Group C - Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by scorpiogal

I am a Trini first, actually, and always back the Trini boys before any other. We back our boys as much as the Jamaicans back theirs.

Yeah, I gathered that from your posts....

I suppose you're the type of poster who will cheer for the opposition, if a certain Trini player is not picked.

That's something I would never do. In fact, if I see a better player from another island/territory, I would fully endorse that player's selection over any player I feel a closer affinity to. You see, to me the West Indies team is more important than how many selections each country gets to that team....

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

The selectors have a tendency to give too much attention to ODI performances when picking the test side, but i think on this forum some people (Richard) go too far the other way. If you're smashing world-class attacks all over the pitch in ODIs it's pretty unusual that you'll not be up to scratch in tests.

Ha ha, yeah Richard pulled me into line for suggesting Hodge was dropped from the test team for poor ODI performances. I must agree, good form in tests, i.e. Clarke, shouldn't be influenced by some poor form in the shorter version.

[TT Boy]

MCC - Mathews' fielding effort legal

"Such "brilliant and quick-thinking" acts, it said, are good for the game and should not be deemed illegal.

The MCC Laws sub-committee had recently discussed fielding such as this and felt that such brilliant and quick-thinking acts should not be outlawed," Stephenson said. "MCC is happy with the Law as it is written and occurrences such as the one yesterday, while extremely rare, are good for the game of cricket as a whole. It is also pleasing that two of the committee's members were involved in making the correct decision on the field of play.

Law 19.3 (a) (ii) states: A boundary shall be scored and signalled by the umpire at the bowler's end whenever, while the ball is in play, in his opinion - a fielder, with some part of his person in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary."

Good.

[Smith]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

MCC - Mathews' fielding effort legal

"Such "brilliant and quick-thinking" acts, it said, are good for the game and should not be deemed illegal.

The MCC Laws sub-committee had recently discussed fielding such as this and felt that such brilliant and quick-thinking acts should not be outlawed," Stephenson said. "MCC is happy with the Law as it is written and occurrences such as the one yesterday, while extremely rare, are good for the game of cricket as a whole. It is also pleasing that two of the committee's members were involved in making the correct decision on the field of play.

Law 19.3 (a) (ii) states: A boundary shall be scored and signalled by the umpire at the bowler's end whenever, while the ball is in play, in his opinion - a fielder, with some part of his person in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary."

Good.

Excellent. The commitment behind that effort, and the fact that the chance of such a thing occuring is one in a thousand matches, should go in favor of the fieldsman.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

MCC - Mathews' fielding effort legal

"Such "brilliant and quick-thinking" acts, it said, are good for the game and should not be deemed illegal.

The MCC Laws sub-committee had recently discussed fielding such as this and felt that such brilliant and quick-thinking acts should not be outlawed," Stephenson said. "MCC is happy with the Law as it is written and occurrences such as the one yesterday, while extremely rare, are good for the game of cricket as a whole. It is also pleasing that two of the committee's members were involved in making the correct decision on the field of play.

Law 19.3 (a) (ii) states: A boundary shall be scored and signalled by the umpire at the bowler's end whenever, while the ball is in play, in his opinion - a fielder, with some part of his person in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary."

Good.

Just saw the video, amazing.

[ret]

The fielding effort by Matthews was great but I don't fancy that rule

Imagine a situation like this:

One fielder goes over the ropes when the ball looks like it's going to sail over the ropes, a second fielder stays inside the ropes and when the ball sails over the ropes, the fielder who has crossed the ropes jumps and throws the ball to the guy inside the ropes, so instead of a '6', it's a wicket!!

I know something like that^ is rarely going to happen but I guess that would be out too!

[Athlai]

It would be amazing and a deserved wicket IMO.

[vic_orthdox]

Personally, don't really like it. Always thought that the rule was a la basketball, your last contact with the ground had to be from inside the rope. You're technically out of play if you're outside of the rope, hence why you can't start outside there before the ball is bowled.

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by scorpiogal

Stupid Gayle. Feigning injury. Ooooh I got knock on the knee....waaah. Typical attitude. "I just made alotta runs, hit alotta sixes against Australia and I need a rest and should get one coz I'm Henry Gayle. Definately"

Now do you see why it was a good idea to rest Gayle?

By resting Gayle, Simmons came into the side, and out-performed Marshall. As a result, when Gayle came back into the team, Marshall was the one to make way, not Simmons. That then led to Simmons having a match-winning performance with the bat and in the field.

Simmons would not be in the side if Gayle had played against the Sri Lankans....

[JimmyGS]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Personally, don't really like it. Always thought that the rule was a la basketball, your last contact with the ground had to be from inside the rope. You're technically out of play if you're outside of the rope, hence why you can't start outside there before the ball is bowled.

Completely agree, and that is the rule as I always interpreted it.

If the rule is the same in club cricket, for example, that's ridiculous. The batsman could hit a six 10 metres over the rope, and only end up with 3 because the boundary fielder simply runs back, jumps and throws it back in.

It's ludicrous and stupid. I'm all for entertaining cricket but this is ridiculous.

[Mahindinho]

Originally Posted by JimmyGS

Completely agree, and that is the rule as I always interpreted it.

If the rule is the same in club cricket, for example, that's ridiculous. The batsman could hit a six 10 metres over the rope, and only end up with 3 because the boundary fielder simply runs back, jumps and throws it back in.

It's ludicrous and stupid. I'm all for entertaining cricket but this is ridiculous.

Simply. Seriously?

For a start, it would take immense athleticism to get to that ball, do the jumping stuff, then get back inside the ropes quickly enough. Even with a second fielder handling the pick-up, it'd not going to be easy.

Secondly, we're also talking seriously good co-ordination here. You've got to leap for the ball, make a clean catch, and throw it instantaneously in the opposite direction to both its initial travel and yours. At speed. Oh, and you're not going to be able to "bat" a cricket ball with your hand more than a metre or two...without breaking some bones, anyway.

[Afridi102o45]

Originally Posted by Mahindinho

Simply. Seriously?

For a start, it would take immense athleticism to get to that ball, do the jumping stuff, then get back inside the ropes quickly enough. Even with a second fielder handling the pick-up, it'd not going to be easy.

Secondly, we're also talking seriously good co-ordination here. You've got to leap for the ball, make a clean catch, and throw it instantaneously in the opposite direction to both its initial travel and yours. At speed. Oh, and you're not going to be able to "bat" a cricket ball with your hand more than a metre or two...without breaking some bones, anyway.

dear, Mahindinho, didnt u see mathews doing such a gr8 athleticism, without being sure dat it would be legal. nd now when it is dawn to be legal, every one would be trying to master dat kind of athleticism,... adding a new fun to da game of cricket.

[Afridi102o45]

Originally Posted by JimmyGS

Completely agree, and that is the rule as I always interpreted it.

If the rule is the same in club cricket, for example, that's ridiculous. The batsman could hit a six 10 metres over the rope, and only end up with 3 because the boundary fielder simply runs back, jumps and throws it back in.

It's ludicrous and stupid. I'm all for entertaining cricket but this is ridiculous.

imagine how amazing it would be 2 see players waiting4 umpires' decision whether there is a wicket or a six hahahaha.... quite a new fun atleast 2 me