Cricket World Cup 2015 (and build up to)

The_President

Personally, i think any rule that would negate a brilliant piece of fielding like that coz of a minor technicality is a rule that needs to be dumped.

The_President

ABDV just smashed fastest EVER 50 in ODI internationals- off 16 balls v Windies.

The_President

And going strong for fastest hundred - now 82 off 26 balls - record is 36 balls by Corey Anderson.

The_President

now 88 off 28

The_President

92 off 29

The_President

98 off 30 - got 5 balls to get 2 runs to beat record!

The_President

104 off 31 - fastest ODI century EVER .
Absolutely smashed the record by 5 balls !!!

TravHouse

Incredible Incredible innings!!

Addick Addict

Unbelievable stuff.

The_President

Still going strong 147 off 41 balls - and to think he only came in to bat when there was 11 overs of the innings left !!

The_President

Highest ODI score for SA ever.

The_President

Out for 149 off 42 - what an innings !!

The_President

439-2 end of innings - just 4 short of biggest total ever.

Addick Addict

Ridiculous batting 439-2 off 50 overs. Just four runs short of highest ever total in an ODI.

Rossouw 128 (115)
Amla 153 (142)
ABV 149 (44)


ABV beats hishest score in ODI for SA and all time records of fastest ever 50 in ODI, fastest ever 100 in ODI and equals most sixes ever in an ODI.

Callumcafc

Wow

Addick Addict

England skittle India for 153. Rarely have we ever done that. Anderson 4-18 & Finn 5-33.

In reply we are 45-1. Ali out for 8.

Addick Addict

Addick Addict said:

Bell made 187 in the end. Against more than respectable opposition too.

Unless something untoward occurs and/or they decide to go in without a spinner, this will be the starting WC X1:

Bell
Ali
Taylor
Root
Morgan
Bopara
Buttler
Woakes
Broad
TredwellFinn
Anderson

Treders better go on a drinks making course between now and the WC because he isn't going to get many opportunities to play that's for sure now.

Addick Addict

93-1 off 17 Bell 53* Taylor 30*

Callumcafc

121-1 21 overs

Bell 68
Taylor 43

Good to see.

Callumcafc

England win by 9 wickets with 22.3 overs to spare.

Addick Addict

England won by 9 wickets with 22.5 overs to spare. Bell 88* (91) Taylor 56* (63) and undefeated partnership of 131.

2 points for the win plus an extra point for getting the runs inside 40 overs.

As comprehensive a victory as you could wish for. I'm sure if the result had been the other way round we'd have been crucifying our lot and whilst one swallow etc etc it does at least give us some hope.

Still think the England management have made a big mistake - Cook should be opening instead of Bell ;-)

Addick Addict

Bell's average of 41.00 when opening in ODI's is right up there.

Bell's real issue has always been confidence and that he has not, until the last few years, believed that he actually belongs in the England team. He is though someone who, unlike Cook, could bat for 40 overs and actually get 120 in that time and set the platform for the big hitters to come in the final 10 overs.

The_President

Wow, just noticed the result - didn't even know the game was on - a real pleasant surprise.
I notice Jimmy is back , and sounds like he is bowling well.

MuttleyCAFC

Yes, Cook is the sort of player you want to get out as if he bats too long he does damage to the score you can get. Took selectors too long to wake up to what limited over cricket is now. Whilst we are unlikely winners, we now pose a threat if bowling and batting come together.

Riviera

Good win but Morgan scored no runs, shows his effort the other day was just another flash in the pan.......

lordromford

Addick Addict said:

The_President said:

Not WC or even England related, but if you get a chance , have a look at Cameron Whites dismissal today in the BBL Stars v Thunder.
Outstanding.

Yes it was but I'm in agreement with Cameron White because my understanding is that the feet had to be grounded inside the rope when you actually finally take the catch. Otherwise you could be over the just over the rope when you take it in the air and with forward momentum land inside the field of play i.e. walking in when you take it.

I'm happy to be corrected if someone can find the relevant law which I've struggled to do!

