Five things I don't get about cricket

[harsh.ag]

Because it's unfair to punish someone for failing to prevent the unforseeable. You can predict where intentional shots will go; you can't set fields for accidental deflections.

Since when do we reward mere endeavour and aspiration? That's primary-schoolish.

Hey I was just trying to provide decent reasons. That you don't like them is a different kettle of fish and not something I am unsympathetic to

 

[neville cardus]

Oh, I hope I didn't sound grumpy or hostile... :-(

 

[harsh.ag]

Oh, I hope I didn't sound grumpy or hostile... :-(

Nah, you didn't.

Just that there is a difference between not getting something and genuine disagreement.

 

[Daemon]

In school cricket (private school) many pitches came with the stump-lines sort of "dug in" at the crease so you could tell where the stumps were. I figure that was just because they had like 5 groundsmen at a time being paid way too much who were just bored ****less with nothing else to do.

Not that it stopped every 15 year old who thinks they're the next Ricky Ponting from taking 4 minutes taking centre, leg, centre-leg and centre-off all at the same time because they think it makes them look more like a pro batsman, mind you

Yep. We use chalk on our astro pitches and it's annoying as **** when a new batsman walks to the crease, takes guard on the same spot where the line was clearly drawn already. Occasionally you get idiots trying to pat down the pitch on astro as well.

 

[honestbharani]

I only ever take leg stump guard but then I used to annoy the fielding side, marking all 3 stumps lines just where I stand without even checking with the umpire. For some reason, it made them a bit antsy. Usually got a full toss with the bowler trying to bowl as fast as he can at me.

 

[indiaholic]

Generally agree but legbyes can help to partially mitigate the impact of spin bowlers bowling into the rough outside leg stump. That can make for boring cricket.

 

[harsh.ag]

Generally agree but legbyes can help to partially mitigate the impact of spin bowlers bowling into the rough outside leg stump. That can make for boring cricket.

Most of those are deliberately padded though. Don't get runs for those.

 

[indiaholic]

True.. But a few hit the thigh pad when the batsman is trying to flick it and they go for a boundary. Lol has to be a terrible law if this is the only time it is useful.

 

[Burgey]

I only ever take leg stump guard but then I used to annoy the fielding side, marking all 3 stumps lines just where I stand without even checking with the umpire. For some reason, it made them a bit antsy. Usually got a full toss with the bowler trying to bowl as fast as he can at me.

Was he a vegetarian?

 

[Julian87]

Running between the wickets. How come is this never practised or coached? It's one of the most important elements of the game, and yet I've never seen or heard of its being rehearsed.
.

What part of the world is this not coached or practised in?

 

[neville cardus]

What part of the world is this not coached or practised in?

South Africa. And, according to Haigh and Kimber, Australia.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Well tbf most leg-byes come from bad bowling down the leg-side.

Not true. A lot of them are LBW shouts too

 

[Black_Warrior]

South Africa. And, according to Haigh and Kimber, Australia.

That's strange. First I've heard of it. Pretty sure Pakistan practise it..not that it helps with their running between the wickets

 

[Dan]

Yea nc is making a good point here. Legbyes suck. You **** up your shot and still get a run? That's not fair.

Should we ban fours that result from edges through the slips then? Miscues that fly for six? Anything that isn't a perfectly timed cover drive?

 

[Dan]

I mean, look at it this way: everything in cricket has a plus and a minus. If you hit it, you can make runs or be caught. If you miss it, you can get byes or be bowled. If you run, you can get runs or be run out. So if you say no leg byes, then you clearly have to ban LBWs to even it out.

And to break it down further, cricket is about two things: a) the bowler getting the batsman out, and b) the batsman not getting out. Runs are a byproduct of that survival. The bat isn't really for scoring runs, it's for defending your wicket. There's no logical reason to privilege runs off the bat over runs off the body; if you're being hit on the body and aren't out LBW while legitimately trying to defend your wicket, you're surviving, and thus leg byes are a byproduct of that survival.

 

[Daemon]

Should we ban fours that result from edges through the slips then? Miscues that fly for six? Anything that isn't a perfectly timed cover drive?

No, because that would introduce grey areas. This is clear cut and it does not make sense.

 

[Daemon]

I mean, look at it this way: everything in cricket has a plus and a minus. If you hit it, you can make runs or be caught. If you miss it, you can get byes or be bowled. If you run, you can get runs or be run out. So if you say no leg byes, then you clearly have to ban LBWs to even it out.

And to break it down further, cricket is about two things: a) the bowler getting the batsman out, and b) the batsman not getting out. Runs are a byproduct of that survival. The bat isn't really for scoring runs, it's for defending your wicket. There's no logical reason to privilege runs off the bat over runs off the body; if you're being hit on the body and aren't out LBW while legitimately trying to defend your wicket, you're surviving, and thus leg byes are a byproduct of that survival.

This is all wrong. Can it.

 

[cnerd123]

Should we ban fours that result from edges through the slips then? Miscues that fly for six? Anything that isn't a perfectly timed cover drive?

Dont be silly. Those all came off the bat. Runs that occur because of the ball ricocheting off the equipment thats meant to protect you shouldn't count. Its called 'batting' not 'thigh padding'

 

[Black_Warrior]

I mean, look at it this way: everything in cricket has a plus and a minus. If you hit it, you can make runs or be caught. If you miss it, you can get byes or be bowled. If you run, you can get runs or be run out. So if you say no leg byes, then you clearly have to ban LBWs to even it out.

And to break it down further, cricket is about two things: a) the bowler getting the batsman out, and b) the batsman not getting out. Runs are a byproduct of that survival. The bat isn't really for scoring runs, it's for defending your wicket. There's no logical reason to privilege runs off the bat over runs off the body; if you're being hit on the body and aren't out LBW while legitimately trying to defend your wicket, you're surviving, and thus leg byes are a byproduct of that survival.

Not sure I follow this line of thinking. I get what you'r saying over all, but pretty sure the bat is for scoring runs. You can defend your wicket with the body as well and you get out if it falls under certain parameters.

Regarding Legbyes, yes I agree with you that runs shouldn't just be about perfectly timed drives. That being said there is a difference between an outside edge and completely failing to connect with the ball and getting hit on the pads.

I can see both sides of the argument. Not sure how we can tweak this..perhaps take out leg byes in Test cricket and only have them in ODIs?

 

[Dan]

No, because that would introduce grey areas. This is clear cut and it does not make sense.

Does an edge onto the thigh pad that ricochets in a random direction count? Pad onto bat? What about those grey areas of 'was it thigh pad or was it bat'? Imagine an umpire getting that wrong in a World Cup final.

And yes, of course banning edges through the slips makes no sense. Much like banning leg byes.