Cricket 43: So long, and thanks for all the Finch

[ljkeane]

6 hours ago, Paxter said:

On running out non-strikers: I don’t really get all the fuss. This issue has been dealt with by the ICC. Should just be a normal part of the game like pick off plays in baseball. It’s not particularly compelling viewing (just like pick offs) but there does need to be some risk-reward in backing up.

Yeah, I strongly disagree on that one. Baserunners stealing bases and the fielding team trying to defend that is one of the best things about baseball. There's also skill involved on the part of the pitcher, they can overthrow their baseman and allow the runner to advance, it also can and does distract some pitchers from their main job of pitching.

There's no risk involved at all for a bowler to dummy to bowl, pull out in their bowling stride and whip the bails off. Lets be honest the ICC can say what they want but nobody actually watches the bowler release the ball. I was paying attention yesterday because it was a hot topic and there were multiple occasions the bowlers could have done it if they were so inclined. I'm pretty bad at cricket but I reckon I could get someone out in international cricket if I just deliberately set out to try and mankad someone.

[Paxter]

6 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Yeah, I strongly disagree on that one. Baserunners stealing bases and the fielding team trying to defend that is one of the best things about baseball. There's also skill involved on the part of the pitcher, they can overthrow their baseman and allow the runner to advance, it also can and does distract some pitchers from their main job of pitching.

There's no risk involved at all for a bowler to dummy to bowl, pull out in their bowling stride and whip the bails off. Lets be honest the ICC can say what they want but nobody actually watches the bowler release the ball. I was paying attention yesterday because it was a hot topic and there were multiple occasions the bowlers could have done it if they were so inclined. I'm pretty bad at cricket but I reckon I could get someone out in international cricket if I just deliberately set out to try and mankad someone.

All part of the risk-reward. Once people stop backing up too far, you wouldn’t be able to get a wicket.

As for pick off plays, the constant boos from the crowd speak for themselves. Fans don’t really want to see it. But it’s part of the game.

[ljkeane]

50 minutes ago, Paxter said:

All part of the risk-reward. Once people stop backing up too far, you wouldn’t be able to get a wicket.

It’s not not that players are backing up too far though. That’s rarely an issue in cricket, unlike trying to get a lead from first base in baseball, the issue is that they’re paying attention down the other end because that’s where the action’s happened they need to chip in on reviews. The difference between being a potential mankad victim or not is whether they’re resting on their bat at the non strikers end or not. If we’re going to have it as a regular wicket taking ploy we’re just encouraging batters to be rooted at the non strikers end. That’s not a not positive to the game for me.

[Paxter]

8 hours ago, ljkeane said:

It’s not not that players are backing up too far though. That’s rarely an issue in cricket, unlike trying to get a lead from first base in baseball, the issue is that they’re paying attention down the other end because that’s where the action’s happened they need to chip in on reviews. The difference between being a potential mankad victim or not is whether they’re resting on their bat at the non strikers end or not. If we’re going to have it as a regular wicket taking ploy we’re just encouraging batters to be rooted at the non strikers end. That’s not a not positive to the game for me.

I have no issue with making batters run the full distance after seeing whether a run is on offer. Let them be rooted. 

And on the contrary, I think backing up too far is a massive issue, especially in limited overs. Non-strikers want the head start.

[Raja]

Yeah, defo think backing up happens a fair bit. I don't mind seeing some experimentation to see if we can come up with a better solution, but I agree with Paxter in that I'd want to see batters run the full distance and don't see an issue with them being rooted to the crease.

In addition, just because we haven't seen it happen before in women's cricket doesn't meant women's cricket as a collective are 'decling to take part in it', as if everyone's making a conscious decision not to do it. None of the players have said anything like this prior to the game, surely, which is why it is a stretch to say 'the women's game as a collective is against it', it's rare even in the men's game.

Lastly, Cricinfo did an analysis of Dean as the non striker and she apparently left the crease early 70 odd times and then got dismissed when she did it the 73rd time 

[ljkeane]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

Lastly, Cricinfo did an analysis of Dean as the non striker and she apparently left the crease early 70 odd times and then got dismissed when she did it the 73rd time 

She had her bat grounded as the bowler was into what should have been her delivery stride. That’s not leaving the crease early. So, yeah, I’d disagree with whatever definition they’re using to make that analysis.

