*Official* Big Bash League 12 - 2022/23

[Spikey]

questions have to be asked about Hobart's head of strategy, Ricky Ponting

 

[GoodAreasShane]

What a game, what an innings

 

[TheJediBrah]

When the batsmen moves so that it's not wide anymore (by whatever standard is being used), it's no longer a wide. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Nah it's just dumb IMO. Wide lines shouldn't move with the batsman. If he moves the other way it doesn't change, and it never changes on the leg-side. It's inconsistent and one-sided.

 

[Starfighter]

Rubbish. If the batsman moves across he's giving his stumps away and taking a big risk. It's not some huge advantage to the batsman, it's a tactical risk

It's a tactical risk for the bowler to try bowling away from the stumps as well. If he gets it wrong it might be called wide. No different in principle.

BTW how often do you see the stumps actually being 'given away'? You do know that, among other things, batsmen do subconsciously read cues off the bowler as to where the ball will be heading? Batting against pace wouldn't be possible otherwise.

 

[Starfighter]

Nah it's just dumb IMO. Wide lines shouldn't move with the batsman. If he moves the other way it doesn't change, and it never changes on the leg-side. It's inconsistent and one-sided.

It does change on the leg side wide. Of the batsmen backs away and it passes between them and the stumps, it isn't a wide. You are proposing that it should be.

It doesn't change the other way because that is a set position acknowledged as being within reach from a normal guard.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's a tactical risk for the bowler to try bowling away from the stumps as well. If he gets it wrong it might be called wide. No different in principle.

Ok?

BTW how often do you see the stumps actually being 'given away'?

All the time. Bowlers don't attack it enough in these situations IMO but I can understand why the don't, it's very risky.

You do know that, among other things, batsmen do subconsciously read cues off the bowler as to where the ball will be heading. Batting against pace wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Who told you this? What sort of "cues"? This is not a mainstream thing

 

[ashley bach]

It's fair and reasonable I guess, to say that this was a good toss to lose.

It's fair and reasonable I guess, to say that this was a good toss to win.

 

[Starfighter]

That was Hobart's to lose, and boy did they mess it up. Well that dodgy no-ball call didn't help, but if Faheem was actually landing the ball on the pitch it mightn't have mattered. Shocking, shocking player, like Thisara Perera years ago.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It does change on the leg side wide. Of the batsmen backs away and it passes between them and the stumps, it isn't a wide. You are proposing that it should be.

It doesn't change the other way because that is a set position acknowledged as being within reach from a normal guard.

That's a good point. I guess I'm being a bit inconsistent here myself. But by the same token if the wide line goes wider if a batsman moves across far enough then a ball that goes over the stumps down his "leg side" can be called a wide, which would be ridiculous but consistent with the logic

 

[ashley bach]

Had a quiet 200 on the Strikers @15/1 and while it was fun I'm feeling like a bit of a soft **** now.

 

[Nintendo]

What's with the cane's and horrible overseas signings lmao. Sangakarra made negative runs for them, harry brook, one of the most exciting t20 bats in the world averaged 7, tom lammonboy and will jacks played a whole season of cricket while neither taking wickets or making runs, keemo paul was so **** he fled the country mid season without telling the team, jordan thompson spent a season going at 10's, and now faheem somehow manages to top all of this.

 

[Burgey]

Zac Crawley loses another match in australia then

 

[ashley bach]

What's with the cane's and horrible overseas signings lmao. Sangakarra made negative runs for them, harry brook, one of the most exciting t20 bats in the world averaged 7, tom lammonboy and will jacks played a whole season of cricket while neither taking wickets or making runs, keemo paul was so **** he fled the country mid season without telling the team, jordan thompson spent a season going at 10's, and now faheem somehow manages to top all of this.

The air in Tazzie ain't so good.

 

[Starfighter]

Who told you this? What sort of "cues"? This is not a mainstream thing

Anticipation is a well explored, though certainly not fully understood phenomenon in sports (not just cricket). There's been experimental studies (here's an example) that show batsmen use kinematic (i.e. what's happening in a bowler's action) and contextual cues to anticipate the delivery. There simply is not enough time pick up the ball and move into position once it is released.

While a lot of this research has focussed on kinematic cues and shown some evidence that skilled batsmen can somewhat predict the path of the ball due to cues in the bowlers action, this has been inconsistent and is most evident for the absolute highest skilled players. More recently contextual contextual cues have been explored and they may be more important - the introduction of this study provides some interesting discussion around the subject. In that particular study the batsmen were unexpectedly unable to use kinematic cues but could use contextual information in the form of field placing to predict the flight at above-chance. The study poses whether T20 might have an influence on these results.

Even though it is far from fully understood it is well known that batsmen, especially highly skilled ones, know what's coming.

 

[Burgey]

I thought that sort of thing was pretty widely known, especially wrt the likely length of a ball about to be bowled. Like batsmen subconsciously pick up on the bowler’s head position from their peripheral vision as a cue to whether a bouncer will be bowled.

I remember back in the 90s and early 2000s a mate of mine who was coaching a Sydney grade club was trying to train his quicks to bowl bouncers with their heads up as it would confuse batsmen.

had some interesting ideas on the game tbf

 

[Starfighter]

I thought that sort of thing was pretty widely known

I think it's called 'TJB being ignorant' (when put politely).

 

[Burgey]

Bit harsh m8

 

[Son Of Coco]

That was Hobart's to lose, and boy did they mess it up. Well that dodgy no-ball call didn't help, but if Faheem was actually landing the ball on the pitch it mightn't have mattered. Shocking, shocking player, like Thisara Perera years ago.

I can only assume going on Faheem's performance that he is at Hobart as the work experience kid.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it's called 'TJB being ignorant' (when put politely).

Stop trying to divert attention from you saying bowlers should get to bowl wherever they want without being called wide you cheeky ****

It's a bowler's game

 

[Ashes81]

Zac Crawley loses another match in australia then

Just lulling you into a false sense of security ahead of the Ashes