Think it's a match basis and not an innings. So if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig it may still apply.How lucky was Australia. Way down on the over rate but bowled Pak out in 77.1 overs so no penalty applies
(no penalty if bowled out in <80 overs)
They persisted with the short ball stuff a little too long but frankly it wasn't like anything else was looking threatening either.Didn't watch the last half an hour
How bad/ average was Cummins's captaincy?
No, it's a per innings basis. But if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig and Aus behind overs then yes it will of course apply for that innings as >80 oversThink it's a match basis and not an innings. So if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig it may still apply.
Probably should've brought on Head instead of Labuschagne first.Didn't watch the last half an hour
How bad/ average was Cummins's captaincy?
The 80 overs thing is weird. You're either bowling slowly or you're not, what does bowling a team out in under 80 overs have to do with it?No, it's a per innings basis. But if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig and Aus behind overs then yes it will of course apply for that innings as >80 overs
The 1st innings will never count now though as was <80 overs
Aus pretty lucky all series as Pak only batted once more than 80 overs
It used to be no penalty if bowled out in <60 overs but changed during the Ashes fiasco where Eng Lost 19 points and Aus 10 points even though games had results. Main point was if there's a result what does it matter.The 80 overs thing is weird. You're either bowling slowly or you're not, what does bowling a team out in under 80 overs have to do with it?
Has the rule changed since the Ashes? Have Eng/Aus copped fines that are no longer applicable? That would be even more farcical.It used to be no penalty if bowled out in <60 overs but changed during the Ashes fiasco where Eng Lost 19 points and Aus 10 points even though games had results. Main point was if there's a result what does it matter.
So <80 sort of makes more sense as with 10 wkts falling they could count that as a slow day (so 4 day test and no result impact). Makes more sense than previous <60 overs
The new rules were back dated to start of Ashes/WTC, but penalties still applied as >80 overs were bowled. From memory it stopped further huge points in 3rd Test being applied as both teams were looking at a series with negative pointsHas the rule changed since the Ashes? Have Eng/Aus copped fines that are no longer applicable? That would be even more farcical.
The rules favour countries who bowl more spin overs......so Hmmmm backatcha!!Hmmmm.. so basically cricket rules were tweaked to ensure England and Australia were not penalized. So new!!!
The rules favour countries who bowl more spin overs......so Hmmmm backatcha!!
crapinfo said:But for a man of faith like Rizwan, getting out of the way must be as close as sport comes to sacrilege.
Rizwan went off for lunch, but his appetite was nowhere near sated yet. This time, he was facing Cummins himself, the man who had caused him to sin last week, snapping his side out of the heavenly dreams of victory and casting them back into this mortal realm.
Like a faithful disciple, he followed Rizwan in planting the front foot and sweeping Lyon,
Can't believe he batted below Sajid.I think this is kind of why Jamal was hyped as an all-rounder, he's worked with the tail brilliantly, almost akin to a real bat.
1 SajidOpening with Sajid Khan
The existence of the "fines" in the first place is already max-farcicalHas the rule changed since the Ashes? Have Eng/Aus copped fines that are no longer applicable? That would be even more farcical.
To my mind, if there's a result, then over rates should be ignored. The only Test in the Ashes which should've come under consideration was the rain affected draw.