 

2 hours ago, Raja said:

', it's rare even in the men's game.

Well, yeah, that’s the point.

You’re both basically advocating taking the quick single out of the game to enable a pretty shithouse way of getting someone out. It doesn’t appeal to me at all.

[Raja]

17 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

She had her bat grounded as the bowler was into what should have been her delivery stride. That’s not leaving the crease early. So, yeah, I’d disagree with whatever definition they’re using to make that analysis.

Plenty of examples here, look at the picture for the 30th over in particular and the 37th over.  

 

17 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Well, yeah, that’s the point 

Which is why you assertion that it hasn't been done before = the women's game are against it is a stretch for me. 

 

17 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

You’re both basically advocating taking the quick single out of the game t

We are not though, are we? You can back up way more between the ball being released and reaching the striker. You can be halfway down the pitch if you time it right. It isn't that difficult at all. 

[ljkeane]

5 hours ago, Raja said:

Plenty of examples here, look at the picture for the 30th over in particular and the 37th over.  

I looked at the cricinfo article when you mentioned it. I haven’t bothered going through the entire twitter thread but he’s using a bullshit standard, nobody stands there and watches the bowler release the ball. They time it off the bowler’s delivery stride. I guarantee pretty much every batter in the match will have display the ‘basic lack of awareness’ he’s on his high horse about there.

5 hours ago, Raja said:

We are not though, are we? You can back up way more between the ball being released and reaching the striker. You can be halfway down the pitch if you time it right. It isn't that difficult at all. 

I think you’re drastically underestimating how much of a difference it’ll make if you have to account for the bowler potentially dummying to bowl. Batters still aren’t going to be watching the bowler release the ball because they have to watch the action at the other end. What that means is all their weight will have to be on their back leg all the time. Having your weight going in the wrong direction makes a big difference to how quickly you can react.

[Paxter]

Taking the quick single out of the game! It really is a game of inches…

Perhaps we can at least agree on burying the term “mankad”?

 

[ljkeane]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

Perhaps we can at least agree on burying the term “mankad”?

Hmm, Vinoo Mankad was the first to do it in international cricket so unlike some of the more questionable terms in the cricket lexicon I don't think it's particularly unreasonable it's ended up being named after him. It sounds better and is more to the point than 'running out the non striker while backing up'. Having said that I am aware that his family didn't like the term and the resulting reduction of an impressive international career to one controversial moment.

My general opinion on this one is that if you don't want to use 'mankading' as the term for running out the non striker backing up out of respect for his family's wishes or his career then fair enough but I don't think it's offensive either. Obviously it's not something that bothers me too much considering I've used the term a few times over the last couple of pages of the thread.

To be fair to Vinoo Mankad we've been talking about this as a wicket taking tactic and that definitely wasn't the case with his high profile incident, he'd absolutely warned Bill Brown before he did it. I looked it up before writing this and I didn't realise it'd actually already happened in a warm up game before the test match so you really can't say Brown hadn't been warned.

 

[Raja]

11 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I haven’t bothered going through the entire twitter thread

The reason I linked that thread is that you kept mentioning that she wasn't leaving her crease early, which she was multiple times as exhbited by those pictures. Now you've gone off a tangent regarding the logic that dude was using, which is fine, but not the reason why the thread was linked. Overs 30 & 37 are most egregious, and I think it's totally fine for her to do that, but she obviously runs the risk of being run out.

11 hours ago, ljkeane said:

 watch the action at the other end. What that means is all their weight will have to be on their back leg all the time. Having your weight going in the wrong direction makes a big difference to how quickly you can react.

You don't put it on your back leg, your inital weight is on the bat as you leave the bat in the crease whilst the rest of the body is outside the crease and extend, and then as the bowler releases the ball, you gain ground and can back up, the weight is then not on your back leg, but on your front leg as you're walking by the time the ball is released. It's not that difficult. People stay in the crease and take quick singles *all* the time.

[Paxter]

Haha oh well. We couldn’t agree on the term after all.

[ljkeane]

So we're about a week out from the T20 World Cup. These tend to be a bit weird with teams not really playing T20Is consistently between tournaments so it's a little hard to know what sort of state sides are in. I've been watching a little bit of the warm ups going on at the moment.

