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

T20 World Cup 2022

1…2223252728…43

Comments

  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 64,069
    edited November 2022
    Four runs off the last ball. Australia win by 4 runs.
  • Lincsaddick
    Lincsaddick Posts: 32,422
    Josh Little must now be one of the most sought after fast bowlers in white ball cricket 
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 40,126
    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? 
  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,076
    What a knock that was by Rashid Khan at the end.  Great effort to get that close after the 4 in 4 collapse
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    Addick Addict 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
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 40,126
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict 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.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,409
    So, thanks to Australia failing to thrash Afghanistan by a sufficiently wide score, England are, de facto, through to the quarter finals tomorrow. 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    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
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict 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. 
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 40,126
    edited November 2022
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict 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:



  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,409
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict 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. 
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 40,126
    Chizz said:
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict said:
    Leuth said:
    Addick Addict 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. 

  • suzisausage
    suzisausage Posts: 11,502
    Sri Lanka anthem was a bit of a tune. 

    21-0 so far. Lost the toss and we’re in the field….
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,247
    How have they allowed 2 Aussie umpires for the game that decided whether they stay in their home world cup!?!?
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,806
    cantersaddick said:
    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.
  • Manic_mania
    Manic_mania Posts: 2,271
    we're gonna blow it ain't we...
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,978
    T20 is a lottery in a one off format 


    Point to recent series win over Pakistan but we lost 40% of those games. 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    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 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    12 overs bowled and nobody's bowled more than 2 overs. A lot of flexibility available now
  • Bournemouth Addick
    Bournemouth Addick Posts: 16,295
    edited November 2022
    Needed that one to take the momentum out of this innings. 

  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,122
    This is tense, it could be close.
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,786
    Malan limps off injured. 
    Shame because he's a useful number 9 batsman. 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    I can hear AA mean-spiritedly cheering Malan crocking himself from here 
  • McBobbin
    McBobbin Posts: 12,078
    Not sure we could be in a better position with two over to spare
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,786
    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. 
  • Manic_mania
    Manic_mania Posts: 2,271
    edited November 2022
     not sure we needed that wicket the way the two batsmen at the crease were batting..
  • McBobbin
    McBobbin Posts: 12,078
    If we lose this, we will have noone else to blame
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,786
    141 for 8.
    I thought 170 was on the cards earlier. 
    Great bowling in the end.
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,425
    Excellent comeback. Slightly embarrassing from SL. Not as embarrassing as if we don't chase this though 
  • Manic_mania
    Manic_mania Posts: 2,271
    I reckon they are 30-40 shy of where they really should have been considering that start.

Categories

“Marketplace”