England in India - Oct to Jan 2012/13

[MUFC1987]

I still remember Dernbach's debut when they brought up his List A career stats and I remember the economy rate at over 6 for that. Quite why Cook/Flower/Giles think he can improve against better batsmen is quite bizarre.

Also, Samit Patel going in and wasting 10 balls? What the hell? Fair enough I wouldn't have expected Root to do what he did today in terms of strike rate, but Buttler is making a career in County Cricket of going in with 20 odd overs to go, getting himself in and then letting loose, rather than batting for the last few overs trying to slog from ball one. Surely Patel has run his course now. I still don't see how Root fits into our strongest lineup, but he's making a case for not being dropped.

----------

Also, to be hyper-critical and perhaps unfair on Cook with him getting a bad decision, but between him and KP, taking up that many balls, they have to go on and get a big score if the team is to do the same. That's where we've struggled in the past.

 

[War]

What are people's thoughts on Finn's wicket today although he brushed the stumps?

I personally don't think it should be a dead ball or even a no-ball. It should remain a wicket. If a batsman walks on his stumps while playing a short he is given out - so i'm not sure why finn or any other bowler who jams the stumps should be penalized for it.

I heard NZ captain make the point during the t20 world-cup when finn did a similar thing & suggest a cricket to introduce a version of football's advantage law - allow the game to progress as normal unless a batsman is dismissed, in which case dead ball should be called retrospectively.

Even if it were true (which i certainly don't think raina recognized it, since he went through his shot normally) that the click of the bail can distract a batsman watching the ball intently, note : batsmen are lauded for "putting the bowler off" by dancing round in their crease. So to me penalizing finn or any bowler who gets a batsman out if he jams the stumps is just giving batters more leeway in a game where the rules always tend to bend towards them.

 

[sifter132]

^Yes but the batsman isn't potentially distracting anyone by stepping on his own stumps.

I don't think Finn hitting the stumps is particularly distracting, but then I don't think a guy wearing a hat outside the corner of the sightscreen is distracting either - yet the game is routinely held up to fix those problems. To my mind, Finn should be no-balled EVERY time he does it, no warnings. It's a habit that has no place in the game. Why tolerate it?

As for batsmen moving around, Mark Nicholas suggested an interesting one the other day: not letting a batsman bat outside his crease - if bowlers can't step over the line for advantage, why should batsmen be able to take guard up the pitch to negate swing? Why should the keeper be forced up to the stumps to stop such habits? It's another thing that favours batsmen.

Dreadful captaincy, miserable team selection, toothless bowling and mediocre batting all in one package witnessed over the course of this ODI series from England.

A week ago you could have written INDIA in there, and it would also have been true. Oh how things change...and the joys of a very even international ODI scene at the moment. NZ have turned the tables on SA in a week, SL and Aus have fluctuated between upper and lower hand in their 2-2 series, and now India and Eng have reversed fortunes in a week.

 

[puddleduck]

Simply put, the guy is an international bowler getting paid tons of money to bowl a cricket ball. There are rules within which he is meant to function. If I continually cocked up at my job I'd get fired. So he has no excuses.

----------

To add a little something to that. If it's not distracting, which it probably isn't for the most part... how come he's taken 2 (or is it 3 now) wickets when he's done it...

 

[shravi]

It just sets a bad precedent if you allow it with others maybe becoming more inclined to toe the line of legality (so to speak). I understand the argument for the "advantage law" but I feel that umpires need to be harsh in their decisions so that it prevents it from happening again or at least strongly indicates to the bowler that it just isn't acceptable. Plus, everything puddleduck said .

 

[Gurjot95]

Wait so why are people suddenly so keen to defend England loss by blaming on team selection. Didn't England lost 5-0 in India with their so called 'full strength' side couple of years back? Short memories, eh? 3-2/4-1 is much better result than 5-0 as far as I know.

Infact this team played a lot better than the team which was two years back.

 

[Fenil]

What are people's thoughts on Finn's wicket today although he brushed the stumps?


I heard NZ captain make the point during the t20 world-cup when finn did a similar thing & suggest a cricket to introduce a version of football's advantage law - allow the game to progress as normal unless a batsman is dismissed, in which case dead ball should be called retrospectively.

I second this. It has happened so many times with Finn before. I don't think the sound of the bail being broken will do much in hampering a batsman's concentration given they are pretty used to playing in the midst of loud noisy crowd. Imagine a six being hit on such an occasion and the ball being called as dead? That said, if it occurs too many times, it should be called as no-ball. Something like it happened against RSA where Finn dislodged the bails 4 times in one session. It is to be noted that the dead ball call was given only on the forth occasion when it produced a wicket.

