Cricket

[FromTheCapital]

Sorry if you like it but...



It's the most boring and dull 'sport'...Ever!!!

:dunno:

[Removed]

It's so bad you had to start 4 threads :agree:

:thumbsup:

[FromTheCapital]

I never meant to do that :greengrin Just dunno how to delete a thread...:rolleyes:

[FromTheCapital]

3 of the 4 threads are deleted...:greengrin

[hibee62]

I do understand how people find it boring but (no offence meant in the slightest), a lot of people don't understand whats going on (cricket people ken whuts gaun oan...:greengrin).

If someone comes along and watches a test match for the first time they are bound to find it boring as ball after ball sails past the off stump, but if you watch it longer a lot of people get into it and begin to see patterns. ie. the reason ball after ball sails past the off stump with no shot played is to draw the batsman across his stumps further and further and then you throw in a ball bang on middle stump and you get him lbw...

Its more a methodical, tactical sport than an all action type thing like football or rugby...

[HH81]

I do understand how people find it boring but (no offence meant in the slightest), a lot of people don't understand whats going on (cricket people ken whuts gaun oan...:greengrin).

If someone comes along and watches a test match for the first time they are bound to find it boring as ball after ball sails past the off stump, but if you watch it longer a lot of people get into it and begin to see patterns. ie. the reason ball after ball sails past the off stump with no shot played is to draw the batsman across his stumps further and further and then you throw in a ball bang on middle stump and you get him lbw...

Its more a methodical, tactical sport than an all action type thing like football or rugby...

Good post, being a Cricket fan myself I enjoy the old test matches.

I am one of these people that can watch a full day's play.

[hibee62]

Good post, being a Cricket fan myself I enjoy the old test matches.

I am one of these people that can watch a full day's play.

Me too, If I get the chance which isn't often. I'd love to go to one sometime, particularly at Lord's. I go to the ODIs every year in Edinburgh and went to see Scotland at the 2009 world T20 but test match is the one remaining form for me.

I've never been to an ODI between 2 full members but the Scotland v Ireland game a couple of weeks ago was one of the best I've seen live or on tv!

[Joe]

Love cricket, especially the test match, there really is nothing like a test match. Was at England V Bangladesh at Old Trafford last year and it was one of the best days out I've ever had. If you can get to a test match, especially against one of the bigger sides, India, South Africa, Australia, with a full house and good weather you will love it.

[marinello59]

I'd always dismissed Cricket in the past but got in to it via Baseball. Fascinating game and one where I find myself in the unusual position of cheering England on. Go figure. :confused:

[Hamish]

Cricket is more popular in Scotland than a lot of people think. More people play cricket in Scotland than play rugby for a start.

Doesn't stop the usual suspects shouting Cricket's for p***s when you are playing mind. I'll take them to somewhere like Fauldhouse next time we are playing and they can question the guys there about their sexuality:greengrin

I know quite a few who support England at cricket but would never dream of doing that at any other sport

[Calvin]

Fascinating game and one where I find myself in the unusual position of cheering England on. Go figure. :confused:
I'm the same - only sport in which I actively support England, although I prefer Sri Lanka's ODI team.

I got into cricket when the IPL started which I think is a good route for newcomers to the game. You learn the rules and basics but being limited overs matches with big hits galore they keep your attention. Then as your enjoyment of the game grows you can widen your horizons to 'proper' matches and find a five day test very entertaining indeed.

I wish we got taught it at school, would have liked to give it a go when I was younger!

[Joe]

The atmpsphere when you at England games is so different from any other sporting event. There's none of the nastyness that goes along with football, it's just a great day out drinking with your mates. I usualy wear my Hibs shirt and people will ask me about Hibs etc, friendly as anything.

[hibee62]

Love cricket, especially the test match, there really is nothing like a test match. Was at England V Bangladesh at Old Trafford last year and it was one of the best days out I've ever had. If you can get to a test match, especially against one of the bigger sides, India, South Africa, Australia, with a full house and good weather you will love it.

I'd have loved to have been at Lord's on Monday, seemed to be the best day's test cricket anywhere for a while. I think the best thing to do wold be to get tickets for a 4th day and hang around for cheap tickets on the 5th like the game just finished.

[hibee62]

I also agree that there is nothing to dislike about the England cricket team, never mind the fact that thats where any Scottish cricketer wants to be, there's none of the distastefulness of the football team. The commentary is entertaining and not all about them being screwed for whatever reason and the players are very likeable, Swanny in particular...

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I'm another one thats happy for England to win at cricket, nowt else though!

[DaveF]

Me too, If I get the chance which isn't often. I'd love to go to one sometime, particularly at Lord's. I go to the ODIs every year in Edinburgh and went to see Scotland at the 2009 world T20 but test match is the one remaining form for me.


I thoroughly recommend you get booked up for England v South Africa at Headingly next Summer.

I was at the Saturday \ Sunday the last time these two clashed at Headingly and had a brilliant time. Saturday is always fancy dress day and the terrace was jumping with good banter all day long. If you get the weather there is no better sporting event in terms of value for money.

