-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Cricket things that annoy you
- Thread starter Gethelred
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Gethelred
Moderator
- May 1, 2016
- 34,512
- 65,501
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3,177
IIRC, there was a tour of South Africa in around 2009-12 by England, after Graeme Swann had taken 50+ wickets in a calender year. As such, the brains trust in SA cricket wanted to come up with a theory to defang him. While his stock ball, spin and drift was a weapon, his real trick against right handers - of which De Villiers, Smith, Amla, Kallis, and Boucher were all right handers - was dragging their front leg across then hitting them with an arm ball for LBW or bowled. South Africa came up with using the sweep defensively; take your guard on off stump, and step further outside off to sweep down on almost everything that gave you the length.
What this accomplished was it more or less completely negated the LBW threat. You're playing a shot, and you're already in front of off; if it hits you without turning, it's hitting you outside the line and there's something betwen the ball and the stumps to prevent his bowled. It was a decent counter to Swann, and it worked well enough.
Now, to the reason for this particular journey into history.
During Lyon's and Head's spells in this test, the English have noticably been taking an off stump guard, and they significantly got on the sweep to attack Lyon during their second dig. Crawley and Root in particular got him and got him hard, sending him for more than 5 an over. There were multiple balls that hit Crawley on the knee outside off that were close given not out.
Brook wasn't the only one to liberally use the reverse sweep to sweep Lyon. Both Crawley and Root used it very well. I think their plans to Lyon were based on the SA plans against them more than a decade ago, and the blatant refusal to place Brook's reverse in appropriate context - if you look at where his feet are, why he seems to be playing the wrong line, he's in the near perfect position to negate an LBW threat to the stumps - irritates the hell out of me.
This is the casualisation of this sport writ large. Far from T20 ruining the game, those deliberately dumbing it down are actively destroying it.
What this accomplished was it more or less completely negated the LBW threat. You're playing a shot, and you're already in front of off; if it hits you without turning, it's hitting you outside the line and there's something betwen the ball and the stumps to prevent his bowled. It was a decent counter to Swann, and it worked well enough.
Now, to the reason for this particular journey into history.
During Lyon's and Head's spells in this test, the English have noticably been taking an off stump guard, and they significantly got on the sweep to attack Lyon during their second dig. Crawley and Root in particular got him and got him hard, sending him for more than 5 an over. There were multiple balls that hit Crawley on the knee outside off that were close given not out.
Brook wasn't the only one to liberally use the reverse sweep to sweep Lyon. Both Crawley and Root used it very well. I think their plans to Lyon were based on the SA plans against them more than a decade ago, and the blatant refusal to place Brook's reverse in appropriate context - if you look at where his feet are, why he seems to be playing the wrong line, he's in the near perfect position to negate an LBW threat to the stumps - irritates the hell out of me.
This is the casualisation of this sport writ large. Far from T20 ruining the game, those deliberately dumbing it down are actively destroying it.
- Jan 13, 2015
- 1,985
- 1,325
- AFL Club
- Sydney
he was also big on 'smiffy' back in the day
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Nov 25, 2017
- 17,489
- 17,628
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Putting the word 'ball' at the end of a coach's nickname. Hopefully that fad goes when McCullum's tenure as England coach ends.
- Sep 3, 2019
- 36,494
- 103,533
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You blokes have won 2 flags with Fageball though
- Nov 25, 2017
- 17,489
- 17,628
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I actually don't mind it in the footy codes but with a coach not as important to a team’s success in cricket, I'd rather hear Patball, Smudgeball, Benball etc
- Feb 18, 2017
- 6,595
- 9,131
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Aug 6, 2024
- 6,719
- 14,655
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Eng cricket, Leics CCC, Leicester Tigers
Ronball
- Dec 21, 2012
- 20,925
- 16,658
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Redbacks, Adelaide United
Every caught down legside dismissal being branded 'unlucky'
…. twice in one day.
Carey's was curious. He could not have guided it any better if he tried. I'm 100% certain he didn't know the fielder was there.
It's still absolutely Carey's fault, but I thought the field wasn't allowed to move once the batter took strike? Stokes made the field change just before bowling the ball that got Carey - the fielder was not in position and was still moving as Stokes was halfway through his run-up.
When Carey returned to the crease, the fielder was still out at backward square leg - walking towards the keeper. Carey glanced at him and then started facing up - the fielder was nowhere near leg-slip.
Once he took strike, Carey glanced back at the slips, then watched the run-up - he never actually checked where that fielder was before facing the next delivery.
I'm leaning into clever, devious play by Stokes - perhaps a little unsporting - but it's the batsman's job to know the field he's playing to.
Brad Haddin starting every sentence with “the one thing he does …”
Fielders are allowed to move around now. Rule was changed a few years back.
Using the examples in this post as an example, as someone who enjoys but doesn't live and breathe cricket (im clearly a novice) I just don't get the gibberish cricket vernacular. Wobble seam? Leg cut? Like when i watch cricket to me it looks like a pretty simple game, yet the commentary around some of the bowling and batting actions are just wank. Can't we just use layman's terms? I guess i'm not a fan of the overcomplication lol, couldn't care less if the shot was a cover cut sweep pull, all he did was swing the bat with the face pointing to the left - it's almost as if there's a different swing name for every degree the ball can be hit.
Not long ago i also tried to get an understanding of the field positions, my goodness gracious.
As someone who is not an avid follower, i rekn it actually gives me a keen eye on not understanding the hype around certain players. Quite a few shield and bbl players who the media seem to have a fap fest over, yet every time i watch them i can't help but think they're bang average cricketers - and i look at their averages out of curiosity, which also confirms they are overrated. Am i wrong in saying the cricketing fraternity seem to put certain names up in lights (in all forms) and they then go onto have an armchair ride to national team selection whilst actual better cricketers miss out?
Also can someone please explain to me the purpose of spin bowlers who can't actually get the ball to turn?
Cricket's a simple game: 
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
...
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Do they all need to be inside the rope before the bowler starts running in. As you often see the step over the rope as the bowler is halfway in
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 86,070
- 179,631
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #3,196
Is that the rule change?
I thought that fielders could now move when anticipating a shot. Eg slip fielder to a spinner darting across to the leg side when the batter shapes to play a lap sweep
But I thought changing positions mid-run up was still not allowed
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 86,070
- 179,631
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #3,197
They need to be inside the field of play at the point of delivery (I think is the interpretation)
sherb
Hall of Famer
It doesn't happen in the correct order for all catches. And stumpings for that matter.
- Sep 3, 2019
- 36,494
- 103,533
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Why does laughter annoy you?
Similar threads
