Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

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, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

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


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Well, do they?
Of course they do. Only the ignorant would think otherwise 2 14.29%
Absolutely not you nutter 5 35.71%
Has this got its own thread now? 4 28.57%
I don't care. Kill me! 3 21.43%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3rd December 2015, 03:01   #61
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,674
Tempting though it may be to answer certain points with sarcasm or ridicule, at times, I would personally advocate for answering at face value and sticking to the topic of the thread.

I have not seen the sequence of play that was in question, but would suggest that bowler and keeper need to ensure they are on the same wavelength in their approach to a particular batsman, especially at critical points of a one day innings. They should be discussing tactics to use versus the opposition batsmen ahead of time, based on available scouting reports and footage. In real time of the innings, depending on circumstances, there could be valid reasons for changing tactics. Whether this is handled with a word at the start of an over, or a pre-arranged signal would seem immaterial, so long as bowler and keeper are on the same page. Since they are attempting to maximize their effectiveness in combination, surely anything that works, and keeps the batsman guessing what might be coming next, would be valid.

In terms of the subject of this thread, Bairstow vs Billings, the recent series with Pakistan seems to have resolved the selection question to be Bairstow in tests and Billings in limited overs, where he is vying with Buttler for the gloves, but where both could play as exciting late over hitters, regardless of who keeps.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 10:44   #62
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
...I have not seen the sequence of play that was in question, but would suggest that bowler and keeper need to ensure they are on the same wavelength in their approach to a particular batsman, especially at critical points of a one day innings. They should be discussing tactics to use versus the opposition batsmen ahead of time, based on available scouting reports and footage. In real time of the innings, depending on circumstances, there could be valid reasons for changing tactics. Whether this is handled with a word at the start of an over, or a pre-arranged signal would seem immaterial, so long as bowler and keeper are on the same page. Since they are attempting to maximize their effectiveness in combination, surely anything that works, and keeps the batsman guessing what might be coming next, would be valid. ...
Indeed and it is good to see a post from another on this subject not obviously arising out of pique.

Communication between bowler and keeper happens all the time and in many forms, certainly in competitive matches at all levels. To deny it on the grounds that one has never seen it (from afar), especially a signal intended not to be seen, will have provided much hilarity here.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 11:08   #63
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Apologies, I must have stepped out of character for a moment. But to be honest, it's not really a discussion. I think I'll put you back on ignore.
Interesting that the Latin word "ignoramus" (we ignore) has taken on the meaning that it has.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 11:20   #64
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
I have not seen the sequence of play that was in question, but would suggest that bowler and keeper need to ensure they are on the same wavelength in their approach to a particular batsman, especially at critical points of a one day innings. They should be discussing tactics to use versus the opposition batsmen ahead of time, based on available scouting reports and footage. In real time of the innings, depending on circumstances, there could be valid reasons for changing tactics. Whether this is handled with a word at the start of an over, or a pre-arranged signal would seem immaterial, so long as bowler and keeper are on the same page. Since they are attempting to maximize their effectiveness in combination, surely anything that works, and keeps the batsman guessing what might be coming next, would be valid.
Agree entirely. Conversations are common place & anything that can be a potential advantage should be taken.

Again though, at no point while playing did I ever discuss a possible sign from a bowler for a particular delivery. Everything else you state has merit.

Also, if you had seen the particular incident in question you would understand why a sign was impossible.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 11:30   #65
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
...Also, if you had seen the particular incident in question you would understand why a sign was impossible.
OK, so why, at any time between the bowler moving to his mark and delivering the ball, was a signal impossible?

I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to know or is this another question to be ducked?
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 11:44   #66
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
OK, so why, at any time between the bowler moving to his mark and delivering the ball, was a signal impossible?
On the delivery in question what would Ali possibly have been signalling for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to know or is this another question to be ducked?
I didn't duck the last question, you were just lacking the required skills to interpret my answer.

Also, don't mistake yourself for being the majority in this forum. You're anything but.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 12:19   #67
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
On the delivery in question what would Ali possibly have been signalling for?



I didn't duck the last question, you were just lacking the required skills to interpret my answer.

