*Official* Australia limited overs tour of Scotland and England 2024

[GIMH]

My first thought was back foot no-ball but I see it does just land inside the crease

More importantly, my man Phil Salt will skipper England next week, and Harry Brook potentially will do so in the ODIs

 

[Third_Man]

The Aussie analysis team would know that this might happen. Was their plan to deal with it simply always pull away?

 

[TheJediBrah]

The other obvious question is that if the batsmen were ready, then why did they pull away? They wouldn't.

If they had played a shot and got out, then tried to day they weren't ready then "out" would be right call, in these cases both within the laws of the game and using common sense, not so

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Aussie analysis team would know that this might happen. Was their plan to deal with it simply always pull away?

It was clearly a plan. Not sure why though. It's a pretty harmless tactic which is why you don't see it much. You see it in local cricket a bit, I remember doing myself as a kid. Also if you know it's coming I don't see where the threat is. If I were them I'd just let him do it and take advantage of the extra time to play the ball.

Probably mind games

 

[the big bambino]

Nope, called it dead ball. It wasn't going to change the result, but I'm struggling to see how it's not out when Inglis is clearly looking set and at the bowler at the point of delivery.

thanks. looks like they played by the rules after all.

 

[Third_Man]

It was clearly a plan. Not sure why though. It's a pretty harmless tactic which is why you don't see it much. You see it in local cricket a bit, I remember doing myself as a kid. Also if you know it's coming I don't see where the threat is. If I were them I'd just let him do it and take advantage of the extra time to play the ball.

Probably mind games

in which case isn't the argument that they were ready for it, and decided not to play it when they spotted it had happened?

 

[TheJediBrah]

in which case isn't the argument that they were ready for it, and decided not to play it when they spotted it had happened?

Why would they do that though? If you're the umpire and the batsman pulls away immediately you have to assume they're not ready

 

[Molehill]

As I said above, just because the batsman is looking up doesn't mean they're ready

Well what other signal should the bowler wait for?

Why would they do that though? If you're the umpire and the batsman pulls away immediately you have to assume they're not ready

But he didn't pull away immediately. If he wasn't ready he'd have pulled away as the ball was being released, but he doesn't.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well what other signal should the bowler wait for?

when he gets to the crease I guess. I'm not saying it should be called a no ball, but it clearly shouldn't have been given out

 

[Molehill]

when he gets to the crease I guess. I'm not saying it should be called a no ball, but it clearly shouldn't have been given out

I'd normally agree with you, but on this occasion, I can't really see what Inglis has got going for him. He's set in his position and is clearly looking at Watt at the point of delivery, then it's like something clicks in his mind that he's not supposed to play it and pulls away. That's just too late for me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd normally agree with you, but on this occasion, I can't really see what Inglis has got going for him. He's set in his position and is clearly looking at Watt at the point of delivery, then it's like something clicks in his mind that he's not supposed to play it and pulls away. That's just too late for me.

Fair enough. Law says it's not out though. So does common sense for me. Otherwise I don't see why he pulls away if he's ready.

 

[Molehill]

Fair enough. Law says it's not out though. So does common sense for me. Otherwise I don't see why he pulls away if he's ready.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if Watt tries it again. Is it a team tactic or will another batsman react differently? The smart money says Travis Head tries to smack the **** out of it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It'll be interesting to see what happens if Watt tries it again. Is it a team tactic or will another batsman react differently? The smart money says Travis Head tries to smack the **** out of it.

Could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the umpires were clued in beforehand. Seemed like the Aussies might have checked with them like "if we pull away it will be a dead ball, right"? Otherwise it's a pretty big risk to do it and risk being given out for virtually no gain

 

[Spark]

I don't really understand the tactic tbh. The idea, as claimed by him, is to bowl the ball so quickly that the ball is in the air before the batsman has even looked up:

"It's just trying to rush [the batters]," Watt has previously explained. "By the time I've let it go, the batsman looks up and the ball's halfway down the wicket."

But, like... that's just straightforwardly dead ball? What is the actual purpose of the tactic other than hoping the umpire somehow forgets the rules? Not sure that applies to this specific scenario, but Watt's explanation of it is very strange. Definitely not a legitimate tactic the way he puts it, and certainly would have some umpires at some levels of cricket chewing you out for being a ****.

 

[Starfighter]

Could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the umpires were clued in beforehand. Seemed like the Aussies might have checked with them like "if we pull away it will be a dead ball, right"? Otherwise it's a pretty big risk to do it and risk being given out for virtually no gain

More likely they were pressured into by the batsmen at the time, watching the video.

'He went into his action earlier than I expected so disrupted my rhythm' seems like stretching the grounds of credulity for an 'adequate reason' under law 20.4.

I don't really understand the tactic tbh. The idea, as claimed by him, is to bowl the ball so quickly that the ball is in the air before the batsman has even looked up:

Ironically I think his own explanation is actually a lot worse than what he actually did, where he seemed to time it so that as the batsmen looked up he was launching straight into his action rather than run. Law 20.6 states the ball ceases to be dead when the bowler starts their run or action.

TBH I'm not inclined to be on the batsmen's side here because I'm so sick of seeing guys pulling away because they saw a fly land near the sightscreen. I wish some of them could be taken back in time to play at Headingley when there was no sightscreens.

 

[TheJediBrah]

'He went into his action earlier than I expected so disrupted my rhythm' seems like stretching the grounds of credulity for an 'adequate reason' under law 20.4.

Don't think so. The whole point of the tactic itself is to catch the batsman when they're not ready. The law specifically states "if the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball". If they pull away, they clearly weren't ready, why else would they do it?

 

[Spark]

Ironically I think his own explanation is actually a lot worse than what he actually did, where he seemed to time it so that as the batsmen looked up he was launching straight into his action rather than run. Law 20.6 states the ball ceases to be dead when the bowler starts their run or action.

Yeah his explanation is just bizarre. I can only assume he didn't explain it properly because the way he puts it, it's not a legitimate tactic in the slightest and clearly should get a firm talking to by the umpires. But he is definitely starting his run up before the batsman has looked up, so that might well be what he's trying to do...?

 

[Starfighter]

Look, if Ben Duckett and Zac Crawley can open in test matches, there's no reason Travis Head can't go in and slog a few too.

So, Head opening and Smith back to four then?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So, Head opening and Smith back to four then?

I would support that not because I think Smith needs to move back down, but because Head needs a refreshing role after a bad few Test series

 

[Burgey]

So, Head opening and Smith back to four then?

Head opens, Smith to three where he averages like 65 or whatever, Marnus to five.