I finally got to see this catch and I have to say that if Cameron White really is complaining about this dismissal then it shows him in a poor light with more than a suggestion of sour grapes.
I don't honestly think there's any difference between this catch and any other where the ball is tossed up and recaught to avoid the six. There have been plenty of these in the past and the only reaction they ever get is admiration for the fielder (or fielders in some cases) and rightly so in my opinion.
Admittedly, he's beyond the boundary (but in the air) when he grabs the ball the second time, but he lands inside the rope - this has always been considered as acceptable and I don't see why it shouldn't be now.

For anyone still questioning it, imagine a situation where a fielder is on the boundary and sees a ball flying towards him, but just too high for him to jump and grab it. If he has the vision and athleticism to retreat beyond the boundary, then take a running jump to catch the ball and allow his momentum to carry him back into play, would anyone really deny that man the right to claim an extraordinary catch? Surely that would go against all the principles of sporting endeavour?

The_President said:

Personally, i think any rule that would negate a brilliant piece of fielding like that coz of a minor technicality is a rule that needs to be dumped.

At the end of the day...I agree with this. (I just waffled a bit more!)

Addick Addict

lordromford said:

Addick Addict said:

The_President said:

Not WC or even England related, but if you get a chance , have a look at Cameron Whites dismissal today in the BBL Stars v Thunder.
Outstanding.

Yes it was but I'm in agreement with Cameron White because my understanding is that the feet had to be grounded inside the rope when you actually finally take the catch. Otherwise you could be over the just over the rope when you take it in the air and with forward momentum land inside the field of play i.e. walking in when you take it.

I'm happy to be corrected if someone can find the relevant law which I've struggled to do!

I finally got to see this catch and I have to say that if Cameron White really is complaining about this dismissal then it shows him in a poor light with more than a suggestion of sour grapes.
I don't honestly think there's any difference between this catch and any other where the ball is tossed up and recaught to avoid the six. There have been plenty of these in the past and the only reaction they ever get is admiration for the fielder (or fielders in some cases) and rightly so in my opinion.
Admittedly, he's beyond the boundary (but in the air) when he grabs the ball the second time, but he lands inside the rope - this has always been considered as acceptable and I don't see why it shouldn't be now.

For anyone still questioning it, imagine a situation where a fielder is on the boundary and sees a ball flying towards him, but just too high for him to jump and grab it. If he has the vision and athleticism to retreat beyond the boundary, then take a running jump to catch the ball and allow his momentum to carry him back into play, would anyone really deny that man the right to claim an extraordinary catch? Surely that would go against all the principles of sporting endeavour?

The_President said:

Personally, i think any rule that would negate a brilliant piece of fielding like that coz of a minor technicality is a rule that needs to be dumped.

At the end of the day...I agree with this. (I just waffled a bit more!)

In the same way would you change the law to not give a goal if a defender made the most spectacular of overhead kicks to deny a goal when the ball is clearly over the line?

lordromford

Addick Addict said:

lordromford said:

Addick Addict said:

The_President said:

Not WC or even England related, but if you get a chance , have a look at Cameron Whites dismissal today in the BBL Stars v Thunder.
Outstanding.

Yes it was but I'm in agreement with Cameron White because my understanding is that the feet had to be grounded inside the rope when you actually finally take the catch. Otherwise you could be over the just over the rope when you take it in the air and with forward momentum land inside the field of play i.e. walking in when you take it.

I'm happy to be corrected if someone can find the relevant law which I've struggled to do!

I finally got to see this catch and I have to say that if Cameron White really is complaining about this dismissal then it shows him in a poor light with more than a suggestion of sour grapes.
I don't honestly think there's any difference between this catch and any other where the ball is tossed up and recaught to avoid the six. There have been plenty of these in the past and the only reaction they ever get is admiration for the fielder (or fielders in some cases) and rightly so in my opinion.
Admittedly, he's beyond the boundary (but in the air) when he grabs the ball the second time, but he lands inside the rope - this has always been considered as acceptable and I don't see why it shouldn't be now.

For anyone still questioning it, imagine a situation where a fielder is on the boundary and sees a ball flying towards him, but just too high for him to jump and grab it. If he has the vision and athleticism to retreat beyond the boundary, then take a running jump to catch the ball and allow his momentum to carry him back into play, would anyone really deny that man the right to claim an extraordinary catch? Surely that would go against all the principles of sporting endeavour?