[DaveF]

Glad to read a few more fellow cricket followers in here.

I got into cricket in those lazy 80s summers, when cricket was still on the Beeb. Once 'why don't you' was out the way, I was completely mesmerised by the way the West Indies blitzed England all those years ago and the memories of watching the late Malcolm Marshall (surely one of the best bowlers ever?) and co do their stuff made me a fan.

I seem to recall Marshall broke his (non bowling) wrist or fingers in one game and still came out to bat one handed - making a few runs I think!

edit - he scored 4 "Malcolm Marshall scored 4 runs from 8 balls, with a broken thumb, against England in 1984. He batted 1-handed to allow Larry Gomes to make a century"

[hibee62]

Glad to read a few more fellow cricket followers in here.

I got into cricket in those lazy 80s summers, when cricket was still on the Beeb. Once 'why don't you' was out the way, I was completely mesmerised by the way the West Indies blitzed England all those years ago and the memories of watching the late Malcolm Marshall (surely one of the best bowlers ever?) and co do their stuff made me a fan.

I seem to recall Marshall broke his (non bowling) wrist or fingers in one game and still came out to bat one handed - making a few runs I think!

edit - he scored 4 "Malcolm Marshall scored 4 runs from 8 balls, with a broken thumb, against England in 1984. He batted 1-handed to allow Larry Gomes to make a century"

Yeah, they spoke about this and showed the clip in Fire in babylon. It was on at the filmhouse a couple of weeks ago. Fully recommend the DVD if you liked that West Indies team...

[MCC Hibs]

Having played cricket at a fairly decent level and heard the usual (it's just a game of rounders) pash,go to a local CC training session...turn the bowling machine up to 80 mph+ THEN say it's crap!!!

[Sir David Gray]

I have to admit to being a bit more interested than I used to be.

I can't say that I'm a huge cricket fan but I think it's like a lot of sports in that it helps if you know a bit about the rules of the sport you are watching. Before, I never really bothered about the rules of cricket because I just wasn't all that interested, however I managed to pick a few things up and I started watching a few matches and although I'm not a cricket fanatic, or anything like it for that matter, I can watch a match and actually understand what it is I'm supposed to be watching.

I do prefer the limited overs one day stuff over the Test Cricket though.

I appreciate an earlier poster explaining how Test Cricket is very tactical but I once watched a Test match for about 20 minutes and literally nothing happened in that time apart from the batsman knocking the ball about 2 yards off his bat.

I understand that cricket purists will be all for that form of the game but it's not for me.

I also don't get how people can say that they want England to win at cricket. I love to see English national teams lose at every single sport that they play and that involves cricket. I suppose it's easier to support England at cricket than it is in football or rugby as Scotland doesn't really have an established national cricket team. Perhaps if that was to change then people up here would start to see England in the same light that they do with football and rugby.

[Removed]

I have to admit to being a bit more interested than I used to be.I can't say that I'm a huge cricket fan but I think it's like a lot of sports in that it helps if you know a bit about the rules of the sport you are watching. Before, I never really bothered about the rules of cricket because I just wasn't all that interested, however I managed to pick a few things up and I started watching a few matches and although I'm not a cricket fanatic, or anything like it for that matter, I can watch a match and actually understand what it is I'm supposed to be watching.I do prefer the limited overs one day stuff over the Test Cricket though.I appreciate an earlier poster explaining how Test Cricket is very tactical but I once watched a Test match for about 20 minutes and literally nothing happened in that time apart from the batsman knocking the ball about 2 yards off his bat.I understand that cricket purists will be all for that form of the game but it's not for me.I also don't get how people can say that they want England to win at cricket. I love to see English national teams lose at every single sport that they play and that involves cricket. I suppose it's easier to support England at cricket than it is in football or rugby as Scotland doesn't really have an established national cricket team. Perhaps if that was to change then people up here would start to see England in the same light that they do with football and rugby. Thing is FH, our national football team is about as successful as our cricket team. And Potters tactics makes a test match look positively nerve jangling :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Thing is FH, our national football team is about as successful as our cricket team. And Potters tactics makes a test match look positively nerve jangling :agree:

It is a bit different though because, as bad as we are right now at football, we have competed at the very highest level in international football at World Cups and European Championships and we have been ranked inside the top 20 in the FIFA world rankings. We used to have a team which could rival that of England's.

As far as cricket's concerned, we don't even have a fully recognised team in a sport that does not have a worldwide appeal in the way that football has. I think that if the Scottish cricket team managed to gain the same status as teams such as England and Australia then people in Scotland would view the English team in the same way that they currently view the English football and rugby teams, i.e. they would want them to get humped.

[Zazu62]

I ****in love it :)

[hibee62]

It is a bit different though because, as bad as we are right now at football, we have competed at the very highest level in international football at World Cups and European Championships and we have been ranked inside the top 20 in the FIFA world rankings. We used to have a team which could rival that of England's.

