Cricket things that annoy you

[Purple Suit]

Excellent point.

No doubt spectacular innings such as Stokes and Head's are (probably) more easily remembered

But as a cricket traditionalist, there's nothing better than seeing a batsman grind out a long hard innings to win your side a test match

Stokes innings lost a bit of shine on it when he was out plumb LBW to Lyon (not paid). We won that test as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Stokes innings lost a bit of shine on it when he was out plumb LBW to Lyon (not paid). We won that test as far as I'm concerned.

...morally speaking.

 

[PhatBoy]

Cricket et al is a good one.

TMS on BBC does good preview and review podcasts. They also release as a podcast the last half-hour or so if their broadcast of each day.

Sky Sports (Hussein and Atherton primarily) do the same.

They are decent at what they are actually covering but I’m surprised by how little Haigh in particular actually seems to pay attention to what’s going on elsewhere. I really like his writing but - and obviously I take this stuff more personally because I follow them - for example in the West Indies it was as though he and Lalor were genuinely surprised that they had good bowlers. Anyone that follows cricket beyond just watching each summer should know that stuff.

They don’t have to know these guys down to a tee, I’m not suggesting that, but a professional cricket journalist should have a good foundation across all the test playing sides at bare minimum. If you asked them to name a Bangladeshi test team they’d come up with 2-3 players at best I would wager. Crash is the same. I genuinely like Crash and listening to him talk about the games that he DOES watch but he just seems very locked in to basically watching what Fox or Murdoch gets him to watch.

Geoff Lemon is an interesting one. He has a good knowledge of the game but his podcasts and videos are a bit monotonous

 

[PhatBoy]

Stokes innings lost a bit of shine on it when he was out plumb LBW to Lyon (not paid). We won that test as far as I'm concerned.

But Australia didn’t.

If that’s the case Australia lost the Bellerive Test in 1999-2000.
They probably lost the test where Symonds from memory hit his maiden century after, if im right in saying, smacking the cover off one when he was fresh to the crease with his side 5-84 and about to be 6-90 or something. How far back do you want to go playing that game?

 

[Purple Suit]

But Australia didn’t.

If that’s the case Australia lost the Bellerive Test in 1999-2000.
They probably lost the test where Symonds from memory hit his maiden century after, if im right in saying, smacking the cover off one when he was fresh to the crease with his side 5-84 and about to be 6-90 or something. How far back do you want to go playing that game?

It only works when it is the potential last wicket of the game to decide the result. If it is an umpire mistake on the 6th wicket then there is still possible for the outcome to be the same even if unlikely.

 

[corbies]

Excellent point.

No doubt spectacular innings such as Stokes and Head's are (probably) more easily remembered

But as a cricket traditionalist, there's nothing better than seeing a batsman grind out a long hard innings to win your side a test match

Thats a fine point but I'm not sure it applies to the Perara innings. Stokes innings was similar innings to Perara's except Perara made more runs at a better strike rate and there were more runs to make when the last wicket fell in Perara's innings than there was with Stokes.

Combine that with the fact it was away from home in a country where Sri Lanka had never won a series.

Stokes innings is remembered more because it was in an Ashes series rather than a match very few were watching but Perara's was at least as good if not better.

 

[sabso]

Stokes innings lost a bit of shine on it when he was out plumb LBW to Lyon (not paid). We won that test as far as I'm concerned.

Tbf you had credit

 

[Rabish Binney]

Stokes innings lost a bit of shine on it when he was out plumb LBW to Lyon (not paid). We won that test as far as I'm concerned.

Still cant get over that stupid review Paine called against Leach earlier on.

Pat Cummins has stated that he didn't want Paine to review it. Paine did anyway. Meant we had no reviews left.

As tough as the decision (non-decision) was against Stokes, we bottled the chance to win the test (Paine review; Lyon fumbling the run out and some of our bowling to Stokes was questionable).

 

[Purple Suit]

Still cant get over that stupid review Paine called against Leach earlier on.

Pat Cummins has stated that he didn't want Paine to review it. Paine did anyway. Meant we had no reviews left.

As tough as the decision (non-decision) was against Stokes, we bottled the chance to win the test (Paine review; Lyon fumbling the run out and some of our bowling to Stokes was questionable).

Yep, the Paine review was stupid.

Lyon fumbled the run out and then had him plumb lbw so redeemed himself. England still had reviews so the umpire could have easily fired him and it would have been checked. Wasn’t umpires call and was hitting middle from memory.

 

[Tugga27]

It only works when it is the potential last wicket of the game to decide the result. If it is an umpire mistake on the 6th wicket then there is still possible for the outcome to be the same even if unlikely.

It doesn't work at all.

Of course, us Aussies were filthy about it, but that's the game.

Saying we won the game is just silly.

 

[Gethelred]

Of all the people out there's fault, the person most to blame for England winning - and they did win - that test is Joel Wilson.

