Good bye?

[Brook]

Nah he wasn't mate, he was out by a few good metres. Just because you don't want to play us in the semi!

He's South African

 

[drainpipe32]

He's South African

Ooh so he is. I looked at the picture of Becks and mistook him for someone else. Sorry FS!

 

[MaD]

You've got a pretty good point there but I still the the rules are fine, and I ain't sayin why coz I don't know why

 

[angryangy]

I think a lot of top keepers would get the throw down more than 5 times out of 10, so there is obvious risk involved. The trouble is really what is good for all situations? In some cases, bringing the keeper up is obvious, but sometimes it isn't. Against a bowler of Harwood's pace, it wouldn't have been overly sensible and there are plenty of even quicker bowlers. If we start to think in terms of "well then get someone medium pace to bowl" it's an ugly, ugly road we start down. If it's too much of a batsman's game to have a fast bowler on at the death, then it's time to give up. Perhaps a better bet to a real quick would be to have a short leg.

However, you definitely ought to have a keeper standing up to a majority of bowlers in that situation. Ultimately, the best way to prevent a game coming down to a bye is to do the necessary work before the last ball.

 

[drainpipe32]

Exactly, you can't have the keeper up for Harwood, McDonald maybe....