• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket without stumps

Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Fiery said:
:laugh: Nice

On a more serious note, this being a serious discussion...you would lose 6 methods of dismissal, leaving just 4
Click to expand...

It would actually be 5/5. It would certainly suit Chris Tavare as there would never be any need for the batsman to hit the ball.

Bowled - No
Caught - Yes
LBW - No
Stumped - No
Timed Out - Yes
Obstructing the Field - Yes
Run Out - No
Handled the Ball - Yes
Hit Wicket - No
Hit the Ball Twice - Yes
 
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Lillian Thomson said:
It would actually be 5/5. It would certainly suit Chris Tavare as there would never be any need for the batsman to hit the ball.

Bowled - No
Caught - Yes
LBW - No
Stumped - No
Timed Out - Yes
Obstructing the Field - Yes
Run Out - No
Handled the Ball - Yes
Hit Wicket - No
Hit the Ball Twice - Yes
Click to expand...
I didn't count Obstructing the field. I was thinking that if you had no stumps you couldn't be run out so would bother but I suppose you could obstruct a catch so yeah, I guess you're right
 
Smudge

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
It's a deadset hoot. I'm struggling to type with the tears of laughter flowing down my face.

Perhaps it's all a bit too cerebral for "u", Stumped?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top