• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Pakistan in Australia 2023/24

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
If this **** incentivises captains to rush through overs then it's probably fine on balance. If it makes them change who is actually bowling then it's a net negative.

I will paradoxically admit that I kind of like the ridiculously OTT WTC penalties because I think it totally devalues that 'league' in a way I enjoy because it shouldn't ****ing exist. But all the same.
I'm kind of with you on this. What I don't get is why teams are fined points when it hasn't impacted the result of the match?

It just leads to a natural bias to spin friendly conditions where teams are less likely to receive penalties. Oh......BCCI.......
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is the other **** part about it. Has strong potential to make the cricket worse. 80 overs a day of high quality fast bowling is better than 60 overs + 30 overs of enforced part time finger spin
80 overs of cricket with around 300 runs scored is infinitely better as a standard sort of day’s play than something like the 50s with 110 overs being bowled and 180-200 runs being scored.

overall I’m not that concerned about over rates tbh, though I get there need to be some penalties lest we end up back in 80s Windies territory and you’re getting around 70-75 bowled in a day - that’s a piss take.

But generally, If over rates are slow it’s
because the batting side is scoring quickly, so it isn’t like there’s zero entertainment
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Marsh got hit on the head trying to hit the ball over the Swan River with a front foot pull. Like, had he not been trying to score at a Bazball rate he might have simply got out of the way.
Exactly right. I saw the image of him 2m down the track, pulling off the front foot.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Somehow, I feel Shahzad's injury means Faheem is less likely to be dropped, even though despite taking Marnus' wicket in the first innings I would say his performance was a Marcus Harris, making a net negative contribution. Just let the pressure off every time.

I'd go Wasim or Hasan in for Faheem, both are as likely to contribute with the bat as Faheem, and a spinner in for Shahzad. But also I have doubts that Sajid will be that much more effective than Salman, so maybe they should bring in both Wasim and Hasan if Abrar isn't fit.
 

Qlder

International Debutant
Khawaja has been charged by ICC over wearing a black armband in 1st Test without CA and ICC permission. As per the regs, a 1st offense is a reprimand (2nd offense is 25% match fee)
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Khawaja has been charged by ICC over wearing a black armband in 1st Test without CA and ICC permission. As per the regs, a 1st offense is a reprimand (2nd offense is 25% match fee)
This is shady af

Why is ICC getting involved with a player's personal political statement?

If a family member passed away and he wore an armband "without ICC permission" no way he's getting reprimanded
 

Qlder

International Debutant
This is shady af

Why is ICC getting involved with a player's personal political statement?

If a family member passed away and he wore an armband "without ICC permission" no way he's getting reprimanded
Well yes he is. The regs specifically mentions black armbands as an example and says it needs home board and ICC approval. The sanctions are also already decided with Reprimand the penalty for first offense.

Cricinfo also quotes Khawaja saying he was asked on 2nd day by ICC what it was for and he said it was for a personal bereavement, so isn't that telling a lie to ICC as he's made it clear since what it was for?
 

Top