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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14th October 2015, 20:24   #221
slowest_bowler
Established International
 
slowest_bowler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Notts, England
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Why do you think the fast bowlers try to bowl from as close to the line as possible? If it didn't make a difference, they would all bowl from a safe distance and they wouldn't bowl no balls. It presumably makes such a significant difference that it's worth all the free runs and non-wickets that bowling no balls involves. So GBG is right. There's no good analogy with dropped catches.
You seem to be assuming that bowlers are correct in such thinking, not just doing what they do because everyone else does.
__________________
"The essential ingredient of our success. The strength and support of 65 million people willing us to make it happen." Our PM ignoring the 48% as usual, despite having supposedly been one of them.
slowest_bowler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 20:39   #222
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowest_bowler View Post
You seem to be assuming that bowlers are correct in such thinking, not just doing what they do because everyone else does.
It would be interesting to see what fraction of no balls have "taken a wicket" in recent times compared with the fraction of non no balls that have done so.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 22:38   #223
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,918
It still feels a bit rum if a bowler is bowling thinking he is doing so perfectly legally and then finding out when they take a wicket that they aren't. It all feels a bit like entrapment to me. I think this is one of the few occasions where they've made the rules worse for the game of cricket and I cannot think of a single reason why umpires have been told to completely ignore no balls.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 23:38   #224
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 851 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 15
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Why do you think the fast bowlers try to bowl from as close to the line as possible? If it didn't make a difference, they would all bowl from a safe distance and they wouldn't bowl no balls. It presumably makes such a significant difference that it's worth all the free runs and non-wickets that bowling no balls involves. So GBG is right. There's no good analogy with dropped catches.
No I can't see bowlers bowling as close to the line making any difference. Did Flintoff 358 no balls make a difference. I don't think he took any wickets with those no balls.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2015, 10:33   #225
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
No I can't see bowlers bowling as close to the line making any difference. Did Flintoff 358 no balls make a difference. I don't think he took any wickets with those no balls.
Why do you think the fast bowlers try to bowl from as close to the line as possible?
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2015, 10:41   #226
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
It still feels a bit rum if a bowler is bowling thinking he is doing so perfectly legally and then finding out when they take a wicket that they aren't. It all feels a bit like entrapment to me. I think this is one of the few occasions where they've made the rules worse for the game of cricket and I cannot think of a single reason why umpires have been told to completely ignore no balls.
I don't think the rules have changed. If any bowler bowls a no ball and the umpire doesn't call it and the fielding side feels strongly that because of the bowler's infringement an extra run should be given to the oppo, then they can call for a review.

Regarding the bit in bold, I suspect that on-field decisions about what happened at the striker's end have improved as a result of de-emphasising the standing umpire's responsibility to check the bowler's foot position -- and that this would be the reason why they've been given those instructions (if indeed they have been given them).
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2015, 10:53   #227
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,337
Some of the Pakistan bowlers have been called for no-balls this innings. It is a bit of a mess and not sure about the assertion that umpire decisions have improved by umpires not looking for the no-ball.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2015, 23:58   #228
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Some of the Pakistan bowlers have been called for no-balls this innings. It is a bit of a mess and not sure about the assertion that umpire decisions have improved by umpires not looking for the no-ball.
Pak (well Wahab Riaz) bowled 9 no-balls. 9 no-balls called in normal play and not a wicket involved. 9 more runs to England, plus whatever runs accrued with the extra deliveries. (Just the one, Broad's, when England bowled.) I hope this denotes a change around from the previous stubborn refusal of the powers-that-be to do anything about the no-ball situation.

Or perhaps in such a turgid game the umpires are looking for something to relieve the monotony.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2015, 09:59   #229
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,337
Berk misses another one. Younis on 8, Pakistan 43/2
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2015, 13:59   #230
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Berk misses another one. Younis on 8, Pakistan 43/2
Is that what we're now calling Ian Ronald Bell?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2015, 18:07   #231
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Is that what we're now calling Ian Ronald Bell?
I thought it was quite a reasonable substitution.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2015, 18:16   #232
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,337
Purely accident of Swype texting I'm afraid
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 12:16   #233
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,308
Are we keeping count for South Africa series?

Bairstow 1
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 17:15   #234
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 851 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 15
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,071
Since Collingwood retired 2011 (updated)

Drops

24 - Prior
23 - Bell
21 - Swann
18 - Cook
15 - Anderson
12 - Root
11 - Strauss
7 - Bresnan
6 - Trott, Broad, Bairstow
5 - Ballance, Buttler
4 - Pietersen, Panesar, Finn
3 - Taylor
2 - Tremlett, Jordan, Tredwell, Wood
1 - Morgan, Elstone, Ali, Carberry, Plunkett, Woakes, Lyth, Stokes, Compton

Bowlers who had catches dropped

49 - Broad
43 - Anderson
31 - Swann
10 - Bresnan, Finn
9 - Stokes
6 - Ali
5 - Tremlett, Panesar, Root
4 - Jordan
3 - Plunkett, Patel, Woakes
1 - Bopara, Onions, Pietersen, Tredwell, Wood

Last edited by 1000yardstare : 6th January 2016 at 01:39.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 17:39   #235
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,308
Is this all formats or just tests?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2015, 17:44   #236
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 851 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 15
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Is this all formats or just tests?
That was just Tests.

Dropped catches in ODIs since the two new balls in October 2011

Bowler

17 - Finn
11 - Bresnan, Tredwell, Anderson
10 - Broad
8 - Jordan
7 - Dernbach, Stokes
5 - Bopara, Woakes, Wood
4 - Swann
3 - Rashid
2 - Meaker, Root
1 - Patel, Borthwick, Gurney, Plunkett, Willey, Ali, Topley

Dropped by

16 - Buttler
13 - Kieswetter
7 - Tredwell, Cook
6 - Trott, Root
5 - Bresnan, Anderson, Finn, Morgan, Woakes
4 - Bopara
3 - Pietersen, Patel, Jordan, Stokes
2 - Swann, Carberry, Gurney, Bell, Ali, Hales Roy
1 - Broad, Wood, Rashid, Bairstow
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2016, 10:06   #237
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,359
Root 1 (dopped De Villiers off Anderson)
Anderson 1 (dropped Amla off Root)

I've heard that apparently Taylor dropped a catch earlier in the innings but can't recall it. I saw the Anderson drop as for my morning break the coffee bar has Sky News. It was not quite a gimme but really needed to be taken. It was unrealistic not to expect Amla and De Villiers to have an innings of substance at some point. Just it is a shame that both have been let off.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More

Last edited by Chin Music : 4th January 2016 at 10:46.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2016, 14:08   #238
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,337
I assume the Taylor drop was when he had one drilled at him off fib while he was fielding at short leg. Seen similar ones taken but unrealistic to expect it to be normally taken. I think he got his hand on it.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2016, 14:11   #239
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I assume the Taylor drop was when he had one drilled at him off fib while he was fielding at short leg. Seen similar ones taken but unrealistic to expect it to be normally taken. I think he got his hand on it.
Ah yes, early yesterday. I recall now, that was highly marginal. There has been further drops since then with Compton dropping one off Finn. Any other misses?
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2016, 23:05   #240
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,275
I think SA have still dropped more catches than England so far in this series. AB alone has dropped 3 and, off the top of my head, I can also recall one from Elgar at slip and one from Morkel at long off. There may have been a couple more.
Psyduck 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 00:23.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org