Cricket XVIII -- Ashes and other psychological horrors

[Alex.]

Sorry to come back to this, but Ollie Holt has spectacularly missed the point regarding Broad not walking again this morning, comparing it to Lance Armstrong doping and Maradona's 'Hand of God':

Cricket is a marvellous, compelling, thrilling game, but as England and Australia prepare for the start of the second Test tomorrow, this idea that anything goes unless the umpire sees it casts a shadow.

It is exactly the same creed that led the world’s most famous sporting cheat, Lance Armstrong, to dope: “Everyone else is doing it, so I will, too. I have to, in fact, or else I’ll be at a competitive disadvantage.”

I wonder if people like Steve James found the criticism of Tyson Gay for getting caught taking drugs this week ­sanctimonious, too

Maybe his alice band is cutting off blood to his brain? But seriously, those are terrible analogies, right? Broad didn't premeditate any form of cheating that day, the Umpire cocked it up big style. Surely it's more comparable to if the ball goes over the line in football, the ref doesn't spot it and players don't mention it?

EDIT: OH DEAR, Ollie Holt you tit. Here's an article from January this year which . An excerpt:

For quite some time, I believed that a batsman should always walk if he knew he was out.

It was the purist in me, I suppose, but the purist has receded recently and the pragmatist has taken over. I tend to agree with former England skipper Michael Atherton about it now.

When he gloved a catch to the wicketkeeper during his famous duel with Allan Donald at Trent Bridge in 1998, he refused to walk.

His rationale was that he abided by the umpire’s decision if he was given out when he shouldn’t have been.

He took the rough with the smooth. And he wasn’t out until the umpire gave him out.

That’s why I wasn’t even tempted to join in the condemnation of Liverpool’s Luis Suarez after his controversial goal against Mansfield Town on Sunday.

Sure, he handled the ball. And whether it was hand to ball or ball to hand, the goal should have been disallowed.

But it’s not up to Suarez to make that call. It’s not up to him to beg referee Andre Marriner to rule the goal out.

Quality, quality journalist right there. Take off the alice band, Ollie!

[Hereward]

Gods, I am so fucked for August. I had to look at a field map to figure out where a couple of those positions were. :crying:

I'll be there to help!* :grouphug:

*At least until the beer consumption reaches critical mass.

[ljkeane]

Are you going as well? Bloody hell, everyone's got Ashes tickets but me! BillyJ's even got 2, how's that fair? I demand some sort of inquiry into how tickets were allocated!

[Xray the Enforcer]

I'll be there to help!* :grouphug:

*At least until the beer consumption reaches critical mass.

:cheers:

ljkeane -- I think Hereward traded his firstborn male heir for tickets.

[Xray the Enforcer]

OK, I apologize for dredging this up, but can anyone quickly explain to me what the controversy is over Broad walking or not walking?

Is it that Broad was clearly out, but the umpire missed the call, and that some people argue that Broad should have left the crease for the locker room anyway because he (and everyone else on the ground except the umpire) knew the truth of it? Basically, that some argue he should have excused himself because that's what is considered "fair" or "sportsman-like?" (And, obviously the counterpoint to this being "he's not out until the umpire says so.")

[Jeor]

Is it that Broad was clearly out, but the umpire missed the call, and that some people argue that Broad should have left the crease for the locker room anyway because he (and everyone else on the ground except the umpire) knew the truth of it? Basically, that some argue he should have excused himself because that's what is considered "fair" or "sportsman-like?" (And, obviously the counterpoint to this being "he's not out until the umpire says so.")

Pretty much right on, Xray. :)

I don't think he was under any obligation to walk; certainly there aren't many batsmen who do, and even less who would do so in such a crucial moment in a Test match. That's not in any way saying that Broad behaved honourably or in the 'right way' (it wasn't honourable, but judged under those conditions, few cricketers are), but he behaved in the commonly accepted way.

[Hereward]

Are you going as well? Bloody hell, everyone's got Ashes tickets but me! BillyJ's even got 2, how's that fair? I demand some sort of inquiry into how tickets were allocated!

There are those who are willing to break the laws of nature and men with the ticketing committee of the MCC, and there are those who are not.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Pretty much right on, Xray. :)

Excellent, thank you. :)

[Zoë Sumra]

Are you going as well? Bloody hell, everyone's got Ashes tickets but me! BillyJ's even got 2, how's that fair? I demand some sort of inquiry into how tickets were allocated!

