Terrific partnership. Really good batting & some super shots.
Don’t see us chasing this down.
Don’t see us chasing this down.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Harry Brook is superb. Should score a lot of runs across all formats in his career
It's an easier pitch than yesterday by the looks of it though.
What is the point of having a pitch like this? It is not really exciting to watch every other ball be a boundary. What is the point of being a bowler in T20?
Looks it but I don’t trust the Pakistani middle order. If England get the openers early, we are likely to crumble.
Babar's a big wicket after yesterday.
Add Rizwan to that.
Add Rizwan to that.
That’s probably the game right there.
Was topley injured prior to this? He was fantastic in the summer and done the business here too.
I think they've 5 or 6 test in a week. They need to change up the seamers.
Wood bowling 97 mph 
Some serious pace by Wood.
That ball was a sit up and beg to be hit.
Next ball
Pakistan getting back into this. The difference between Wood/Topley and the rest of the bowlers have been marked.
They need over 20 an over to win
They do now but at the time they had taken it down from over 15 an over to 14.
Too easy in the end.
Nasser Hussain looks so fecked.
No idea why Dawson bowled only one over as he was the best bowler for England in the last match.
A Mankad
I’ve no issue with Mankad’s when a batter is legitimately stealing ground, but that one is an absolute joke. She had no intention of bowling the ball.
Exactly. If it were deserved fair enough. What a shit way to treat the crowd too. That was so poor.
The batter was literally in the crease as the bowler is in motion. That’s horrible from the bowler.
Had a look on Twitter and loads of Indians are comparing it to Stokes in the World Cup final. Strange bunch of fans.
Had a look on Twitter and loads of Indians are comparing it to Stokes in the World Cup final. Strange bunch of fans.
If 'mankadding' is a legitimate, fair dismissal, why does it only get wheeled out when a team is up against it in a 'chips are down' situation and need to engineer a wicket from nothing?
In this case, their bowler is in their delivery stride and the batswoman's forward momentum/overbalancing is the only thing carrying her beyond the popping crease. She is not trying to buy a run at all. It's so obvious.
Why should a batter have to stand effectively statuesque a yard behind a popping crease just to monitor whether this bowler (someone who is there to bowl) is going to actually bowl. The fielders can walk in on the assumption there's going to be a ball bowled without being penalized.
It's cheating.
In this case, their bowler is in their delivery stride and the batswoman's forward momentum/overbalancing is the only thing carrying her beyond the popping crease. She is not trying to buy a run at all. It's so obvious.
Why should a batter have to stand effectively statuesque a yard behind a popping crease just to monitor whether this bowler (someone who is there to bowl) is going to actually bowl. The fielders can walk in on the assumption there's going to be a ball bowled without being penalized.
It's cheating.
Last edited:
It is in the rules. Up to MCC/ICC to change it if they want to. Per current rules, Batters at bowlers end should ensure that ball is out of bowlers' hands before taking off.
As always its rules Vs spirit of cricket
Rules are wrong as were the players actions - tediously dull way to win a game of Cricket. Guarantee you the Indian ladies are sat there tonight wishing they had not won it in that manner.
Oh absolutely. For me the cut off should be the delivery stride rather than out of the hand, otherwise it encourages egregious cases like this where the bowler clearly never intended to actually bowl the ball.
If Dean was out of her crease a step or two earlier in Sharma’s run up I’d have had absolutely no issue, it would have been deserved. Sharma essentially pulling out of her run up well after she’s passed the stumps, hell Dean is still within the crease when Sharma steps on the line. It really doesn’t sit well with me, personally, although as mentioned that’s a failure of the law itself.
Yea, she was looking at the non-striker rather than the batsman when delivering. Makes it really look like a d*ck move.
That being said, the rule is stricter now so non-strikers need to understand and adjust how they backup when the ball is being bowled, sort of similar to how goalkeepers have to stay on their line for penalties now. Would be interesting to see other teams try this as a desperation move and what the reaction is.
Situations like that should be a dead ball... She's like an inch (if that) out of her ground, in the bowlers' delivery stride. Not on.
Fair enough if she was charging down the wicket but she quite clearly wasn't trying to pinch a run.
Fair enough if she was charging down the wicket but she quite clearly wasn't trying to pinch a run.
should be banned against england as we always play within the laws and spirit of the game. should be allowed against the teams that like to cheat and that, like india and australia.
It was a completely legitimate dismissal but it did leave a sour taste in the mouth. Just have to accept it and batters have to wait until the ball is released from now on.
A legitimate dismissal (as in the 'Mankad'), but surely it can't be allowed that you dummy bowling the ball. Dean was still in her crease, as Deepti was in her bowling action.
She had no intention of letting the ball go, only looking at Dean...
Well, you describe "spirit of cricket" as fair play outside of the rules, so it seems pretty analogous to this that terrible rule which had runs counted after the ball ricocheted off Stokes' bat, which had absolutely nothing to do with cricketing skill, it was purely dumb luck and had a huge influence on the game. I don't know what the corrective action is(I don't know enough about the rules of the game) but that is a pretty damn good analogy.
On the other hand, we have someone trying to steal a single and you're using "spirit of the game" to defend that. It's a bit like a burglar blaming the watchman. Maybe don't be a thief next time?
There's this incredible amount of dissonance as well with noted cheats like Stuart Broad who nick it to first slip and then moralise about spirit of the game. Here's Stuart Broad's bizarre justification:
All of this is simply "My morality is better than your morality" and you don't even have the rulebook to back it up.
No one wants to win a game of cricket by running out the non striker -- but it is the non striker who should be blamed for it.
Last edited:
The fielders can walk in because the fielder can stand anywhere and there are no points for standing in different places. The batsman cannot walk in because there has to be 22 yards crossed to take a run.
I haven't watched the game at all and I might be completely off here but do you think it's possible that Dean had done it earlier and the bowler was expecting her to do it again? No reason otherwise to keep an eye on the non striker.
As far as the dismissal goes, it's well within the rules so for me it's out. People only bring in spirit of the game when the decision goes against them.
What a cnut.