*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[mr_mister]

I can confirm that Burgey believes all finger-spinners bowl with a straighter arm than McGrath, ftr

I see. The crazy bastard might want it this thing to go nuclear. We're at defcon 4.9 currently

 

[Burgey]

It's a well known CW fact that if you suggest anyone chucked their doosra, you were in favour of the Bengal famine.

 

[Xix2565]

Okay, pretend I wrote it lol. Because it lines up with what I think

Then I disagree, which you'd know if you read my posts. Not sure why you need someone else to say things for you.

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 IMO

Is this not a good thing? If it keeps happening and being discussed you might see actual changes one way or the other. Or do you enjoy this current limbo? Doesn't seem like some people do.

 

[Neil Young]

Indian players are now saying they repeatedly warned Dean. If true, Dean only has herself to blame and I have little sympathy for her.

Still a poor rule, though.

 

[mr_mister]

Then I disagree, which you'd know if you read my posts. Not sure why you need someone else to say things for you.

Because I couldn't speak that clearly and decisively if my life depended on it lol. But I wish half of twitter now could see that post.

 

[mr_mister]

Indian players are now saying they repeatedly warned Dean. If true, Dean only has herself to blame and I have little sympathy for her.

Still a poor rule, though.

Hoffa was warned multiple times too before the mobsters decided it was time to pull the trigger

 

[Neil Young]

Hoffa was warned multiple times too before the mobsters decided it was time to pull the trigger

Well, I have little sympathy for him either.

 

[mr_mister]

How I imagine the onfield discussion went

 

[TheJediBrah]

Indian players are now saying they repeatedly warned Dean. If true, Dean only has herself to blame and I have little sympathy for her.

Still a poor rule, though.

That's what you would say if you were being criticised like this though isn't it

 

[Socerer 01]

Indian players are now saying they repeatedly warned Dean. If true, Dean only has herself to blame and I have little sympathy for her.

Still a poor rule, though.

Someone did an analysis of the entire innings and noted that she was out of her crease 73 times at the non striker’s end which accounts for more than 85% apparently while the other batter was not doing the same

If she was doing this on almost every ball even after being warned multiple times by Deepti and being reported to the umpires then not sure what the oh go her a warning first crowd are whinging about. Dean herself doesn’t even seem to care post-match, she’s prolly understood that she was taking a calculated risk on every ball and paid the price for it and she would have probably done the same in other situations too with the match situation

 

[mr_mister]

Someone did an analysis of the entire innings and noted that she was out of her crease 73 times at the non striker’s end which accounts for more than 85% apparently while the other batter was not doing the same

If she was doing this on almost every ball even after being warned multiple times by Deepti and being reported to the umpires then not sure what the oh go her a warning first crowd are whinging about. Dean herself doesn’t even seem to care post-match, she’s prolly understood that she was taking a calculated risk on every ball and paid the price for it and she would have probably done the same in other situations too with the match situation

Her tears say more than real evidence ever could

 

[Socerer 01]

That's what you would say if you were being criticised like this though isn't it

It is the sort of thing that can be easily disproven though by Dean making a simple reply on twitter so not sure if Deepti is going to say this unless that’s what happened

Although it would be funny if Dean does come out and say the contrary to keep this drama going

 

[Socerer 01]

Her tears say more than real evidence ever could

Not sure if this is sarcasm but if it isn’t her crying means nothing more than a heat of the moment reaction. She very nearly grabbed victory from the jaws of defeat in a famous run chase and she is a relative newbie to the side isn’t she? She’d be reacting the same way if she was bowled or caught in the deep too

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Interesting. So she was warned(which is not required IMO).
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620

 

[Spikey]

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.

I see the no-skill thing trotted out all the time re Mankads, but like, earlier in the game Mandhana got out to one of the worst balls you'll ever see. like any sport, extremely skilled acts can go unrewarded in cricket and the luckiest dumb **** can change the game. so who gives a **** about 'skill'? that to me is irreverent here. a common dismissal in cricket are two batters getting themselves confused and the fielding side walking up to the stumps to run them out. there's no skill there, and if that had happened here all we'd be doing is laughing at the english batters.