As far as cricket's concerned, we don't even have a fully recognised team in a sport that does not have a worldwide appeal in the way that football has. I think that if the Scottish cricket team managed to gain the same status as teams such as England and Australia then people in Scotland would view the English team in the same way that they currently view the English football and rugby teams, i.e. they would want them to get humped.

I'm afraid I pretty much disagree with every point. The reason people dislike the English football team is due to the fact that the press believe they have a god given right to win everything and the commentators are nauseating while the players are not likeable, compare with the current Indian cricket team.

IN cricket, the commentators are full of banter and a great laugh, while the players are genuine hard workers and not like the Rooneys and Terrys of the world.

As for the Scotland cricket team never being any good, now this is true but Scotland are currently 15th in the world cricket rankings, have qualified for 2 world cups and have been as succesful in them as the football team have (never progressed past teh first round). We will never match England, Australia, India, etc. for any prolonged period of time, but we would fancy our chances against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or West Indies at the moment. We beat Ireland 2 weeks ago who beat England in the world cup.

At the end of the day, Scotland and Ireland do not have a decent enough cricketing infrastructure to enter the test arena, and so the best hope for our players is to play for England (see Eoin Morgan, Gavin Hamilton, Mike Deness, and many more).

So, given the reasons above, I cannot fathom why any brit would not support the English cricket team, it is where we all want to be after all...

[hibee62]

India are doing to England what England normally do to other teams, using the Trent Bridge swing to dismantle the batting order. Most annoyingly because its India, who continue to moan at lbw decisions not being given when they are the ones who insisted on no hawk-eye! I guess you can never tell how good a pitch is until both teams have batted though and England have the best swing bowlers in the world...

[Sir David Gray]

I'm afraid I pretty much disagree with every point. The reason people dislike the English football team is due to the fact that the press believe they have a god given right to win everything and the commentators are nauseating while the players are not likeable, compare with the current Indian cricket team.

IN cricket, the commentators are full of banter and a great laugh, while the players are genuine hard workers and not like the Rooneys and Terrys of the world.

As for the Scotland cricket team never being any good, now this is true but Scotland are currently 15th in the world cricket rankings, have qualified for 2 world cups and have been as succesful in them as the football team have (never progressed past teh first round). We will never match England, Australia, India, etc. for any prolonged period of time, but we would fancy our chances against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or West Indies at the moment. We beat Ireland 2 weeks ago who beat England in the world cup.

At the end of the day, Scotland and Ireland do not have a decent enough cricketing infrastructure to enter the test arena, and so the best hope for our players is to play for England (see Eoin Morgan, Gavin Hamilton, Mike Deness, and many more).

So, given the reasons above, I cannot fathom why any brit would not support the English cricket team, it is where we all want to be after all...

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I hope English national teams lose every single time they play a match, irrespective of which sport it is (I don't mind English sportsmen/women in individual sports).

I can't understand any Scottish person supporting England in any team sport and never will.

The point I was trying to make regarding our fortunes in cricket as opposed to football was that although we have qualified for two cricket world cups, we've never had a cricket team with players who could be thought of as world class in the way that we used to have footballers such as Kenny Dalglish, Joe Jordan, Archie Gemmill, Graeme Souness, Alan Hansen etc etc and we've never had a cricket team that could ever realistically challenge England, but we used to be in that position in football, although admittedly that is no longer the case.

If two nations or teams who are neighbours are evenly matched and compete regularly for the same honours then it does heighten the rivalry between the two teams/nations. Although I still don't quite get it, it is easier for Scottish people to support England at cricket when we don't have a team of our own to really speak of.

[hibee62]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I hope English national teams lose every single time they play a match, irrespective of which sport it is (I don't mind English sportsmen/women in individual sports).

I can't understand any Scottish person supporting England in any team sport and never will.

Why? I appreciate the footballers and football commentators are nauseating, and thats why I don't want them to win. But why the cricket team?



The point I was trying to make regarding our fortunes in cricket as opposed to football was that although we have qualified for two cricket world cups, we've never had a cricket team with players who could be thought of as world class in the way that we used to have footballers such as Kenny Dalglish, Joe Jordan, Archie Gemmill, Graeme Souness, Alan Hansen etc etc and we've never had a cricket team that could ever realistically challenge England, but we used to be in that position in football, although admittedly that is no longer the case.

Not as many, no, but quite a few none the less. In the 1999 world cup the highest scoring British batsman was Scottish (Gavin hamilton, who went on to play for England) while the bowler with the best strike rate in the whole tournament was Scottish (John Blain) and Dougie Brown played many, many times for England in ODIs before being Scotland's best player in the 2007 world cup. IN addition, a name from days gone by is Mike Deness who captained England, much to the displeasure of one Geoff Boycott.



If two nations or teams who are neighbours are evenly matched and compete regularly for the same honours then it does heighten the rivalry between the two teams/nations. Although I still don't quite get it, it is easier for Scottish people to support England at cricket when we don't have a team of our own to really speak of.

