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 ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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. )
Comments
Absolutely smashed the record by 5 balls !!!
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.
In reply we are 45-1. Ali out for 8.
Bell 68
Taylor 43
Good to see.
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 ;-)
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.
I notice Jimmy is back , and sounds like he is bowling well.
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? At the end of the day...I agree with this. (I just waffled a bit more!)
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.
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.
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.