Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

T20 World Cup 2022

1222325272843

Comments

  • edited November 2022
    Four runs off the last ball. Australia win by 4 runs.
  • Josh Little must now be one of the most sought after fast bowlers in white ball cricket 
  • Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
  • What a knock that was by Rashid Khan at the end.  Great effort to get that close after the 4 in 4 collapse
  • Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
    Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
  • Leuth said:
    Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
    Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
    I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
  • So, thanks to Australia failing to thrash Afghanistan by a sufficiently wide score, England are, de facto, through to the quarter finals tomorrow. 
  • Chizz said:
    So, thanks to Australia failing to thrash Afghanistan by a sufficiently wide score, England are, de facto, through to the quarter finals tomorrow. 
    Shut up and go away you utter menace lol
  • Leuth said:
    Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
    Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
    I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
    But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that. 
  • edited November 2022
    Leuth said:
    Leuth said:
    Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
    Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
    I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
    But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that. 
    I was talking about the Law change which dictates that when a catch is taken, even if the batsmen have crossed, the incoming batsman has to go to the non striker's end. In a Mankad the batsmen won't have crossed. 

    It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Leuth said:
    Leuth said:
    Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
    Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
    I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
    But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that. 
    I was talking about the Law change which dictates that when a catch is taken, even if the batsmen have crossed, the incoming batsman has to go to the non striker's end. In a Mankad the batsmen won't have crossed. 

    It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
    It's almost always very easy to decide whether the batters have crossed when it's a run out. 
  • Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    Leuth said:
    Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out? 
    Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
    I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
    But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that. 
    I was talking about the Law change which dictates that when a catch is taken, even if the batsmen have crossed, the incoming batsman has to go to the non striker's end. In a Mankad the batsmen won't have crossed. 

    It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
    It's almost always very easy to decide whether the batters have crossed when it's a run out. 

  • Sri Lanka anthem was a bit of a tune. 

    21-0 so far. Lost the toss and we’re in the field….
  • How have they allowed 2 Aussie umpires for the game that decided whether they stay in their home world cup!?!?
  • How have they allowed 2 Aussie umpires for the game that decided whether they stay in their home world cup!?!?
    It can work both ways. Need to slow Sri Lanka down a bit.
  • we're gonna blow it ain't we...
  • T20 is a lottery in a one off format 


    Point to recent series win over Pakistan but we lost 40% of those games. 
  • MrOneLung said:
    T20 is a lottery in a one off format 


    Point to recent series win over Pakistan but we lost 40% of those games. 
    Bullshit. 

    We lost 42.9% of the games 
  • 12 overs bowled and nobody's bowled more than 2 overs. A lot of flexibility available now
  • edited November 2022
    Needed that one to take the momentum out of this innings. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • This is tense, it could be close.
  • I can hear AA mean-spiritedly cheering Malan crocking himself from here 
  • Not sure we could be in a better position with two over to spare
  • McBobbin said:
    Not sure we could be in a better position with two over to spare
    Concidering how well Sri Lanka started I think we are in a great position. 
  • edited November 2022
     not sure we needed that wicket the way the two batsmen at the crease were batting..
  • If we lose this, we will have noone else to blame
  • 141 for 8.
    I thought 170 was on the cards earlier. 
    Great bowling in the end.
  • Excellent comeback. Slightly embarrassing from SL. Not as embarrassing as if we don't chase this though 
  • I reckon they are 30-40 shy of where they really should have been considering that start.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!