There is a great deal of banter between neighbouring sports teams, of course. And it is the same when Scotland have played England at cricket. But, the difference, is that in cricket it is true banter, there are never physical fights, everyone simply has a few drinks and have a good time. Songs are sung to each opposing team in the way I'm sure football used to be. You could say this is because Scotland can't compete with England, but if that were true why is there still such a good atmosphere between England and Australia? or England and the West Indies? While they may not be neighbours, they have many reasons to dislike the English, but it is sport, its not life, its just a bit of fun and there is no strong dislike of the English cricket team from these teams.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yeah, they spoke about this and showed the clip in Fire in babylon. It was on at the filmhouse a couple of weeks ago. Fully recommend the DVD if you liked that West Indies team...

Second that. Watched this the other day and it's absolutely fantastic.

Think people who aren't massive cricket fans will enjoy it. Great social history and amazing soundtrack.

This is shaping up into a really interesting series and it's always nice to have a days play where the ball has the hand over the bat. Far too rare these days.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The Bodyline that was on telly a good few years ago must be one of the best sporting dramas to be screened, very enjoyable programme.Just read a bit more about, its the dramatization of the 32-33 Ashes Series and was initially screened in 1984, how time flies!

[LiverpoolHibs]

The Bodyline that was on telly a good few years ago must be one of the best sporting dramas to be screened, very enjoyable programme.Just read a bit more about, its the dramatization of the 32-33 Ashes Series and was initially screened in 1984, how time flies!

Really? I thought it was absolutely dreadful.

Out of interest does anyone play for a club in Edinburgh? I keep meaning to get involved properly again (though it's getting late in the summer) - last couple of summers I've just played friendly 20-20 league stuff.

[vercol36]

I'd always dismissed Cricket in the past but got in to it via Baseball. Fascinating game and one where I find myself in the unusual position of cheering England on. Go figure. :confused:


Same here, used to think it was dead boring until I started getting into baseball. With both sports, you need to look at them from different perspectives - instead of a quick couple of hours watching a fast-paced game of football, it's a good few hours of sitting back, relaxing and considering tactics.

[hibee62]

Same here, used to think it was dead boring until I started getting into baseball. With both sports, you need to look at them from different perspectives - instead of a quick couple of hours watching a fast-paced game of football, it's a good few hours of sitting back, relaxing and considering tactics.

Usually with an ice cold beer as well! The ultimate spectator sport! :greengrin:agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Why? I appreciate the footballers and football commentators are nauseating, and thats why I don't want them to win. But why the cricket team?

It's just because it's England and I feel that's the way it should be with sporting rivalries. I don't hate England and I can't be bothered with all the physical violence that would undoubtedly be associated with a Scotland-England football match but I just could never cheer on the England cricket team.

Although to be fair, I suppose most of their team is actually South African so there's probably not that much of a reason to dislike them at the moment! :wink:

Think of rugby for a second. At Scotland-England matches during the Six Nations, fans sit together and have a laugh but if you go round the Scottish pubs beforehand, there's plenty of rivalry shown towards the English. It tends to be better natured than the football version of the fixture but there's still the presence of a rivalry. I don't think many Scottish rugby fans would be wishing England all the best when they're playing other teams.

I know a lot of Scots cheer on England during The Ashes but I could never do that. It's the Aussies all the way for me! :aok:

This is a bit like the debate that was held a couple of days ago on the main board as to whether Hibs fans should cheer on Hearts in Europe. Although if Hearts do well then it helps Scottish football, I could never cheer them on just because it's Hearts. When it comes to local rivalries in sport, I don't think logic or reason comes into it.




There is a great deal of banter between neighbouring sports teams, of course. And it is the same when Scotland have played England at cricket. But, the difference, is that in cricket it is true banter, there are never physical fights, everyone simply has a few drinks and have a good time. Songs are sung to each opposing team in the way I'm sure football used to be. You could say this is because Scotland can't compete with England, but if that were true why is there still such a good atmosphere between England and Australia? or England and the West Indies? While they may not be neighbours, they have many reasons to dislike the English, but it is sport, its not life, its just a bit of fun and there is no strong dislike of the English cricket team from these teams.

I don't dispute that there is a good atmosphere at matches between England-Australia, England-West Indies etc. but what I'm talking about is people (in this argument, Scots) actively supporting another nation (England). I'm sure that if you took a straw poll of 1,000 Australian cricket fans, a large percentage of them would hope that England lost most matches that they played because there is a rivalry between those two nations at cricket. It's a healthy rivalry but a rivalry none the less.

I'm not advocating fighting in the streets whenever Scotland play England at cricket or even that there should be a poisonous atmosphere at matches. I was simply responding to you and a few others who stated that you support England at cricket and all I said was that I don't understand that viewpoint.

[hibee62]

It's just because it's England and I feel that's the way it should be with sporting rivalries. I don't hate England and I can't be bothered with all the physical violence that would undoubtedly be associated with a Scotland-England football match but I just could never cheer on the England cricket team.

