- My dear old things, it's STW TMS!
Posted 1 week ago
I would not get too carried away.
no, you can use a substitute fielder(s) to replace a fielder at any time; in theory it’s at the umpire and opposing captain’s discretion but spirit of cricket says that it’s rarely refused. There’s supposed to be a reason, eg: injury, illness, or going off for a wee. That’s where it gets a bit tricky, certainly in the modern era players have gone off for a massage after a bowling spell, or to change out of bowling boots into more comfortable shoes and in general it’s also accepted.
The fielder is not supposed to be a specialist (particularly a wicketkeeper isn’t allowed unless specifically agreed) but it’s not unheard of for the sub to be a very lively 20 year old replacing a knackered old bowler! Google Gary Pratt for what happens there……
and the sub can’t bowl, or if the injured player is prolonged injured, can’t bat either when their turn comes. The relatively recent exception is a head injury / concussion replacement; new laws allow a like for like replacement if a player is removed from the game as a result of a head injury, so that the right decisions are made for concussions. What does like for like mean – eg: a batter can’t be replaced by a specialist bowler – but I don’t think they force a left hander for left hander, for example. Just our luck that when Smith got pipped by Archer, Australia’s like for like seems to be almost as good, when he previously wasn’t even in the team!!Posted 1 week ago
You might consider using a nightwatchmen as opener if there is literally only 1 or 2 overs to go and the loss of a wicket would then end the day’s play, but with a few overs to go and a fair chance of losing a NW and then having to send an opener in anyway isn’t generally worth it.
Also as an opener there’s a pride in doing a duty that most others don’t want to do. To send in a sacrificial NW instead of facing up to their responsibility – just wouldn’t really be the done thing.Posted 1 week agolungeSubscriber
Another stickball question from me to thatothervonj: I’ve just watched Overton getting out. What’s he trying to do when he edges that to whoever was at mid-silly-leg-side-slip-on-loafers and what’s he done wrong/the bowler done right?
He’s trying to play a defensive shot and the ball has bounced a little high off the pitch and/or has moved away from the batsman a touch.Posted 1 week ago
What the bowler has done right is put the ball at a line and length where the batsman has to play the ball and has perhaps generated a bit of movement off the pitch from where he’s landed the ball (either by landing it on the seam or just by hitting the right spot on the pitch). It also looks like it arrived a bit sooner than Overton expect which means the bowler has put a bit of extra effort in.
A better batsman may have left the ball alone as it looked a bit high and a bit wide, they may also have kept the bat closer to the body which makes it easier to judge the line of the ball and get the bat on it. A good batsman would have judged the speed better too.
What’s he trying to do when he edges that to whoever was at mid-silly-leg-side-slip-on-loafers and what’s he done wrong/the bowler done right?
In all honesty, not an awful lot wrong. It’s a good length ball (one that is too short to reach out to and smother, but too long to step back to and wait for) and was threatening to hit the top of off stump which is commonly recognised as the ideal line. Overton’s doing the right thing to use a dead bat to block it.
Then as noted above, the ball has deviated slightly and as a result instead of hitting the middle, has hit the edge. Perhaps also bounced a bit more than expected which just happens sometimes, can happen when the pitch becomes worn and uneven, or may as above indicate a little more effort (side note, they say effort but if that comes from the shoulder and arm then usually batsmen can spot it, almost subconsciously) It’s when the bowler gives a bit more wrist that the action looks the same but it catches people out – Archer does this well which is why he regularly hits people.
Do differently? If you watch it through he just pushes his hands and bat towards the ball rather than wait for it, some batters have ‘soft’ hands so even if it finds the edge the ball doesn’t carry as well. Have better hand eye coordination to have a better chance of it still finding the middle? Or even be worse / luckier and miss it completely. I don’t think he could reasonably have left it alone, in hindsight the bounce and movement means it wouldn’t have hit the stumps but you can’t play for that, or if you do then pretty soon you’ll be out bowled or LBW not playing a shot and look a bigger chump.
Definitely a wicket to the bowler in this case rather than a negative against the batter for me.Posted 1 week agodannyhMember
When I look at Overton bowling I just think of Tim Munton, Alan Igglesden and Jimmy Ormond. Good, honest, county trundlers – but who are simply not good enough for Test cricket on a regular basis.
Root said Overton was in as a tall bowler to ‘hit the wicket hard’. From what I’ve seen he’s just bowled loopy outswingers and anything back of a length has just sat up and begged to be hit.Posted 1 week ago
not a match….just one of those sessions would do.
When I played and was in form, I could never stop myself from thinking that it wouldn’t go on for ever, and the longer it did, then the closer the end of it must be.
Smith’ll get another 50 just to prove me wrong thoughPosted 1 week ago
we should just give Smith 150 runs each innings in lieu of him actually batting
Give him a single as soon as he’s on strike and bowl at the other end.
I’m half serious……if he scored a run an over across say an average 100 over innings, would we wrap the other end up faster than when we bowl half the balls at him?Posted 1 week ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.