*Official* England Tour of West Indies 2019

[SillyCowCorner1]

Hey SillyCowCorner, what do you know about this Campbell guy? I've liked what I've seen of him so far.

He's been in the runs for the past few seasons. Knocking at the door. Every time Kieran Powell fails with the bat, his name came up.

I have to be honest though. Prior to this test series, this is the first time I've seen him bat.
For a long time now, Jamaica has been known to produce good opening batsmen. Sabina Park is our Perth

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This was a gold from Cricinfo:

"So John Campbell averages 46 with highest score of 44. Does that even make any sense?" Don't question the numbers, Ramachandran Sh

 

[andmark]

Foakes took a nasty one on his right wrist/palm.

Nursing it at the moment.

How gutted must Buttler have been when he wasn't chosen to take the gloves haha.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

How gutted must Buttler have been when he wasn't chosen to take the gloves haha.

I think the decision was a trivial one: Buttler is the limited overs keeper; Bairstow is an accomplished test cricket keeper.

 

[Slifer]

The almosts and not quites are all very well, but WI had claimed four wickets at this stage of the innings. With the new ball seen off, WI should be able to build a substantial lead tomorrow. Not really the bowlers' fault; our abysmal batting means we're not going to win much in the foreseeable future. The Saffer looking forward to our boys heading their way next winter isn't a bad judge. It's been a while since anyone was comprehensively outplayed by the WI; quite an achievement by this bunch. Apologies for the stuck record routine, but I fail to see how anyone can be anything other than disgusted by deterioration in the standard of cricketers produced by our domestic game over the last 10 years. Maybe being thrashed by the WI and subsequently walloped at home to Australia might focus a few minds, but it's unlikely, isn't it.

Dude relax. This match and series are far from over.

 

[Spark]

Why is Cricinfo saying that England lost a review? I thought you didn't lose one if a no ball was spotted that wasn't initially picked up, feels like you're being punished for the umpire's ineptitude otherwise.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Why is Cricinfo saying that England lost a review? I thought you didn't lose one if a no ball was spotted that wasn't initially picked up, feels like you're being punished for the umpire's ineptitude otherwise.

Them's the rules bannah:

Over 18: West Indies 24/0 - England waste a review
16:22
Big lbw shout from Curran as he gets one to swing back in to Brathwaite and pin his front pad, but the umpire isn't interested. Joe Root is, going upstairs to review, but Curran has overstepped, so the review is wasted.

Ball-tracker suggests that it would have been missing anyway.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/match/9225#scorecard

 

[andmark]

I think the decision was a trivial one: Buttler is the limited overs keeper; Bairstow is an accomplished test cricket keeper.

Yeah, that's all true. I'd still like to think he hoped he'd be asked though.

 

[Starfighter]

Them's the rules bannah:

https://www.icc-cricket.com/match/9225#scorecard

Yes, but Spark's saying you don't lose a review because the bowler's overstepped, which is a precedent that has been set multiple other times. Why has this apparently changed bannah?

 

[Groundking]

Poor in the final session imo. They need to step up massively tomorrow.

 

[Bijed]

Cricinfo initially had England as keeping the review (in commentary, the scorecard showed us having lost one). Cricbuzz and the BBC (and the ICC it would seem) were all saying we'd lost the review, then cricinfo changed to say the same. So I'm guessing there's no real reason for it and it's just a mistake? If that is the case, and someone points it out to the umpires, can we get the review back?

 

[mr_mister]

What's a bannah

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Them's the rules bannah:



https://www.icc-cricket.com/match/9225#scorecard

Yes, but Spark's saying you don't lose a review because the bowler's overstepped, which is a precedent that has been set multiple other times. Why has this apparently changed bannah?

Cricinfo initially had England as keeping the review (in commentary, the scorecard showed us having lost one). Cricbuzz and the BBC (and the ICC it would seem) were all saying we'd lost the review, then cricinfo changed to say the same. So I'm guessing there's no real reason for it and it's just a mistake? If that is the case, and someone points it out to the umpires, can we get the review back?

Oh yeah bannahs. Upon inspection of the rules, I have found the exact section and sub-section that clearly states that the limit set (2 in this case) of reviews doesn't change becuase of a no-ball.

3.6.6 Where, following a request for a Player Review, the original on-field decision of Not out is unchanged on
account of the delivery being a No ball (for any reason), thereby not requiring any further evaluation, the
Player Review shall not be counted as ‘Unsuccessful’ and accordingly shall not count towards the innings
limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/decision-review-system

All the websites covering this game have screwed up; majorly.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What's a bannah

Synonym of 'dude', 'bwoy', 'mate', 'close friend', 'bredren'

Origin: Guyana

 

[Starfighter]

West Indies better win this match, because there's a better-than-even chance Holder will be missing the next due to the abysmal over rate.

 

[Borges]

Woo! What happened in the 21 overs that the West Indies openers faced?
Did the pitch become more and more benign as the day progressed? Didn't England bowl well? Did the West Indies openers play exquisitely? Was it a combination of all these?

 

[TT Boy]

When Gabriel operates things come to a standstill. He bowled one over at the start of play which seemed to take 5+ minutes and it was a maiden.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Woo! What happened in the 21 overs that the West Indies openers faced?
Did the pitch become more and more benign as the day progressed? Didn't England bowl well? Did the West Indies openers play exquisitely? Was it a combination of all these?

It was old school cricket. Both batsmen were watchful and defensive. A lot of balls passed the outside edge, especially off Campbell's edge.
Stuart Broad looked the most threatening.

It was exceptional batting by the Windies openers to see off a bowling duo that has over 1000 test wickets.

 

[TT Boy]

Woo! What happened in the 21 overs that the West Indies openers faced?
Did the pitch become more and more benign as the day progressed? Didn't England bowl well? Did the West Indies openers play exquisitely? Was it a combination of all these?

Seemed to still do plenty when Broad was bowling. Gave Campbell a good working over and was surprised when I turned my stream off after 6 or so overs he was still there at the close.

 

[Senile Sentry]

So this is what 80s looked like