Although to be fair, I suppose most of their team is actually South African so there's probably not that much of a reason to dislike them at the moment! :wink:

Think of rugby for a second. At Scotland-England matches during the Six Nations, fans sit together and have a laugh but if you go round the Scottish pubs beforehand, there's plenty of rivalry shown towards the English. It tends to be better natured than the football version of the fixture but there's still the presence of a rivalry. I don't think many Scottish rugby fans would be wishing England all the best when they're playing other teams.

I know a lot of Scots cheer on England during The Ashes but I could never do that. It's the Aussies all the way for me! :aok:

This is a bit like the debate that was held a couple of days ago on the main board as to whether Hibs fans should cheer on Hearts in Europe. Although if Hearts do well then it helps Scottish football, I could never cheer them on just because it's Hearts. When it comes to local rivalries in sport, I don't think logic or reason comes into it.





I don't dispute that there is a good atmosphere at matches between England-Australia, England-West Indies etc. but what I'm talking about is people (in this argument, Scots) actively supporting another nation (England). I'm sure that if you took a straw poll of 1,000 Australian cricket fans, a large percentage of them would hope that England lost most matches that they played because there is a rivalry between those two nations at cricket. It's a healthy rivalry but a rivalry none the less.

I'm not advocating fighting in the streets whenever Scotland play England at cricket or even that there should be a poisonous atmosphere at matches. I was simply responding to you and a few others who stated that you support England at cricket and all I said was that I don't understand that viewpoint.


Fair points, and as you said we'll have to agree to disagree. ON the rugby point, I'm not a fan myself but I believe that Scottish fans would not actively want England to lose in other games for no reason as happens in football. OK, if they play USA (in Rugby), Faroe Island (in football) or Ireland (in cricket) we would laugh if they lost, but thats in the same way we would laugh if Brazil lost to the Faroes, or Asutralia (cricket or rugby) lost to a minnow.

I also don't think the Aussies care about anyone but themselves when it comes to cricket!:wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

This should put a smile on FH's face, England look like they are in for a hammering, 57-2, Trott injured and still 10 runs behind.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This should put a smile on FH's face, England look like they are in for a hammering, 57-2, Trott injured and still 10 runs behind.

I don't know about that, a lead of 250-300 would put England in a decent position and that's do-able on this pitch even with Trott crocked.

Incidentally if anyone didn't enjoy yesterday's play (or wouldn't if they'd given it a chance) then they are dead inside, it was brilliant. Laxman is an absolutely beautiful batsman - was gutted to see him go, Dravid even provided some entertainment. Broad was fantastic last night and so was Bresnan, though he hasn't got much in the way of plaudits, understandable I suppose.

Oh, Pietersen just took a ball full in the ribs. Even as a supporter of England that's always good to see. :greengrin

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The next couple of sessions will be crucial, if these two hang about a while my last post might've been a tad premature.

[hibee62]

England really could turn this round here, I can see Pietersen and Bell making a huge partnership. And with no pressure to score quickly, they can bat until all out by which time the lead could be well over 300. I'm tipping England to go 2-0 up, but just... Monday and Tuesday are likely to be pretty exciting, Edgbaston 2005-esque?

[LiverpoolHibs]

England really could turn this round here, I can see Pietersen and Bell making a huge partnership. And with no pressure to score quickly, they can bat until all out by which time the lead could be well over 300. I'm tipping England to go 2-0 up, but just... Monday and Tuesday are likely to be pretty exciting, Edgbaston 2005-esque?

I don't think Bell is taking heed of that! 60 of his 84 has come in fours.

Couldn't believe it when the commentators said the Brylcreem Boy once scored 173 between lunch and tea. That's ludicrous.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Massive schoolboy error on the final ball of the session. Bell run out, they ran 3 runs the crowd cheered for a four, but, it never reached the boundary. The batsmen started to walk off for tea and Bell is out! Crazy stuff!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Really, really odd. I suppose you've got to blame Bell but that's pretty ****ty behaviour from the Indians.

[easty]

Really, really odd. I suppose you've got to blame Bell but that's pretty ****ty behaviour from the Indians.

No more than its really stupid behaviour from a very experienced Bell.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Bell back on the field! Good decision for the spirit of the game, he should be out though if the ball was still live.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No more than its really stupid behaviour from a very experienced Bell.

Certainly.

Brilliant of Dhoni and the rest of the side to retract the appeal. From pretty ****ty behaviour to fantastic behaviour at the drop of a hat...

[hibee62]

Missed todays play, but it sounded like the Bell thought the over was called, although I don't know if it had. I'd have thought any decent cricketer would have taken the ball to be dead in that situation.

Still though, England seem to have been brilliant today and are surely number 1s in waiting. ONly the rain can stop them winning this test match, go out and play t20 tomorrow morning!

[easty]

Missed todays play, but it sounded like the Bell thought the over was called, although I don't know if it had. I'd have thought any decent cricketer would have taken the ball to be dead in that situation.

Still though, England seem to have been brilliant today and are surely number 1s in waiting. ONly the rain can stop them winning this test match, go out and play t20 tomorrow morning!

Of course he did, but Ian Bell doesn't decide when that's the case.....so that's a non-point.