England played pretty much what you'll expect their side to be today against Australia with maybe Jordan and Livingstone to come back in. England's limited overs depth these days is that they still look to have a decent side even missing a few big players but they don't look quite as intimidating as they have in recent years. Archer's probably the biggest miss for a tournament in Australia.

Australia put out what looks like their reserve bowling lineup today, which didn't quite work out, but you'd think they'll be fine on the bowling front. The batting lineup looks the real question mark. The bookends of Warner opening and Maxwell as the finisher are fine but there seems to be a lot up in the air in between. Finch seems to have lost faith in himself as an opener but they're currently using Green there who isn't in their World Cup squad at the moment? You also can't carry an out of form Finch and Steve Smith in the middle order so they need to make a decision on what they're going to do there.

The Windies look very much a side in transition at the moment so I'm not sure they'll be competitive. Hetmyer missing the tournament because he didn't make his flight doesn't help.

Pakistan's bowling is dangerous but they're very reliant on their openers to get them the runs they need. That could work out if Rizwan and Babar have good tournaments but it does feel like a bit of a high wire act. Pretty standard Pakistan then.

India finally seem to have sorted out their limited overs batting tactics. If Suryakumar Yadav continues his form you'd think they'd be a real danger to chase down any targets. Losing Bumrah feels like a big blow for them though.

[williamjm]

The T20 World Cup starts off with a surprise result as Namibia have a big victory over the in-form Sri Lanka.

Away from T20s England have announced their Test squad for the Pakistan tour and the latest edition of the revolving door for top order batsmen sees Alex Lees dropped with Keaton Jennings and Ben Duckett returning.

Spin bowling depth seems a concern with Leach being joined by two batting all-rounders in the form of Liam Livingstone and Will Jacks. It's a pity that Moeen Ali couldn't be persuaded out of Test retirement.

[ljkeane]

7 minutes ago, williamjm said:

The T20 World Cup starts off with a surprise result as Namibia have a big victory over the in-form Sri Lanka.

Yeah, I just saw that. I suppose Sri Lanka don't tend to have a side well suited to Australian conditions but that's still a big surprise on the back of their Asia Cup win.

8 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Away from T20s England have announced their Test squad for the Pakistan tour and the latest edition of the revolving door for top order batsmen sees Alex Lees dropped with Keaton Jennings and Ben Duckett returning.

Spin bowling depth seems a concern with Leach being joined by two batting all-rounders in the form of Liam Livingstone and Will Jacks. It's a pity that Moeen Ali couldn't be persuaded out of Test retirement.

Keaton Jennings is usually a pretty good shout for opening in Asian conditions and he's apparently had a good season this year. Duckett is maybe a bit more of a gamble but he's just had a good T20 series in Pakistan, not exactly a guarantee of test success but I suppose it's more suited to the Stokes/McCullum game plan.

Spin bowling is definitely concern but what else is new?

[ljkeane]

And now the Windies have lost to Scotland. This first group stage is turning out to be far more interesting than anticipated.

[williamjm]

9 hours ago, ljkeane said:

And now the Windies have lost to Scotland. This first group stage is turning out to be far more interesting than anticipated.

Apparently it was exactly one year since they beat Bangladesh in last year's tournament, although this one sounds like a more comprehensive victory. Due to the time it was one I haven't seen any of it but it sounds like the Scottish spinners were very difficult to score off - I remember lots of batsmen really struggling to do anything off Mark Watt's bowling in the last tournament.

The Windies can still make it through to the main part of the tournament but Ireland and Zimbabwe are unlikely to be pushovers on the way. Sri Lanka probably have a slightly easier path but still no room for any more slip ups.

[Paxter]

Have to say I am highly uninterested in this tournament.

I am usually a part-time fan of T20 cricket (enjoy both the IPL and the BBL), but the international matches that come out of nowhere once every so often just don't get me excited. It feels like much less is on the line than even the domestic tournaments. And doing two World T20s in consecutive years is bleh. 

[Paxter]

Windies out of the comp already, finishing bottom of their qualifying group.

T20 is always a bit of a lottery, but this is a terrible outcome even by WI standards.

[TheLastWolf]

I don't fucking believe 2 time champions fall so low