. hell I alluded to it in my second post on the matter which you called me and idiot for. So you obviously disagree with the logicWhy should I reply to Spark? He's not tagging me like the rest of you. And he's got his stuff pretty clear, so what else do I have to say that I haven't already?
Spot the poster who doesn't have Zak Crawley and Alex Lees as their incumbent Test openers.Not sure if anyone wants Rory Burns back.
He's not interested in a discussion so why should I bother? You obviously are so I replied to you, not Spark.He's saying what we've all thought this whole time you know, and what should have been really obvious. hell I alluded to it in my second post on the matter which you called me and idiot for. So you obviously disagree with the logic
**** you must live a frugal lifestyleThe game itself was interesting, backed India at 20/1 when England were about 15/0.....should get me through to Xmas.
I don't know that I agree with this tbh. As it stands the batsman isn't required to stay in their crease til the ball is released, are they? Aren't they simply required to stay in their crease until the point where the bowler would ordinarily release the ball?The non-striker should stay in their crease till the ball is released by the bowler or else face the risk of being run out. Its that simple. You don't need any skills to get a batsman hit wicket either. Doesn't mean its not a legitimate form of dismissal.
Yesssss, my brother. YesssssBan finger spinners as they’re *****
Okay, pretend I wrote it lol. Because it lines up with what I thinkHe's not interested in a discussion so why should I bother? You obviously are so I replied to you, not Spark.
Lol, the leggie has the toppie, flipper and googly as variationsLost in all this emotion is the most obvious solution
Ban finger spinners as they’re the only ***** who are able to stop mid action to affect a Mankad
I mean to be plain I should state that the underlying logic goes both ways which is why we end up in this weird vague middle ground that we have now. No mankading being exploited by non-strikers running > a third of the pitch when the ball is bowled would also be kind of gamebreaking. Not as visually jarring because runs are less significant than wickets and because mankading is so far outside the usual patterns of play, but still pretty bad, enough that it would be a serious problem that needed fixing.Okay, pretend I wrote it lol. Because it lines up with what I think
Pls don't suggest thishas the chucked doosra
For now you're probably right. But imagine the fireworks if England decides to go down the "eye for an eye" road in the future. Because I do not see sides suddenly giving the opposition zero opportunities for another mankad. There will continue to be multiple chances every close ODI game IMOI don't know the solution to the problem. I also am not really convinced that it's important enough to merit one.
Okay, okay. Murali gets a pass due to his arm issues. I understand his wrist has a freaky level of rotation possible. But no other renowned offie can bowl a legal one right? It's nigh impossible.Pls don't suggest this
Not sure if you disagree with my opinion on the doosra or are worried about this thread going nuclearPls don't suggest this