Cricket things that annoy you

[Pistol Night]

The throwing of the ball back to the keep when (for instance) cover fields it does my absolute head in.

There is just no need for it. And spare me the 'to keep pressure on the batsman', that is just nonsense

Just how much time is wasted by the fielding team doing this? Would have to add am extra 1-2 minutes onto the over maybe?

 

[PhatBoy]

That clip made me want to punch myself in the face just so I could hopefully forget what I’d just seen and heard

 

[31550]

The throwing of the ball back to the keep when (for instance) cover fields it does my absolute head in.

There is just no need for it. And spare me the 'to keep pressure on the batsman', that is just nonsense

Just how much time is wasted by the fielding team doing this? Would have to add am extra 1-2 minutes onto the over maybe?

And while on that, another annoyance: bowlers who, when the ball is hit anywhere except straight back at them, turn their backs on play and start walking back to the top of their run-up. The number of times I'm fielding at point or gully and see the non striker way out of their crease, and have to yell at the bowler to back up the stumps.

 

[Pistol Night]

That clip made me want to punch myself in the face just so I could hopefully forget what I’d just seen and heard

If that method worked Dwayne Russell would be responsible for a nation full of “Fight Clubbers”

 

[sabso]

I assume it wasn't recognised as an official test match? But you are saying those wickets Warne got were included in his stats, and was what put him above Anderson for most wickets?

Official sources still count that farce as a test. Those wickets are part of warnes 708 figure, also muralis 800.

 

[Bedi]

Official sources still count that farce as a test. Those wickets are part of warnes 708 figure, also muralis 800.

Yeah right, forget that was the case. That's bullshit. In what world should that be recognised as an official test match??

 

[sabso]

Yeah right, forget that was the case. That's bullshit. In what world should that be recognised as an official test match??

In the world of the icc and many people on bigfooty.

 

[Gethelred]

Haven't read the thread, but I'll give a few of mine;

• The fact that we can't explain why the ball swing more when its cloudy (or maybe we can, I just haven't heard it)

It doesn't. The difference in light - if it's heavy cloud, making it darker - makes what swing there is there harder to face.

Swing happens more if there's moisture rising from the surface. It's why the evening session of a pink ball test - when the pitch has been baking all day and is still hot, but the air above is cooling - sees the most swing.

• The ball always getting returned to the wicket keeper before being passed around like a joint. Couldn't a mid off just pass it straight to the bowler? Is there a rule that it has to get to the keeper to be called dead?

Not so much a rule as convention and common sense.

Say, for the sake of argument, they belt the ball at you and you field it. You then throw it to Mid on, but they were half asleep and the ball goes past them. The ball is not dead, and the batters have the right to run. It's essentially the inverse of the Bairstow stumping. For the fielding side to declare the ball dead, they need to return it to the keeper and for nothing to happen for a short period of time; don't do this, and you risk them choosing to run if misfields or poor throws occur.

 

[31550]

For the fielding side to declare the ball dead, they need to return it to the keeper

I don't believe that is stated anywhere in the Laws of the game. The ball can be returned to either the keeper or a bowler and then it is deemed 'settled' by the umpire.
What is stated is that the ball is dead when umpire believes both sides consider it dead.

The practical interpretation of this is if both batsmen have stopped running, and the ball is being returned to the bowler for the next delivery, then it's a dead ball. If it is misfielded while being relayed back to the bowler and the batsmen attempt a run, then the umpire should disallow the run, send the batsmen back and signal dead ball. (I've actually done this in a game).

 

[Gethelred]

I don't believe that is stated anywhere in the Laws of the game. The ball can be returned to either the keeper or a bowler and then it is deemed 'settled' by the umpire.
What is stated is that the ball is dead when umpire believes both sides consider it dead.

The practical interpretation of this is if both batsmen have stopped running, and the ball is being returned to the bowler for the next delivery, then it's a dead ball. If it is misfielded while being relayed back to the bowler and the batsmen attempt a run, then the umpire should disallow the run, send the batsmen back and signal dead ball. (I've actually done this in a game).

If you look, you'll see that I've edited my post slightly.

The keeper is - traditionally speaking - the player best equipped to hold the ball and render the ball dead by virtue of their position on the field. While you could throw the ball to anyone to render the ball dead, a keeper is - at least in theory - more likely to catch it, and their proximity to one end of the pitch beside a set of stumps serves as good a location as any.