[hibee62]

Of course he did, but Ian Bell doesn't decide when that's the case.....so that's a non-point.

He doesn't, but if the umpire called over before the bails are off, he cannot be out. IN the same way you can't run overthrows after the over is called.

[easty]

He doesn't, but if the umpire called over before the bails are off, he cannot be out. IN the same way you can't run overthrows after the over is called.

I was under the impression that while Bell claimed the umpire called the over, the umpire actually done nothing of the sort. If the umpire did then it seems Bell was about the only person on the field that heard it anyway. If that's not the case, and the umpire actually did call the over, then Bell was quite right to walk off thinking the ball was dead.

[hibee62]

I was under the impression that while Bell claimed the umpire called the over, the umpire actually done nothing of the sort. If the umpire did then it seems Bell was about the only person on the field that heard it anyway. If that's not the case, and the umpire actually did call the over, then Bell was quite right to walk off thinking the ball was dead.

From what I've heard since, it certainly seems that the umpire didn't call over. So Bell was being dopey, albeit the right thing was still done.

[--------]

From what I've heard since, it certainly seems that the umpire didn't call over. So Bell was being dopey, albeit the right thing was still done.


The umpire certainly didn't call over. He was standing right over the stump mikes and nothing was picked up.

I can't quite understand why so many consider that the Indians shouldn't have taken the bails off and appealed. Bell walked out of his crease while the ball was alive. Neither umpire had signalled a boundary, so it was clear that the ball hadn't gone for 4. He should have stayed where he was. He was clearly out and the Indians would have been perfectly within their rights to have stood by the appeal. It would have spoiled the atmosphere, true, but Bell was out according to the rules of the game and that, in my opinion, was that.

If that had been an Australian batsman, and his wicket had been vital to England winning an Ashes series, would Strauss have been keen to withdraw the appeal, I wonder? Or the Australian captain if it had been the other way round?

This is the same sort of trouble that arises sometimes when the question of the treatment an injured player in a football match comes up. Do the other team play on? Do they put the ball out of play? Do they get it back again afterwards? Is the injured player hamming it up?

When in doubt, go by the letter of the law. That's what it's there for.

When he was offered the second chance, Bell should have been man enough either to say 'No' or to kill his wicket first delivery and walk off. It was all down to his stupidity in the first place, and he should be man enough to take the consequences.

[easty]

When he was offered the second chance, Bell should have been man enough either to say 'No' or to kill his wicket first delivery and walk off. It was all down to his stupidity in the first place, and he should be man enough to take the consequences.

That's what I thought as well.

When I read that Straus and Flower had gone to the Indian dressing room to ask them to withdraw the appeal, that, for me, is the thing that is most out of order and the most unsportsmanlike part of this farce. Who runs the game, the umpires or the England side? The Indians should have the right to withdraw thier appeal if they want to, they shouldn't be asked to withdraw, certainly not by the opposition.

[--------]

That's what I thought as well.

When I read that Straus and Flower had gone to the Indian dressing room to ask them to withdraw the appeal, that, for me, is the thing that is most out of order and the most unsportsmanlike part of this farce. Who runs the game, the umpires or the England side? The Indians should have the right to withdraw thier appeal if they want to, they shouldn't be asked to withdraw, certainly not by the opposition.


I was watching, and enjoying, the match until this incident. Bell was batting well and building a really fine innings, and I was enjoying watching him. Gower, Hussein, and Manjrekar analysed events exhaustively and came to the well-considered conclusion that the Indians kept their eye on the ball and the umpires and were well aware that the ball wasn't dead. When Bell grounded his bat and then started wandering down towards Morgan I wondered what on earth he was doing - he was going to be stumped.

It was his stupidity that got him out - he's an experienced Test batsman and should have known better. I'm glad he didn't go on to make too many more - a double century in these circumstances would have left a very nasty taste.

The Test was already swinging England's way; for the England captain and coach to go to the Indians and ask them to withdraw was preposterous and IMO has debased this Test and the rest of the series. In my view India have behaved correctly; England and Bell have not - if we're thinking in terms of "the spirit of the game".

But what exactly "the spirit of the game" is, I'm not quite sure. My understanding of the "spirit" of cricket is that the "gentlemen" pretended to be unimpeachable sportsmen while the "players" were left to do the dirty work - and for most of the time cricket has been played as an organised sport snobbery and racism have been endemic to it.

But I still love the game.... :rolleyes:

[hibee62]

OK, so aside from the controversy of this test, who plays next week? Can't drop Broad now, can't drop Bresnan now, assume Tremlett, Trott and Swann are fully fit. Who plays?

[easty]

OK, so aside from the controversy of this test, who plays next week? Can't drop Broad now, can't drop Bresnan now, assume Tremlett, Trott and Swann are fully fit. Who plays?

I hear Jim Jeffries is available to play.:greengrin

[Calvin]

OK, so aside from the controversy of this test, who plays next week? Can't drop Broad now, can't drop Bresnan now, assume Tremlett, Trott and Swann are fully fit. Who plays?

