Initially I thought the same Suz......but then thinking about it it’s not the same scenario as a run out where the batsman’s foot/hand/bat etc have to be grounded. For a bowler part of his foot only has to be behind the line but not necessarily grounded......I believe I am correct in saying that. If I am, then that was a fair delivery...... can someone confirm. Having said that, it was a damn close call either way.
I have a real issue with the 3rd Umpire constantly giving the benefit of the doubt to the bowler mainly because I really cannot understand why any bowler, let alone a spinner, pushes things so far that the delivery has to be looked at.
In fact, I must admit that the sadist in me likes nothing better than, when umpiring and having either warned a bowler that he is getting very close or even already previously called a "no ball", having the arm outstretched just as the batsman's middle stump is seen cartwheeling through the air!
So, now that no. 3 is sorted, and assuming that we use three spinners in the West Indies, how does Curran get back in the side? On the basis that Bairstow wasn't recalled because we had a winning side and Foakes didn't warrant dropping, I suppose he has to bide his time.
So, now that no. 3 is sorted, and assuming that we use three spinners in the West Indies, how does Curran get back in the side? On the basis that Bairstow wasn't recalled because we had a winning side and Foakes didn't warrant dropping, I suppose he has to bide his time.
Probably only 2 spinners needed in the Windies anyway
Bairstow gets his ton, well done. A good show of discipline, though batting at number 3 against Starc etc next summer will be very different
So, now that no. 3 is sorted, and assuming that we use three spinners in the West Indies, how does Curran get back in the side? On the basis that Bairstow wasn't recalled because we had a winning side and Foakes didn't warrant dropping, I suppose he has to bide his time.
Probably only 2 spinners needed in the Windies anyway
Bairstow gets his ton, well done. A good show of discipline, though batting at number 3 against Starc etc next summer will be very different
As it will for both Burns and Jennings opening. Bairstow is the best option we have to bat at 3 apart from Root who doesn't want to do it. He only averages just over 28 against Australia but that's more than most will muster and I'd like to think with the depth that we now have (we could easily see Foakes at 8 and Curran at 9) any time occupying the crease up top can only help those coming in later.
So, now that no. 3 is sorted, and assuming that we use three spinners in the West Indies, how does Curran get back in the side? On the basis that Bairstow wasn't recalled because we had a winning side and Foakes didn't warrant dropping, I suppose he has to bide his time.
If Bairstow stays at 3 Buttler might end up keeping against Australia. Hard calls for the west indies even harder for the summer.
Agree 2 spinners max, but Anderson will be back so doesn't help Curran. Be hard not to select him but unless we go down to 1 spinner he may have to wait.
So, now that no. 3 is sorted, and assuming that we use three spinners in the West Indies, how does Curran get back in the side? On the basis that Bairstow wasn't recalled because we had a winning side and Foakes didn't warrant dropping, I suppose he has to bide his time.
If Bairstow stays at 3 Buttler might end up keeping against Australia. Hard calls for the west indies even harder for the summer.
Don't think Buttler will keep because we will play only one spinner (with Root to turn his arm over if necessary) so this would be something like this:
Missed the England Lions, so thanks. Did Billings captain and wicketkeep?
Yes. A poor 4th innings bowling performance, I'm assuming that the conditions were better for spin than seam by then, Briggs with no wickets will be especially disappointed.
Initially I thought the same Suz......but then thinking about it it’s not the same scenario as a run out where the batsman’s foot/hand/bat etc have to be grounded. For a bowler part of his foot only has to be behind the line but not necessarily grounded......I believe I am correct in saying that. If I am, then that was a fair delivery...... can someone confirm. Having said that, it was a damn close call either way.
I have a real issue with the 3rd Umpire constantly giving the benefit of the doubt to the bowler mainly because I really cannot understand why any bowler, let alone a spinner, pushes things so far that the delivery has to be looked at.
In fact, I must admit that the sadist in me likes nothing better than, when umpiring and having either warned a bowler that he is getting very close or even already previously called a "no ball", having the arm outstretched just as the batsman's middle stump is seen cartwheeling through the air!
And the 3rd Umpire has done it again even confirming that he's given "the benefit of the doubt to the bowler". Why when there is no evidence whatsoever that any part of the foot is beyond the line. Keep calling them "no balls" and they will soon stop doing it.
Fortunately it didn't matter anyway but that's not the point.
Initially I thought the same Suz......but then thinking about it it’s not the same scenario as a run out where the batsman’s foot/hand/bat etc have to be grounded. For a bowler part of his foot only has to be behind the line but not necessarily grounded......I believe I am correct in saying that. If I am, then that was a fair delivery...... can someone confirm. Having said that, it was a damn close call either way.
I have a real issue with the 3rd Umpire constantly giving the benefit of the doubt to the bowler mainly because I really cannot understand why any bowler, let alone a spinner, pushes things so far that the delivery has to be looked at.
In fact, I must admit that the sadist in me likes nothing better than, when umpiring and having either warned a bowler that he is getting very close or even already previously called a "no ball", having the arm outstretched just as the batsman's middle stump is seen cartwheeling through the air!
And the 3rd Umpire has done it again even confirming that he's given "the benefit of the doubt to the bowler". Why when there is no evidence whatsoever that any part of the foot is beyond the line. Keep calling them "no balls" and they will soon stop doing it.
Fortunately it didn't matter anyway but that's not the point.
Even though I was a bowler I thought the maxim was 'if in doubt not out' in other words the batsman gets the benefit of any doubt.
I thought it was a bit odd about Mathews dismissal as it didnt seem clear that he had actually hit it on the (poor) replay - i personally thought it had hit him on the shoulder yet none of the tators said anything. I suppose the soft signal might have been the key?.
almost worth a place as a specialist fielder though!
This is almost never true of anyone, and especially not with England's brilliant fielding side as it is
Was more of a joke. Personally believe it should add a few runs to his average though. Not get him a place in the team, but would give him advantage if it were a close call.
Comments
In fact, I must admit that the sadist in me likes nothing better than, when umpiring and having either warned a bowler that he is getting very close or even already previously called a "no ball", having the arm outstretched just as the batsman's middle stump is seen cartwheeling through the air!
Bairstow gets his ton, well done. A good show of discipline, though batting at number 3 against Starc etc next summer will be very different
Burns
Jennings
Bairstow
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Moeen
Foakes
Curran
Broad
Anderson
Eng 240
Roy 59
Billings (c) 74 no
Bess 42
Pak 195
Wood 4-67
Porter 3-22
Eng 266
Joe Clarke 107
Pak 314/6
Bess 3/110
Porter 2/68
https://www.ecb.co.uk/matches/9168
312 for 7
Ali 23 / Rashid 13
Stumps.
Fortunately it didn't matter anyway but that's not the point.
Even called Rory Burns, Joe Burns !
Great minds