The_President said:

Personally, i think any rule that would negate a brilliant piece of fielding like that coz of a minor technicality is a rule that needs to be dumped.

At the end of the day...I agree with this. (I just waffled a bit more!)

In the same way would you change the law to not give a goal if a defender made the most spectacular of overhead kicks to deny a goal when the ball is clearly over the line?

Ridiculous. Completely different sports with completely different rules.
The laws of football take the position of the ball in mid-air into consideration. The laws of cricket don't.
You can't just substitute in the laws of football because that's the only way to support your argument.

The only way to make it comparable would be if a player came from being in the back of the net, then making a spectacular diving header from there to prevent the ball crossing the line. Then, yes it would be no goal. No change in the law necessary.

Addick Addict

lordromford said:

Addick Addict said:

lordromford said:

Addick Addict said:

The_President said:

Not WC or even England related, but if you get a chance , have a look at Cameron Whites dismissal today in the BBL Stars v Thunder.
Outstanding.

Yes it was but I'm in agreement with Cameron White because my understanding is that the feet had to be grounded inside the rope when you actually finally take the catch. Otherwise you could be over the just over the rope when you take it in the air and with forward momentum land inside the field of play i.e. walking in when you take it.

I'm happy to be corrected if someone can find the relevant law which I've struggled to do!

I finally got to see this catch and I have to say that if Cameron White really is complaining about this dismissal then it shows him in a poor light with more than a suggestion of sour grapes.
I don't honestly think there's any difference between this catch and any other where the ball is tossed up and recaught to avoid the six. There have been plenty of these in the past and the only reaction they ever get is admiration for the fielder (or fielders in some cases) and rightly so in my opinion.
Admittedly, he's beyond the boundary (but in the air) when he grabs the ball the second time, but he lands inside the rope - this has always been considered as acceptable and I don't see why it shouldn't be now.

For anyone still questioning it, imagine a situation where a fielder is on the boundary and sees a ball flying towards him, but just too high for him to jump and grab it. If he has the vision and athleticism to retreat beyond the boundary, then take a running jump to catch the ball and allow his momentum to carry him back into play, would anyone really deny that man the right to claim an extraordinary catch? Surely that would go against all the principles of sporting endeavour?

The_President said:

Personally, i think any rule that would negate a brilliant piece of fielding like that coz of a minor technicality is a rule that needs to be dumped.

At the end of the day...I agree with this. (I just waffled a bit more!)

In the same way would you change the law to not give a goal if a defender made the most spectacular of overhead kicks to deny a goal when the ball is clearly over the line?

Ridiculous. Completely different sports with completely different rules.
The laws of football take the position of the ball in mid-air into consideration. The laws of cricket don't.
You can't just substitute in the laws of football because that's the only way to support your argument.

The only way to make it comparable would be if a player came from being in the back of the net, then making a spectacular diving header from there to prevent the ball crossing the line. Then, yes it would be no goal. No change in the law necessary.

Might be ridiculous to you but I believe that that is what the cricket authorities are saying - that you are penalising a batsman who gets the ball over the line. That is why the feet have to be grounded in the field of play when the catch is taken.

Look at it another way - what's to stop fielder A being over the six feet line and in mid air catches it and throws it back to the fielder B who is inside the rope? The catch is taken by the fielder inside the rope but he is aided by the player off the pitch.

lordromford

Ok. But then I'd argue so what?
The fielding side have to be placed on the field of play as the ball is being bowled, so any scenario such as the one you describe requires quick thinking, athleticism and skill - you couldn't just place fielders 20 feet outside the rope for example.
If the batsman can't hit the ball into a better gap or clear the fielder by another foot, that's unlucky but it's the way it goes I'm afraid.
This situation simply doesn't go against the spirit of the game at all. If teams were somehow making cynical decisions that affected the sporting integrity of the game, then I'd agree with you.
As I see it, this only adds to the game and I don't see any reason to address it.

(Incidentally, my "ridiculous" comment was only aimed at the comparison with football. In my view, the debate on this cricketing issue is valid. Apologies if I came across a bit dismissive. )