Ashes 2015 - Australia tour of England July/September 2015

[cricket_icon]

He actually batted at 7, which I think was fair enough in that line up. Taylor should be batting at 3 when Root isn't around. Although I think Ali is very much a T20 top three player, I don't think he's a brilliant one day batter. I think he's better off doing what he does in test cricket, which is bullying tired bowling with an old ball.

Stokes and Buttler aren't in great form, but both are well caps able of match winning hundreds on their day.

I'd convinced myself a month ago that Ali had to temporarily open in test cricket in the UAE. I've changed my mind now. Hales' technique looks so much more solid. I'd give him a go and probably bat Ali at 5 or 6. Then Rashid/Ansari can come in at 8.

That's crazy, Hales as such a flimsy technique, it looks like a school kid slogging away at times. I wanted him opening in tests but nt now, the Pakistani bowlers will make him look foolish, like they have done to England away since 2005. We don't need that type of embarrassment again.

In terms of this ODI series, Ali is a guy who has a century and a couple 50s opening the batting and now he's 7? Below even Taylor who is just coming back into the team, in a line up consisting of hopeless Buttler and inconsistent Stokes?

Ali has got to be in at 5, he is a damn specialist batsman, not a bits and pieces cricketer like Stokes, Woakes and Buttler.

This is the same nonsense England carried on with throughout the late 90s and most of this century: drop your best players and fill the ODI side with untested commodities or bits and pieces so called all rounders...oh and make a mockery of your better players by fiddling around with their roles.

I thought they had turned a corner since the NZ series but it's clear this is the same old "no clue about ODI cricket" England I've seen my whole life.

 

[_Sam_]

If Ali doesn't get in for his bowling he doesn't get in the top 5 for me based on his batting unfortunately.

 

[cricket_icon]

^ Just to round off the above argument. Here is this vid -

David Hussey was clearly handling the ball there, but it was ruled n.o, and it was deemed that Hussey was protecting himself. I personally disagree and what Hussey did is as blatant as ball handling/obstruction will ever get. However, if Hussey was n.o., then there is no way that Stokes was out either.

It's often down to the umpires on the field, who have to make a decision based on the laws of the game...however, these are laws that can be interpreted how you want depending on the individual themselves.[DOUBLEPOST=1441565466][/DOUBLEPOST]

If Ali doesn't get in for his bowling he doesn't get in the top 5 for me unfortunately.

Ali has quite clearly proven he is one of the best batsman in the side/squad. His bowling is irrelevant here.

 

[_Sam_]

It's often down to the umpires on the field, who have to make a decision based on the laws of the game...however, these are laws that can be interpreted how you want depending on the individual themselves.[DOUBLEPOST=1441565466][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ali has quite clearly proven he is one of the best batsman in the side/squad. His bowling is irrelevant here.

So if Ali was incapable of bowling for example you'd still have him in the top 5 as a pure batsman?

 

[bigred]

If you think Ali is one of the best 5 batsmen in the country, you're in a dream world.

 

[Markkkkk]

About the Stokes incident its debatable but in the end of the day it could go both ways.

Also Ali isnt anywhere near the quality of being in the top 5 although right now him amd Hales are in the same boat but why is Roy in the side? Ali is better then him and (I hvemt wtched the current series) he just seems to throw his wicket away and just lashes at everything. I'd rather have Ali and Hales then Ali and Roy...

 

[_Sam_]

About the Stokes incident its debatable but in the end of the day it could go both ways.

Also Ali isnt anywhere near the quality of being in the top 5 although right now him amd Hales are in the same boat but why is Roy in the side? Ali is better then him and (I hvemt wtched the current series) he just seems to throw his wicket away and just lashes at everything. I'd rather have Ali and Hales then Ali and Roy...

Gotta admit I thought the exact same originally, particularly after the T20 where where he looked completely out of his depth, but Roy has looked surprisingly good the last couple of ODIs, really times the ball well when he goes to drive it.

 

[bigred]

About the Stokes incident its debatable but in the end of the day it could go both ways.

Also Ali isnt anywhere near the quality of being in the top 5 although right now him amd Hales are in the same boat but why is Roy in the side? Ali is better then him and (I hvemt wtched the current series) he just seems to throw his wicket away and just lashes at everything. I'd rather have Ali and Hales then Ali and Roy...

Yep, I think the jury is still out on Roy. I do like his approach to opening the batting, but it can be very ugly to watch, whereas Ali looks nice on the eye.

I think the best 10 one day batsmen in the country are Hales, Root, Taylor, Buttler, Bopara, Morgan, Vince, Davies, Ballance and Wright. For me, Root, Hales, Taylor and Morgan have to play. So perhaps one option would be for Root to open in one day cricket with Hales.

England don't have a great one day bowling attack at the moment, so they have to play at least 6 bowlers. So if Buttler bats at 6, they have to bat one of Stokes or Ali at 5, even though neither really deserve to be there on their batting alone. I'd stick with Stokes for a while as he can win you games out of nowhere. You can always bring Moeen in for games in Asia.

One thing we must do is stop picking Billings in this weird specialist number 7 position. Really glad they went for Taylor in the first two ODIs.