Everything said and done, I don't know what was the problem with the umpire when Bresnan tried that cheeky thing just before his last delivery stride. It should be absolutely fine. I mean if batsmen can play switch-hits, scoops and reverse-sweeps; if spinners can bowl with a long pause, why can't a pacer do such things? After all he is bowling well within the rules of the game of bowling overarm and not even trying to use up time for nothing. I remember Andrew Flintoff bowling to Rahul Dravid in a test match without letting his left hand move. The umpire had absolutely no problems with that whatsoever and rightly so. Same should have been the case Bresnan tried his antics.

 

[Owzat]

What are people's thoughts on Finn's wicket today although he brushed the stumps?

I personally don't think it should be a dead ball or even a no-ball. It should remain a wicket. If a batsman walks on his stumps while playing a short he is given out - so i'm not sure why finn or any other bowler who jams the stumps should be penalized for it.

I heard NZ captain make the point during the t20 world-cup when finn did a similar thing & suggest a cricket to introduce a version of football's advantage law - allow the game to progress as normal unless a batsman is dismissed, in which case dead ball should be called retrospectively.

Even if it were true (which i certainly don't think raina recognized it, since he went through his shot normally) that the click of the bail can distract a batsman watching the ball intently, note : batsmen are lauded for "putting the bowler off" by dancing round in their crease. So to me penalizing finn or any bowler who gets a batsman out if he jams the stumps is just giving batters more leeway in a game where the rules always tend to bend towards them.

I don't see that the bowler gains any advantage if he does knock the bails off, in fact I'm sure the fielding side then have to pull a stump out or something like that to effect a run out so the batsmen gain a small advantage.

What happens if the keeper knocks the bails off before or during delivery? It is shame a controversial decision cost England the match, and I think Cook's comments about he must have been "deaf" when the umpires claim to have told him clearly what would happen if Finn transgressed again sum the whole thing up - a farce.


Here's something that is either in the laws or isn't, if it isn't then it should be clearly stated and not just adhered to or enforced by umpires after warnings. Running on the pitch is a warnings offence, I can't imagine the same applies with possible dead balls.

Football has this kind of incompetence in it regards punishments, previously drugs offences and the related penalties come bans, and more recently offences pertaining to references of colour. It doesn't have to be a formula or step by step guide, but a simple "miss a drugs test for no valid reason and you will face a six month ban", "fail a drugs test and the ban will be from six months to 18 depending on circumstance and the drug". Not difficult eh? GUIDELINES.

 

[Gurjot95]

Rules I'd Change : Rules I'd Change: David Hopps on not giving a dead ball when a bowler collides with the stumps | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Read this before the incident happened yesterday and agree completely. I have seen him hitting stumps on many other occasions. Why deny the batsman runs when it's bowler mistake and he should be the one to suffer.

Imagine a six being hit on such an occasion and the ball being called as dead? That said, if it occurs too many times, it should be called as no-ball.

Actually if I am not mistaken it did happened before also. Infact I think it was again Raina on strike who hit Finn for four but was denied because of his stupid habit. I don't remember when unfortunately but I am sure it was on this tour.

 

[Aalay]

Wait so why are people suddenly so keen to defend England loss by blaming on team selection. Didn't England lost 5-0 in India with their so called 'full strength' side couple of years back? Short memories, eh? 3-2/4-1 is much better result than 5-0 as far as I know.

Infact this team played a lot better than the team which was two years back.

Haha, exactly. England have toured India before with even stronger squad then this but have still been beaten by 5-0 margin. They are saying that they are missing their "main players" but we are also missing our preferred fast bowlers. There is no Umesh Yadav, Varun Aaron, Munaf Patel or Praveen Kumar. But then again as someone mentioned it here before and I am just going to fix it a little bit.

this is England thread so sensible discusson is never based in facts

 

[Aalay]

Just heard in the news that they might play the last ODI at Dharamsala as the weather is getting better. I really want to see Pujara getting a game.

 

[puddleduck]

Except you've nicely highlighted my point for me there haven't you Aalay by quoting a post that I was initially going to respond to, but realised he had quite clearly not understood or read my post.

I think for my own sanity I'm going to join the rest of the English cricket fans on this sight and just ignore all threads involving India. There's about 2/3 decent posters, but the rest of you... well it feels like trying to have a conversation with a hyperactive pre-teen...

Mark.. I finally understand

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Haha, exactly. England have toured India before with even stronger squad then this but have still been beaten by 5-0 margin. They are saying that they are missing their "main players" but we are also missing our preferred fast bowlers. There is no Umesh Yadav, Varun Aaron, Munaf Patel or Praveen Kumar. But then again as someone mentioned it here before and I am just going to fix it a little bit.

so this is the Yadav who averages 46 with the ball in 11 ODI's. The Aaron who has played in 4 matches, the Munaf Patel who didn't play a single international in 2012.

I'd let you have Praveen Kumar if it wasn't for the fact you're being ridiculous.

 

[puddleduck]

Come on now Ste. When an Indian seamer averages under 50 with the ball they're pretty much a national hero

 

[ste_mc_efc]

if he can claim all 4 of those I'm going to argue we should have Flintoff, Trescothik and perhaps even a 2004 vintage Harmison.