If I had any say I'd keep this England team. Why change a winning formula, let alone one winning quite so convincingly. If you can't drop anyone, you don't - regardless of those waiting in the stands.

[--------]

OK, so aside from the controversy of this test, who plays next week? Can't drop Broad now, can't drop Bresnan now, assume Tremlett, Trott and Swann are fully fit. Who plays?


Depends on weather and wicket, but I'd go with an unchanged side.

Broad's response to the criticism he was receiving has been amazing - very impressed with him.

[Joe]

2-0 lead over the world number 1 having won both convincingly. Amazing stuff from Strauss and co :not worth

Any chance of getting Strauss and Flower's for the Hibs job? :wink:

[Calvin]

2-0 lead over the world number 1 having won both convincingly. Amazing stuff from Strauss and co :not worth

Any chance of getting Strauss and Flower's for the Hibs job? :wink:

Only if Straussy isn't player manager!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

This should put a smile on FH's face, England look like they are in for a hammering, 57-2, Trott injured and still 10 runs behind. Tee Hee! what an arse I made of that!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I'm sure when they were going through the laws of the game re the Bell incident one of the laws stated that the captain of the team withdrawing their appeal must do so before the batsman leaves the field, but, as far as I could see they never even discussed it!

[--------]

I'm sure when they were going through the laws of the game re the Bell incident one of the laws stated that the captain of the team withdrawing their appeal must do so before the batsman leaves the field, but, as far as I could see they never even discussed it!


Yup. Law 27.8 and 27.9 -

8. Withdrawal of an appeal: The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only if he obtains the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. He must do so before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.
9. Umpire’s decision: An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.


It's a guddle and leaves the game in a worse state IMO than if they had just stood by the decision. What did Strauss and Flowers say to the Indians - "If you don't let Ian back on we're going to take our ball and all go home"?

[lyonhibs]

I was watching, and enjoying, the match until this incident. Bell was batting well and building a really fine innings, and I was enjoying watching him. Gower, Hussein, and Manjrekar analysed events exhaustively and came to the well-considered conclusion that the Indians kept their eye on the ball and the umpires and were well aware that the ball wasn't dead. When Bell grounded his bat and then started wandering down towards Morgan I wondered what on earth he was doing - he was going to be stumped.

It was his stupidity that got him out - he's an experienced Test batsman and should have known better. I'm glad he didn't go on to make too many more - a double century in these circumstances would have left a very nasty taste.

The Test was already swinging England's way; for the England captain and coach to go to the Indians and ask them to withdraw was preposterous and IMO has debased this Test and the rest of the series. In my view India have behaved correctly; England and Bell have not - if we're thinking in terms of "the spirit of the game".

But what exactly "the spirit of the game" is, I'm not quite sure. My understanding of the "spirit" of cricket is that the "gentlemen" pretended to be unimpeachable sportsmen while the "players" were left to do the dirty work - and for most of the time cricket has been played as an organised sport snobbery and racism have been endemic to it.

But I still love the game.... :rolleyes:

I'm really confused by the whole incident. Bell was clearly in the wrong, the Indians called his bluff and he got given out. Such was the magnitude of his buckfuggery, that it looked like the Indians were somehow being cheeky in getting him out.

The real ********s in all this are the thousands of England fans who boo'ed to the rafters when the Indians were going out and coming back on again. A) because India were in the right in the first instance, and so shouldn't have been boo'ed in the first place, and b) because Doni et all had reinstated Bell, leaving the slavering English prats to consume vast quantities of humble pie whilst changing their tune and clapping the Indians to the rafters.

[Sir David Gray]

I think I understand this incident, Sky Sports News gave a pretty good account of it last night and if I'm understanding it correctly, I can understand why the Indians came to the decision that they did but at the end of the day, it was the English player's stupidity that caused the incident in the first place.

Sure, it would have left a bad taste in the mouth and it was an exceptional set of circumstances because it was the last ball before tea and because the ball was so close to the boundary etc, however the laws of the game are the laws of the game and if people start to mess around with those laws and begin to please themselves what they do, then chaos breaks out and no-one knows where they stand. That's why sports have umpires and referees. The laws of cricket state that the batsman was legally given 'out' and the umpire backed up that with his call. The decision of 'out' should therefore have stood and it should have served as a very harsh lesson to the batsman.

From doing some basic research, we're not talking about a young, inexperienced player who was just naive. Ian Bell is a very experienced cricketer and really ought to have known better.

[hibee62]

I'm sure when they were going through the laws of the game re the Bell incident one of the laws stated that the captain of the team withdrawing their appeal must do so before the batsman leaves the field, but, as far as I could see they never even discussed it!

I think someone said there is an exception if it is the last ball before a break. Possibly CMJ on TMS?

[hibee62]

I'm really confused by the whole incident. Bell was clearly in the wrong, the Indians called his bluff and he got given out. Such was the magnitude of his buckfuggery, that it looked like the Indians were somehow being cheeky in getting him out.

