Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
^ Must have run out of sandpaper
Should Bazball be ditched for Headingley in favour of a more traditional approach? I think England should adopt a policy of being patient (traditional - style cricket play) and only invoking bazball when situation may call for it. We lost far too many wickets again far too cheaply and maybe needlessly in this test. We blew the adavantage that the weather gave us on the first morning. I feel a much more traditional approach will work. It's going to be an uphill struggle and the team need to watch Headingley 1981 for inspiration - if we are going to turn this series around, but I fear it is too big a mouintain to climb and maybe even too little too late. Could Sir 'Beefy' Botham go to the team hotel, kick their collective butts a bit and tell them how it was done in '81? Maybe drawing from inspiration from a past series might be all we need.
Three more of these, and we are all going to need a lie down in a darkened room! Strange tactics really from the Aussies, particularly after they got lucky with 'Snoozy' Bairstow! - what was that all about - Punter certainly couldn't grasp it- me neither! I wonder whether Stokesy may reflect on whether - having done the hard yards (magnificent knock Botham lives on) - he could have just stuck around (no guarantee) - even 5 - 6 overs more, - just throttled back a little, and got the team to within reaching distance?? given how close they actually got?? - easy to say now of course! In addition, either the crowd response was of a pantomime level, or some, who may be new to the sport because it is the Ashes, need to brush up on the laws of the game re Bairstow dismissal!
All credit (some of his antics grate with me) must go to S Broad! Ballsy doesn't come close with the way he fronted up. He and Lyon (man that is commitment) are almost men of the match for their determination and fight alone!
One sour note was the nonsense of the members in the long room! From reports, they went well beyond the line. I hope that they get what is coming! If the Ashes ever descends into needing that kind of participation (and some of the tripe - no surprise - from loudspeaker KP) then maybe fold the tent and walk away!
The dozzy one was the stumps umpire for not calling over.
The square leg umpire was walking towards the wicket so he'd thought that the over was over.
The next match will be really interesting. The umpires may be putting the stumps back a lot, and I can see bowlers stopping mid delivery.
^^It will be party time in Leeds, could even be the last Test for some time with YCCC looking like going out of business.
A smart piece of wicketkeeping from Carey and a completely fair dismissal. Well done to him.
England did a similar thing last year when they dismissed Colin De Grandhomme of New Zealand and on that occasion nobody whined about the spirit of the game. Incidentally the umpire couldn't have called over as Charlemagne claims he should have done, since the over can only be called when both sides regard the ball as dead, which clearly wasn't he case in this instance.
(02-07-2023 20:00 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]^^It will be party time in Leeds, could even be the last Test for some time with YCCC looking like going out of business.
Really??
That bad?? I obviously knew that things at Headingly were not business as usual, but ceasing to exist?? Now that would shake the cricketing foundations. Maybe if some of those part timers who were sadly at lords yesterday, but never follow cricket at any other time, were to occasionally visit their local county, the game wouldn't be in such a precarious financial state! - I know exceptional times/circumstances at Yorkshire has played into their cliff - edge existence!
(02-07-2023 22:17 )William H Bonney Wrote: [ -> ]A smart piece of wicketkeeping from Carey and a completely fair dismissal. Well done to him.
England did a similar thing last year when they dismissed Colin De Grandhomme of New Zealand and on that occasion nobody whined about the spirit of the game. Incidentally the umpire couldn't have called over as Charlemagne claims he should have done, since the over can only be called when both sides regard the ball as dead, which clearly wasn't he case in this instance.
Indeed, and Bairstow himself did exactly the same previously too - oh and Brendon more than once when representing NZ! If Vaughan is being measured, you know that England haven't got a leg to stand on!! For me, it is a more legitimate form of dismissal than, say, the keeper - standing up to the sticks - taking clean control of the ball, and waiting just that split second longer (longer than Carey with immediate release) for the batter to fall forward out of their crease, before effecting the stumping! I have no issue with either one in truth! The laws determine legitimacy, not this 'spirit' argument
This is the dead ball law:
http://www.rulesofcricket.co.uk/the_rule...law_23.htm
IMO it would have been hard to say when the ball actually could have been called dead. A) was it dead when Bairstow left the crease to attempt a shot and didn't connect? Or B) when Carey had the ball?
Australia may have lost Lyon for the rest of the series but I'd say they have bowlers that are more than capable of plugging the gap.I'd say it was fair play to Carey. I'd say, had Australia invoked a 'Mankad' on Bairstow, then there probably would have been a bigger uproar. While to some may think what Carey did was not in the spirit of the game it was legitimate dismissal to me as Bairstow had left the crease, but I still think the Mankad is one dismissal that needs to be dealt with within the context of that law as the ball is not yet 'in play' to me in any shape or form, as I feel it is is a dead ball as the bowler hasn't bowled it to put it into play.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13