Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
No
what if they also score runs from it, say they hit their first ball faced for 4. Then 2nd ball is a no ball but also hit for 4. would their strike rate show as 8 runs, 1 ball faced, strike rate 800 ?
Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
No
It does count - wides don't.
You can score off a no ball, so it counts.
That makes sense
In the old days, they tended to measure innings by time rather than balls faced, I guess if the bowlers kept bowling wides at you it would make you look like a slow scorer
Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
No
It does count - wides don't.
You can score off a no ball, so it counts.
That makes sense
In the old days, they tended to measure innings by time rather than balls faced, I guess if the bowlers kept bowling wides at you it would make you look like a slow scorer
Equally, if you had a batsman at the other end who could count to six, you could find yourself not actually facing any balls. We've all played with them.
Even worse was the situation Seb found himself in the first game of last season. Seb opened with a chap at the other end who is three times his age who was there to "mentor" him. Unfortunately, Seb was caught in the 10th over for 9 as frustration got the better of him - which doesn't sound great. But when you consider most of Seb's runs were scored in the early part of each over and made up of six singles and a three and that the rest of the total of 14 were extras, it's not difficult to work out what had happened.
Stonewall Jackson blamed the situation on not having had a pre season net - but the truth is that he always bats like that!
Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
No
It does count - wides don't.
You can score off a no ball, so it counts.
That makes sense
In the old days, they tended to measure innings by time rather than balls faced, I guess if the bowlers kept bowling wides at you it would make you look like a slow scorer
Equally, if you had a batsman at the other end who could count to six, you could find yourself not actually facing any balls. We've all played with them.
Even worse was the situation Seb found himself in the first game of last season. Seb opened with a chap at the other end who is three times his age who was there to "mentor" him. Unfortunately, Seb was caught in the 10th over for 9 as frustration got the better of him - which doesn't sound great. But when you consider most of Seb's runs were scored in the early part of each over and made up of six singles and a three and that the rest of the total of 14 were extras, it's not difficult to work out what had happened.
Stonewall Jackson blamed the situation on not having had a pre season net - but the truth is that he always bats like that!
14 off 9 overs ! - was it Boycott at the other end ???
Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
No
It does count - wides don't.
You can score off a no ball, so it counts.
That makes sense
In the old days, they tended to measure innings by time rather than balls faced, I guess if the bowlers kept bowling wides at you it would make you look like a slow scorer
Equally, if you had a batsman at the other end who could count to six, you could find yourself not actually facing any balls. We've all played with them.
Even worse was the situation Seb found himself in the first game of last season. Seb opened with a chap at the other end who is three times his age who was there to "mentor" him. Unfortunately, Seb was caught in the 10th over for 9 as frustration got the better of him - which doesn't sound great. But when you consider most of Seb's runs were scored in the early part of each over and made up of six singles and a three and that the rest of the total of 14 were extras, it's not difficult to work out what had happened.
Stonewall Jackson blamed the situation on not having had a pre season net - but the truth is that he always bats like that!
14 off 9 overs ! - was it Boycott at the other end ???
Does a no ball count in a batsman's 'balls faced' stats ?
No
It does count - wides don't.
You can score off a no ball, so it counts.
That makes sense
In the old days, they tended to measure innings by time rather than balls faced, I guess if the bowlers kept bowling wides at you it would make you look like a slow scorer
Equally, if you had a batsman at the other end who could count to six, you could find yourself not actually facing any balls. We've all played with them.
Even worse was the situation Seb found himself in the first game of last season. Seb opened with a chap at the other end who is three times his age who was there to "mentor" him. Unfortunately, Seb was caught in the 10th over for 9 as frustration got the better of him - which doesn't sound great. But when you consider most of Seb's runs were scored in the early part of each over and made up of six singles and a three and that the rest of the total of 14 were extras, it's not difficult to work out what had happened.
Stonewall Jackson blamed the situation on not having had a pre season net - but the truth is that he always bats like that!
Need Handscomb, Marsh, Paine out as quick as possible.
You always get the feeling that Handscomb is never going to last long anyway. We'll have an 8 over barrage from fresh Jimmy to begin with , hoping he'll take at least 2 hopefully 3 wickets. They could be 7/8 down after an hour. Though more likely Lyon sticks around for a gritty 20/30 to kill us off.
Not sure what I should do tonite. Should I stay up & watch the first few overs, just in case we get a couple of quick wickets & so put more pressure on them. However, in reality by 4.30 in the morning the Aussies will be 150-4 and can't see them for dust& so then go to bed, Or go to bed around midnight & set alarm for 6am - miss the first session, hoping that when I get up we are batting & chasing around 330 to win.
Not sure what I should do tonite. Should I stay up & watch the first few overs, just in case we get a couple of quick wickets & so put more pressure on them. However, in reality by 4.30 in the morning the Aussies will be 150-4 and can't see them for dust& so then go to bed, Or go to bed around midnight & set alarm for 6am - miss the first session, hoping that when I get up we are batting & chasing around 330 to win.
I suggest that you record it and get up at 5.00 - you can then watch the whole day's play as if it's live.
Vince - Boycott very critical. Ball was in the right area and there was a bit of extra pace and bounce but probably shouldn't have played at it.
Root - played a loose drive far too early in his innings. Better than that but isn't getting into line with his head at the moment. Pressure of captaincy?
Cook - battled but played at Lyon with bat too far away from him and gave catching practice to Smith at slip. Similar to first Test.
Malan - got a good one from Cummins and an excellent catch from Paine.
Really do not understand what Bairstow is doing batting at 7 - he should be in our top 6 and even if we only move him up one batting place it will mean that Lyon isn't bowling against two left handers. Well not straightaway anyway.
You are aware they're already 260+ ahead aren't you?
Yeh but we've got two days to get them and all our batsmen have had the benefit of Boycott's Masterclass in how to "bat and bat". Actually, two days might not be long enough.
Probably sounds a bit churlish but England's 4 wickets are little more than death throes in the context of the match as a whole.
We are incapable of chasing 300 plus in the fourth innings at Adelaide.
Or Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Lords, The Oval, Edgbaston, Old Trafford etc etc, but then so are most teams. Chasing 300 succesfully doesn't happen often in Test cricket.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
And I don't trust it and if this Test doesn't show everyone its flaws then it never will. Technology has no place in sport.
Comments
Then 2nd ball is a no ball but also hit for 4.
would their strike rate show as 8 runs, 1 ball faced, strike rate 800 ?
In the old days, they tended to measure innings by time rather than balls faced, I guess if the bowlers kept bowling wides at you it would make you look like a slow scorer
Must pay attention before posting.
Even worse was the situation Seb found himself in the first game of last season. Seb opened with a chap at the other end who is three times his age who was there to "mentor" him. Unfortunately, Seb was caught in the 10th over for 9 as frustration got the better of him - which doesn't sound great. But when you consider most of Seb's runs were scored in the early part of each over and made up of six singles and a three and that the rest of the total of 14 were extras, it's not difficult to work out what had happened.
Stonewall Jackson blamed the situation on not having had a pre season net - but the truth is that he always bats like that!
There have only been two wins in Adelaide by teams defending a target of under 320. Australia have never achieved it.
Sadly back to Phuket today.
Who has the Charlton flag on the upper East side?
Aussies lead by 290.
Aus lead by 305
122-8. Lead of 337.
They lead by over 340... game over!