• 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.

3rd Test (Lord’s) - 10 July to 14 July

Molehill

Molehill

International Coach
TheJediBrah said:
They absolutely do not

Bumrah would take 8/12 every dig against these hapless English "batsmen" on a proper greentop
Click to expand...
As would Woakes against the Indians. These pitches completely negate his skills, whereas Bumrah is still good enough to create carnage (as he does everywhere).
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Spark said:
The way Hawkeye does it is correct under the current interpretation of the rules I believe. The umpires are told to not assume any lateral movement after impact.
Click to expand...
You're meant to assume the ball follows the same path after impact. So you don't factor in for spin/seam movement if a batter is hit by a full toss. Iff the ball is already swinging before impact, you assume it will continue to swing the same way after impact.

Prince EWS said:
Needs to be brought back IMO. I don't think sub fielders should even be allowed in close catching positions (slips, gully, bat pad).
Click to expand...
It's either extreme for me. If you're allowed a sub fielder that can field in critical positions, then you should be allowed a wicketkeeper as well. If you can't have a sub wicketkeeper, then you can't have a sub fielder either. Make do with one less person in the field.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
India still moderate favourites from here.

Could have been out of sight though. What was Jaiswal thinking?

If he had Zak Crawley's game sense and nobility England would have only managed to fit in two overs before stumps yesterday.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Red_Ink_Squid said:
India still moderate favourites from here.

Could have been out of sight though. What was Jaiswal thinking?

If he had Zak Crawley's game sense and nobility England would have only managed to fit in two overs before stumps yesterday.
Click to expand...
Yup, need a few strikes early, even with all the Indian fans Gambhiring I don't think England are actually in the game unless a few strikes early
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
cnerd123 said:
You're meant to assume the ball follows the same path after impact. So you don't factor in for spin/seam movement if a batter is hit by a full toss. Iff the ball is already swinging before impact, you assume it will continue to swing the same way after impact.


It's either extreme for me. If you're allowed a sub fielder that can field in critical positions, then you should be allowed a wicketkeeper as well. If you can't have a sub wicketkeeper, then you can't have a sub fielder either. Make do with one less person in the field.
Click to expand...
Once again I have to ask what actual problem this is trying to solve compared to the old rule where keepers are treated as specialist positions and therefore not substitutable directly but fielders are fine?

And like, have you seriously thought that last bit through? The words "game ruining" wrt red cards in football come to mind.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Spark said:
I mean if the yardstick is the ability to score disgusting amounts of runs on flat decks then they proved they can still do that just fine in SL
Click to expand...
If we are discrediting England's runs at home (all the games still give a result, too), I guess you don't rate any of Cummins's and Rabada's wickets in Australia and South Africa as they do it on very bowler friendly wickets?
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Spark said:
Once again I have to ask what actual problem this is trying to solve compared to the old rule where keepers are treated as specialist positions and therefore not substitutable directly but fielders are fine?

And like, have you seriously thought that last bit through? The words "game ruining" wrt red cards in football come to mind.
Click to expand...
well yeah, it's also game ruining if a team doesn't have a second wicketkeeper in their playing XI.
 
Molehill

Molehill

International Coach
Spark said:
I mean if the yardstick is the ability to score disgusting amounts of runs on flat decks then they proved they can still do that just fine in SL
Click to expand...
The difference between them is that England (for all their issues) actually have a settled Top 7, and there's an obvious next cab off the rank too (apart from replacing Crawley). The Aussie Top 7 just looks a mess, an opener on the verge of retirement, one brought in far too soon, a number 3 out of position, 4 past his peak, 5 out of form, 6 just not Test quality, 7 in for his glovework.......
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Johan said:
If we are discrediting England's runs at home (all the games still give a result, too), I guess you don't rate any of Cummins's and Rabada's wickets in Australia and South Africa as they do it on very bowler friendly wickets?
Click to expand...
I would if they'd not really shown over significant portions of their career that they can do it on flat decks too. The spicy greentop era of Australian pitches has been like fifteen tests, for most of Cummins' career Aus pitches were still mostly absolute roads (less true of Rabada, tbf).
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
cnerd123 said:
well yeah, it's also game ruining if a team doesn't have a second wicketkeeper in their playing XI.
Click to expand...
Not to the same extent as having one less fielder on the ground. This is an extreme thought bubble even by thought bubble standards, it'd render the entire contest a farce. Who would pay money to watch that?
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Molehill said:
The difference between them is that England (for all their issues) actually have a settled Top 7, and there's an obvious next cab off the rank too (apart from replacing Crawley). The Aussie Top 7 just looks a mess, an opener on the verge of retirement, one brought in far too soon, a number 3 out of position, 4 past his peak, 5 out of form, 6 just not Test quality, 7 in for his glovework.......
Click to expand...
You really haven't been paying attention to that series if you think Head is out of form. Regardless I'm not even calling England bad on spicy pitches, just completely unproven - the decks in NZ weren't that helpful and we saw what happened in Pakistan after their admittedly unconventional methods there. We simply have no idea how they'll go if the pitches suddenly become traditional English greentops again because they've not played on any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top