 

[PhatBoy]

It only works when it is the potential last wicket of the game to decide the result. If it is an umpire mistake on the 6th wicket then there is still possible for the outcome to be the same even if unlikely.

It doesn't work at all.

Of course, us Aussies were filthy about it, but that's the game.

Saying we won the game is just silly.

A lot of things happened in that match.

Marnus Labuschagne hit 80-odd in the second innings (the next highest score was 30). When he was 14 he survived a shout on umpires call, and he also edged one behind but was saved by a no ball. He hit a dolly to Root on 14 as well, and was dropped by Bairstow not long after. Not the same as a straight leg before obviously but it isn’t as though all the good fortune in that match went one way

 

[peternorth]

watching highlight sof aust vs india ODI, umpire wearing an arm guard presumably to use should a ball come back his way at velocity.

Why isnt this used by all umpires?

 

[PhatBoy]

watching highlight sof aust vs india ODI, umpire wearing an arm guard presumably to use should a ball come back his way at velocity.

Why isnt this used by all umpires?

I’ve got to say yes I sound like a dinosaur but bowlers manage to either get out of the way or get their hands to those balls in their follow through. After running in, for a fast bowler at least, as fast as they can in the other direction and ending up about 4-5 metres closer to the batsman than the umpire is. Can’t he just get out of the way?

 

[peternorth]

I’ve got to say yes I sound like a dinosaur but bowlers manage to either get out of the way or get their hands to those balls in their follow through. After running in, for a fast bowler at least, as fast as they can in the other direction and ending up about 4-5 metres closer to the batsman than the umpire is. Can’t he just get out of the way?

you make a valid point. One might guess that umpires arent fine tuned athletes hence poor reflexes.

 

[31550]

I’ve got to say yes I sound like a dinosaur but bowlers manage to either get out of the way or get their hands to those balls in their follow through. After running in, for a fast bowler at least, as fast as they can in the other direction and ending up about 4-5 metres closer to the batsman than the umpire is. Can’t he just get out of the way?

Exactly. If the ball is hit straight back, the umpire should be moving to the opposite side of the pitch from where the ball was delivered, so as not to obstruct the bowler from fielding it. He needs to have a view of the bowler, the crease and the stumps in the case of a catch or a run-out. Can't do this if he is anywhere near the flight path of the ball.

 

[Gethelred]

I’ve got to say yes I sound like a dinosaur but bowlers manage to either get out of the way or get their hands to those balls in their follow through. After running in, for a fast bowler at least, as fast as they can in the other direction and ending up about 4-5 metres closer to the batsman than the umpire is. Can’t he just get out of the way?

It's easier to make the decision to continue moving and change direction than it is to decide to start moving, if that makes sense.

 

[big_e]

Bruce Oxenford starting wearing the arm guard after heading off an umpire who was killed by a ball hit straight back when the pitch.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's easier to make the decision to continue moving and change direction than it is to decide to start moving, if that makes sense.

Yeah that’s a fair point, you probably have to assess a few things when you’re just standing still in addition to just being there already to make decisions on what you’re there to actually do (make decisions). I just think they look stupid if nothing else

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah that’s a fair point, you probably have to assess a few things when you’re just standing still in addition to just being there already to make decisions on what you’re there to actually do (make decisions). I just think they look stupid if nothing else

My ability to hit balls significantly harder and time the ball better happened when I heard a coach at a seminar I attended say off hand that he advocated for his players to always keep their bat in motion for that reason.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Umpires are uncos with poor reflexes, no athleticism, average hand eye coordination and dreadful agility. That's why they become umpires

Try lobbing the ball to one after you've taken a wicket. Hilarious

It's also why football umpires run the ball the whole way to the middle of the ground as a team and hand it to the central umpire, rather than just a couple of dobs from the goals square

 

[sabso]

Umpires are uncos with poor reflexes, no athleticism, average hand eye coordination and dreadful agility. That's why they become umpires

Try lobbing the ball to one after you've taken a wicket. Hilarious

It's also why football umpires run the ball the whole way to the middle of the ground as a team and hand it to the central umpire, rather than just a couple of dobs from the goals square

Were reiffel, dharmasena, Richard illingworth good fielders when they played? Funny the ex-player test umpires seem to have mostly been bowlers.

 

[peternorth]

Bruce Oxenford starting wearing the arm guard after heading off an umpire who was killed by a ball hit straight back when the pitch.

I feel like there’s a missing word or two

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Were reiffel, dharmasena, Richard illingworth good fielders when they played? Funny the ex-player test umpires seem to have mostly been bowlers.

They're just the ones trying to fix the greatest umpiring injustice of "if in doubt, favour to the batsman". </formerbowler>

 

[big_e]

I feel like there’s a missing word or two

Oh yeah - "hearing of and umpire" and "straight back up the pitch".

Must have been having a stroke when I was writing that one....