I'm going to Saturday at Lords...

I just hope the rest of the series is dominated more by cricket than by technology/umpiring/what-have-you. Tight matches are great, and I don't see this continuing other than as a tight series, given the frailties already evident on both sides.

[williamjm]

OK, I apologize for dredging this up, but can anyone quickly explain to me what the controversy is over Broad walking or not walking?

Is it that Broad was clearly out, but the umpire missed the call, and that some people argue that Broad should have left the crease for the locker room anyway because he (and everyone else on the ground except the umpire) knew the truth of it? Basically, that some argue he should have excused himself because that's what is considered "fair" or "sportsman-like?" (And, obviously the counterpoint to this being "he's not out until the umpire says so.")

Cricket has always prided itself on its reputation for fair play, particularly going back its origins in the Victorian era where there was an elaborate etiquette to playing the game. Many of those ideas about how the game should be played have now fallen away (historically there was a big distinction between amateur 'Gentlemen' and professional 'Players', with the latter looked down on by the amateurs) but some do persist such as the idea that batsmen should walk if they know they've edge the ball and it's been caught. Virtually no professional player will do that nowadays, which makes it a bit ridiculous that there are so many complaints about Broad doing what all the other players in the game would have done, but some people still cling to the old notions of fair play.

I'm going to Saturday at Lords...

It's a pity we're going on different days, I think I was only offered a Sunday ticket since I'd probably have preferred Saturday because it was earlier in the match.

[Stubby]

Khawaja and Harris replace Cowan and Starc.

Extract from the story:

Australian selectors have made two changes for the second Test at Lord's, dropping batsman Ed Cowan and pace bowler Mitchell Starc, according to media reports.

The official team lineup is yet to be announced, but reports suggest Usman Khawaja will come in at number three while Ryan Harris will replace Starc in the bowling attack.

This could be the death knell for Cowan's career. Hopefully Khawaja gets a bit of a run, and that he is not criticisied for slow scoring. He is there at no 3 and we are crying out for a traditional no 3. Harris for Starc is a surprise. I thought Starc bowled well in Nottingham and I reckon he can consider himself unlucky.

[Paxter]

Go Khawaja!!

I agree that Starc is very unlucky but Harris is an excellent bowler. There's so much depth in Australian fast bowling ATM.

[Jeor]

Well, they couldn't drop Siddle after his performance so it was going to be Starc or Pattinson to go if they wanted to put Harris in. Quite frankly I think the bowling in the First Test was alright and didn't really need a change, but Harris's record is superb. If anything I would've thought they'd drop another right-armer like Pattinson so that they could keep Starc's variety.

A pity for Cowan to go - I think it was mainly nerves. He was nowhere near the traditional stodgy batsman he showed he could be in India. And like I said in the previous thread, there is a need for some stodgy batting in this lineup. Hopefully Khawaja can fill the breach.

Traditionally Lords is a happy place for Australian touring teams, but I think in the First Test we missed our big chance to get a surprise victory, and England won't be caught out again.

[arya_underfoot]

I'm glad Harris is playing, I thought he should've played at Nottingham. I don't think he'll be fit enough to play in all the matches, but his style should be extremely well suited to the conditions in England. Agreed that Starc is unlucky but he'll play a few more Ashes tests in the coming months for sure.

Cowan is unlucky, but his axing is self-inflicted. He undid all the good work in India with a couple of uncharacteristic slashes in the first test. Unlike Starc, he may not get another chance if Khwaja manages to take his opportunity.

I really hope this test lasts the distance- I'm going to miss most of days 1 and 2 due to night shifts, dammit....

[The Winged Shadow]

Watto strikes, Cook down. I really want to hate Watson, but he makes it difficult sometimes.

edit: Root down as well.

edit2: Peterson down.

Holy Shit, what is happening?

[Paxter]

England looking shaky here...I really don't like Root opening the batting. Compton where are you!?

ETA: Massive pressure on KP now...this will be great viewing.

[Jeor]

Hah, wasn't long before we got another tight DRS.

In this case I think upholding the onfield out decision was the right one, as the evidence only conclusively showed that ball hit bat and pad simultaneously, so not much controversy.

[Maltaran]

Well, it wouldn't be an Ashes series without at least one England collapse.

[Horza]

CARNAGE

[Paxter]

KP gone! England going to get rolled for under 100 batting first at Lord's!?!