I'll repeat what I said a few months back: every sport needs written rules, but no sport has rules that are capable of standing up to the sort of insane rules lawyering scrutiny and loophole-searching that, you know, actual laws receive. As it stands the fact is that mankading is only allowed in the game because of this sort of unspoken honour code system that is nowhere codified in the rules that means that no one really does it and it looks way out of place when it happens, and everyone sort of agrees to handicap themselves by not exploiting this very plain opportunity opened by the laws to attempt to mankad someone on ~80% of deliveries.

Would it be entirely legal and professional if someone actually did attempt to play the sport according to the rules to their maximum extent and attempt to mankad at every single possibility? Of course. I don't see how you could argue that it's not within the rules to do so. Would that render the sport utterly and completely unwatchable and make me want to do, oh I don't know, literally any else with my spare time other than watch cricket? Obviously. No sport is ever designed to stand up to that level of "well it's in the rules" level of ruthless exploitation of loopholes.

I don't mind mankading but I think in their quest for internet points, a few people who I won't name but it should be pretty obvious are forgetting what "the laws of the game" are actually for. You need them, but they're necessarily downstream from the way the game is actually played. Cricket is a sport, not a constitutional government.

I guess for me I feel that if teams made it clear (either through announcements or actions) that they were gonna mankad opposition batters if the opportunity arises it would seem logical that the batters would, you know, get the message and we'd move on pretty quickly. as Burgey said elsewhere, they would be at least one consequence in constant useless attempts at mankadding in the form of being terribly behind in over rates. and the MCC could obviously a no-ball aspect or something to failed attempts as well. I don't feel that teams actually adding it to their arsenal would be particularly negative

 

[Spikey]

also the non-striker here not even having their bat on the ground is insane.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573977032060542976

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Spirit of cricket!

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Indian players are now saying they repeatedly warned Dean. If true, Dean only has herself to blame and I have little sympathy for her.

Still a poor rule, though.

Even though it was the 72nd time she had left the crease before the bowler had released the ball?

 

[honestbharani]

I'll repeat what I said a few months back: every sport needs written rules, but no sport has rules that are capable of standing up to the sort of insane rules lawyering scrutiny and loophole-searching that, you know, actual laws receive. As it stands the fact is that mankading is only allowed in the game because of this sort of unspoken honour code system that is nowhere codified in the rules that means that no one really does it and it looks way out of place when it happens, and everyone sort of agrees to handicap themselves by not exploiting this very plain opportunity opened by the laws to attempt to mankad someone on ~80% of deliveries.

Would it be entirely legal and professional if someone actually did attempt to play the sport according to the rules to their maximum extent and attempt to mankad at every single possibility? Of course. I don't see how you could argue that it's not within the rules to do so. Would that render the sport utterly and completely unwatchable and make me want to do, oh I don't know, literally any else with my spare time other than watch cricket? Obviously. No sport is ever designed to stand up to that level of "well it's in the rules" level of ruthless exploitation of loopholes.

I don't mind mankading but I think in their quest for internet points, a few people who I won't name but it should be pretty obvious are forgetting what "the laws of the game" are actually for. You need them, but they're necessarily downstream from the way the game is actually played. Cricket is a sport, not a constitutional government.

Its funny how we have people who feel the need to explain the "spirit of the game" all of a sudden here too, and its no secret who they are.

The point is very simple - the crease is the home of the batter, irrespective of which end you are at. You leave it, you are risking losing your wicket. Accept it and move on and dont call a simple game-play cheating just because you couldn't be arsed staying within a line, the same line a bowler always has to stay inside.


Did you even watch what happened this time?

 

[honestbharani]

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?

Or in my case, release the ball ordinarily.

That is only written that way because for an actual run out of the non-striker backing up to happen, the ball need not be released.