Nothing needs to happen for a moment for the umps to decide the ball is dead.

 

[31550]

If you look, you'll see that I've edited my post slightly.

The keeper is - traditionally speaking - the player best equipped to hold the ball and render the ball dead by virtue of their position on the field. While you could throw the ball to anyone to render the ball dead, a keeper is - at least in theory - more likely to catch it, and their proximity to one end of the pitch beside a set of stumps serves as good a location as any.

Nothing needs to happen for a moment for the umps to decide the ball is dead.

Essentially, it all comes down to the umpires to decide. This should be (and often used to be), a very simple and straightforward application of 'common sense' and 'fair play'. Unfortunately we've moved into an era where there are no such things, and players will often use any means at their disposal to get an advantage. Umpires will try to hide behind DRS and the 'letter of the law', where both these things are fallible.

 

[peternorth]

The reason the ball is returned to the keeper is because he or she wears gloves and will keep the ball free of sweat

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The reason the ball is returned to the keeper is because he or she wears gloves and will keep the ball free of sweat

The real trick is to make sure the throw is seam up, so they can catch it with the sandpaper...glove only impacting on one side of the ball.

 

[peternorth]

The real trick is to make sure the throw is seam up, so they can catch it with the sandpaper...glove only impacting on one side of the ball.

ok

 

[crackers65]

Marcus Labuschagne

 

[cats_09]

Marcus Labuschagne

Can I ask what did he do this afternoon?

Or just in general?

 

[SC_Power]

Can I ask what did he do this afternoon?

Or just in general?

Somewhat both.

He was annoying this afternoon, just as he is normally.

 

[Jatz]

I don't love players coming off the ground constantly. I get it's hot (and they probably all had valid reasons) but at one point I think we had four players (Cummins/Boland/Weatherald/Green) off the ground.

 

[Gethelred]

Advice from two no.3 bats to the second highest wicket taker in Australia's history on how to bowl off spin irritates the shit out of me.

 

[SC_Power]

I don't love players coming off the ground constantly. I get it's hot (and they probably all had valid reasons) but at one point I think we had four players (Cummins/Boland/Weatherald/Green) off the ground.

Ricky Ponting likes this.

 

[peternorth]

The westpac ad featuring

cummins
alyssa healy
lyon
konstas

 

[Kapow!!!]

Advice from two no.3 bats to the second highest wicket taker in Australia's history on how to bowl off spin irritates the shit out of me.

It weirdly annoys me now that the second highest wicket taker in our history now did so at an average over 30 instead of sub 22. The pure OCD stats ranking part of my brain just can't handle Lyon and McGrath being in the same company.

 

[Gethelred]

It weirdly annoys me now that the second highest wicket taker in our history now did so at an average over 30 instead of sub 22. The pure OCD stats ranking part of my brain just can't handle Lyon and McGrath being in the same company.

It's a bit of a reflection of his career, given that he's been the fourth wheel the majority of the time he's been in there. It's always been that the second he's about to get dropped he winds up getting a 5 for or having a major contribution which saves his spot for the next test; he's got a bizarre knack for knowing just when to hit form.

He's survived what, 14 years of cricket despite being an off spinner who plays most of his cricket in Australia.

 

[Wallaby]

It weirdly annoys me now that the second highest wicket taker in our history now did so at an average over 30 instead of sub 22. The pure OCD stats ranking part of my brain just can't handle Lyon and McGrath being in the same company.

Spin bowlers nearly always have worse averages than pace bowlers. They get to do a lot of the grunt work on flat tracks snd generally have to be stock bowlers as well as strike bowlers. Completely different roles in a team.
Mcgrath, Hazlewood, Lillee and Cummins all have lower averages than Warne. Doesn't mean they're better.

 

[cricketnut14]

It weirdly annoys me now that the second highest wicket taker in our history now did so at an average over 30 instead of sub 22. The pure OCD stats ranking part of my brain just can't handle Lyon and McGrath being in the same company.

some people think he can eclipse warne's 708 - what will that do to your OCD if that happens.

personally i dont think lyon will get to 708.

lyon has already played as much test cricket as warne. the cricket purists know the pecking order.