 

[KBC]

I might be alone in this but if you're out of your crease, block a run out attempt when the throw's on target; intentionally or not - you're out. Use Hawkeye for what it's worth.

I liken the scenario to LBWs. You're adjudged out/not out based on the ball hitting the stumps - not your intentions. sorry.

This whole stokes saga highlights decision making flaws that heavily rely on benefit of doubt. This has to change. Judging on body language is laughable. Umpires gave the right call in the end but there's need of a reformed, unbiased rule.

There's no guarantee despite the oddly correct ruling that happens 2/10 times, batsmen can take advantage of a system that favors them in a similar scenario.

 

[PokerAce]

^Interesting view. However the rules for LBW and obstructing the fielder are different. The principle doesn't apply to every dismissal. in LBW the rules don't stipulate that the intention of the batsman be taken into account. However, with Obstructing the Field rule intention of the batsman behind action is absolutely vital.

Rule 37(1) which deals with obstructing the Field, says - Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action.

So the use of the word 'wilful' therein clearly makes intention of the batsman absolutely vital in the such cases. I liked the post, and the interpretation you gave, but the rules are very clear and differ from the opinion you hold.

 

[_Sam_]

I might be alone in this but if you're out of your crease, block a run out attempt when the throw's on target; intentionally or not - you're out. Use Hawkeye for what it's worth.

I liken the scenario to LBWs. You're adjudged out/not out based on the ball hitting the stumps - not your intentions. sorry.

This whole stokes saga highlights decision making flaws that heavily rely on benefit of doubt. This has to change. Judging on body language is laughable. Umpires gave the right call in the end but there's need of a reformed, unbiased rule.

There's no guarantee despite the oddly correct ruling that happens 2/10 times, batsmen can take advantage of a system that favors them in a similar scenario.

Doesn't that just open up as many opinionated decisions as you'd have to start with as you'd get 'would the batsman have been home anyway' part of it.

 

[KBC]

You're right and that further adds to the point. There's no concrete way of determining if the batsman would make it or not. umpires are left to rely on pure guess work to make such decisions - which naturally tend to favour the batsman. It can lead to them feigning intention as to almost always get the decision their way. What I emphasize on is eliminating as much guess work as possible.
You can argue guesswork is as much a part of LBWs but DRS and Hawkeye aid them to an extent. It's far fetched as it seems but would to cricket they find a way to use hawkeye's ball speed/projection on body contact in these scenarios, it might put you in a better position to judge if the batsman were to make the crease had there been no obstruction.
In stoakes case, he's out and was never going to get back to his crease in time.

 

[Biggs]

I think that if we see the Ben Stokes replay, the ball is aimed reasonably in the direction of Stokes.

The ball was, objectively and irrefutably, thrown at the batsman, not the stumps. Whether deliberately or not, that wasn't a genuine "run out" attempt made by the bowler whatsoever, it was a bully/aggressive "get back in your crease". He wasn't attempting a run, nor was anyone trying to get him out.

The umpires on the field absolutely botched the whole thing even allowing it to go to the third umpire, Smith should have withdrawn any appeal made either way.

 

[PokerAce]

You're right and that further adds to the point. There's no concrete way of determining if the batsman would make it or not. umpires are left to rely on pure guess work to make such decisions - which naturally tend to favour the batsman. It can lead to them feigning intention as to almost always get the decision their way. What I emphasize on is eliminating as much guess work as possible.
You can argue guesswork is as much a part of LBWs but DRS and Hawkeye aid them to an extent. It's far fetched as it seems but would to cricket they find a way to use hawkeye's ball speed/projection on body contact in these scenarios, it might put you in a better position to judge if the batsman were to make the crease had there been no obstruction.
In stoakes case, he's out and was never going to get back to his crease in time.

When did this become an element of Obstructing the field. Whether the batsman was going to get back in the crease in time or not is irrelevant.

So according to you, a batsman, if he is already in the crease, is free to then swat throws away with his hands, without the ever attracting the obstructing the field law. That is not how it works.

 

[KBC]

Lol I get where you're coming from, you're right about the rule but you've generalized two different responses. I should've quoted. But I'm pointing out from a perspective that would count against Stokes anyway. Like I said, I might be alone in holding a peculiar view on this.

My point is on ruling batsmen out when throws on-target are obstructed. Whether it's a return throw from the bowler, WK to bowler's end or just about any case within the pitch's confinements or thereabouts when the ball is obstructed from hitting the wickets. That's one reason to bring up the reference to LBWs. Intent plays little role. Stokes was liable to lose his wicket even if the orthodox rule wasn't brought into the equation as the ball would've hit the stumps or at least clipped the bails while he was out of the crease.

if he is already in the crease, is free to then swat throws away with his hands, without the ever attracting the obstructing the field law.

well, about it now we're at the crease. :P I remember Scott Styris' antics were similar in the 2003 WC. Instead, the runs he took off that delivery were deducted. On the contrary, it's pointless whether or not a throw obstructs the batsman while he's behind his crease, unless he makes a late run. Because there's no other basis to appeal. If Stokes was behind his crease, Starc simply wouldn't have thrown the ball in the first place (unless he meant to be vicious/aggressive) and none of it would have caused a moot point.