Also, don't mistake yourself for being the majority in this forum. You're anything but.
Look. Moeen saw him coming and winked three times with his right eye and twice with his left. This told the keeper that he was going to fire one outside leg stump so be ready. This once went wrong because the signal for firing out off stump is three with the left eye then two with right. The confusion came because the keeper did not realise whether we were dealing in bowler's left and right or his. Stupid signals.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 13:53   #68
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
On the delivery in question what would Ali possibly have been signalling for?.
I see, answering a question with a question. I don't think your being unable to conceive anything should be taken as proof that there was nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
I didn't duck the last question, you were just lacking the required skills to interpret my answer.
You have now ducked two. I doubt the existence of any rational interpretation that would make much sense of some of your comments, particularly when you say that a secret signal cannot take place because you have no experience of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
Also, don't mistake yourself for being the majority in this forum. You're anything but.
Don't make the mistake that the only support that may exist is always expressed. I appreciate that may be a novel concept but it deserves some consideration. Many would have read your comments, laughed incredulously, and said nothing.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 13:54   #69
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Look. Moeen saw him coming and winked three times with his right eye and twice with his left. This told the keeper that he was going to fire one outside leg stump so be ready. This once went wrong because the signal for firing out off stump is three with the left eye then two with right. The confusion came because the keeper did not realise whether we were dealing in bowler's left and right or his. Stupid signals.
Nice one.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 14:55   #70
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
I don't think your being unable to conceive anything should be taken as proof that there was nothing.
I disagree. An impasse. How predictable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
You have now ducked two. I doubt the existence of any rational interpretation that would make much sense of some of your comments, particularly when you say that a secret signal cannot take place because you have no experience of them.
I've ducked two in your opinion. Which as you are undoubtedly aware I count as next to nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Don't make the mistake that the only support that may exist is always expressed. I appreciate that may be a novel concept but it deserves some consideration. Many would have read your comments, laughed incredulously, and said nothing.
Obviously you would have invisible support to go along with your invisible signals.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 15:57   #71
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Your first comment suggests you would argue that black was white, either that or you don't really know what you're saying.

Your second is simply along the lines of "yah-boo" and makes no attempt to address a reasonable question. No surprise there, I suppose.

Your third is yet another denial of reality, affirmation of seeming to think that nothing can exist unless it can be seen. What colour is the sky in your world?

Here's a bit of advice - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 17:05   #72
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Your first comment suggests you would argue that black was white, either that or you don't really know what you're saying.

Your second is simply along the lines of "yah-boo" and makes no attempt to address a reasonable question. No surprise there, I suppose.

Your third is yet another denial of reality, affirmation of seeming to think that nothing can exist unless it can be seen. What colour is the sky in your world?

Here's a bit of advice - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
What's this? Someone getting a taste of their own medicine & not liking it?

Want a band aid for your boo boo?

If I'm ever in the situation where I find your advice required I'll be in touch..... I don't need your contact details.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 20:08   #73
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,456
Have added a poll for the burning question that is tearing this board apart like we're the Labour Party.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2015, 20:14   #74
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
I've voted yes they do.

For obvious reasons.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 10:49   #75
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
What's this? Someone getting a taste of their own medicine & not liking it?

Want a band aid for your boo boo?

If I'm ever in the situation where I find your advice required I'll be in touch..... I don't need your contact details.
Still digging then?

You could be in Australia to see them play the Windies soon!
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 10:52   #76
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Still digging then?

You could be in Australia to see them play the Windies soon!
I notice you have two votes.... is one of them yourself?
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 11:04   #77
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
What made you think I'd bother to vote in something like this?

No need to answer that.

Any road up, if you didn't see me vote, then I couldn't have.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 11:05   #78
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,654
I thought I'd do some Google research on this topic as otherwise we are left relying only on the opinion of the two esteemed debaters. Most seemed to suggest that although bowlers and keepers do occasionally signal to each other before a delivery was bowled, this was and is very much the exception. In general, the keeper captain and bowler might discuss tactics between overs or during the intervals but once in play there isn't a need to. Both bowler and keeper should really be anticipating what to expect and the field setting itself should be pretty indicative of the types of delivery to be bowled. Nothing too surprising in that.

Although an old piece of testimony I though this description bya certain AP Freeman was an interesting take on the topic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tich Freeman
I never signalled the googly to Ames but, before he came into the team regularly I used to do so, although I know that most wicket-keepers prefer to find it out for themselves, rather than be given a signal when it is coming. Signs I used to indicate to the wicket-keeper when I meant to bowl a googly were to hitch up the back of my trousers as I walked back after delivering the previous ball or to swing my left hand, holding the ball.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 11:14   #79
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,654
PS whilst undertaking my Google searches, the Bairstow v Billings thread featured quite highly on the first page. Good work folks!
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 11:16   #80
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
...Most seemed to suggest that although bowlers and keepers do occasionally signal to each other before a delivery was bowled, this was and is very much the exception. ...
Of course it is. In an over, why would a bowler signal 4 or 5 (often 6) of his "stock" deliveries?

Any research on the instance of signals designed to be noticed by the batsman but then followed by a stock delivery? It may come as a surprise to one or two here but this also happens in the game.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org