The real ********s in all this are the thousands of England fans who boo'ed to the rafters when the Indians were going out and coming back on again. A) because India were in the right in the first instance, and so shouldn't have been boo'ed in the first place, and b) because Doni et all had reinstated Bell, leaving the slavering English prats to consume vast quantities of humble pie whilst changing their tune and clapping the Indians to the rafters.

I would say thats harsh. Remember this isn't the same as football, etc. Cricket still has an air of doing the right thing. When Bell was originally given out, the fans thought they had violated this, after all Bell was not going for a run, he had simply made a mistake. Yes, the Indians, it turns out, were in the right, but they said themselves they didn't feel comfortable with the way it had all transpired. When they came out after tea, the fans still assumed that the Indians had broken the 'spirit' of the game, but the reception Dhoni got when the decision was reversed, both at the time and at the end of the game made up for that.

[easty]

I would say thats harsh. Remember this isn't the same as football, etc. Cricket still has an air of doing the right thing. When Bell was originally given out, the fans thought they had violated this, after all Bell was not going for a run, he had simply made a mistake. Yes, the Indians, it turns out, were in the right, but they said themselves they didn't feel comfortable with the way it had all transpired. When they came out after tea, the fans still assumed that the Indians had broken the 'spirit' of the game, but the reception Dhoni got when the decision was reversed, both at the time and at the end of the game made up for that.

They said that after a visit from Straus and Flower though. Without this "friendly" visit would they have done the same thing?

[hibee62]

They said that after a visit from Straus and Flower though. Without this "friendly" visit would they have done the same thing?

Probably not, but it seems like they may have been looking for an excuse to do it. And I doubt Flower and Strauss put any real pressure on them to change their mind.

[--------]

I would say thats harsh. Remember this isn't the same as football, etc. Cricket still has an air of doing the right thing. When Bell was originally given out, the fans thought they had violated this, after all Bell was not going for a run, he had simply made a mistake. Yes, the Indians, it turns out, were in the right, but they said themselves they didn't feel comfortable with the way it had all transpired. When they came out after tea, the fans still assumed that the Indians had broken the 'spirit' of the game, but the reception Dhoni got when the decision was reversed, both at the time and at the end of the game made up for that.


That's all as maybe, but if I'm watching and knew what was going on and that Bell was being monumentally stupid and that he was out, no argument, how come all those knowledgeable English cricket fans couldn't work it out? It's supposed to be THEIR game, after all?

The booing from the fans, then Strauss and Flowers going to their dressing-room, and all the rubbish about "the spirit of the game" basically bullied Dhoni into retracting, IMO.

And at the end of the day, I STILL say that when Bell was given the second chance he knew very well he didn't deserve, he should either have refused to return to the wicket, or better still, gone out and killed his wicket first delivery. That WOULD have been in the Corinthian "spirit of the game" that Strauss and Flowers no doubt cited when they went to put the guilt on Dhoni.

Those English fans weren't interested in "the spirit of the game" - they were only interested in England winning the game and improving their ranking.

[--------]

Probably not, but it seems like they may have been looking for an excuse to do it. And I doubt Flower and Strauss put any real pressure on them to change their mind.


REALLY? :rolleyes:

[hibee62]

REALLY? :rolleyes:

Yes, this isn't football. These guys are very intelligent, well educated men. I don't think they deserve the same cynicism we would give someone letting the old firm off with something for example.

[Joe]

The whole culture of cricket and football is totally different. I remeber Strauss calling back Michael Clark I think during the 2009 Ashes. I doubt that would happen in any football game, I could certainly never imagine someone in the Edinburgh derby, Hibs or Hearts, saying to the ref that the ball hadn't crossed the line. It serves as a stark contrast from the shameful way football is played with constant cheating which is seen at best as a part of the game and worst accseptable.

Just think of the outrage over the underarm delivery against New Zealand, or Philip Hughe's "catch" during the last Ashes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oiYV73lYhg

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What about the 2nd delivery of Broads hat-trick, a huge inside edge, it was so obviously not out, nae mention of the spirit of the game with Broad 2/3s of the way to a hat trick.

[hibee62]

What about the 2nd delivery of Broads hat-trick, a huge inside edge, it was so obviously not out, nae mention of the spirit of the game with Broad 2/3s of the way to a hat trick.

This is true, but even if England wanted to recall him once they'd seen video evidence they couldn't as the game had moved on. You can only call back if the batsman hasn't left the field of play unless its the end of the session. Who knows what would have happened had it been teh last ball before lunch and Fletcher/Dhoni came to see Strauss. Mind you I doubt it would have been the same outcome.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I'm sure Broad knew instantly!

[hibee62]

I'm sure Broad knew instantly!

I don't think so, if the umpire, standing still looking straight at it didn't see the edge, how do you suppose the guy on his follow through moving at huge pace would see it? Given the opportunity I don't think the English would have called him bck, just saying they never had the chance.

[--------]

Yes, this isn't football. These guys are very intelligent, well educated men. I don't think they deserve the same cynicism we would give someone letting the old firm off with something for example.


WG Grace was a highly intelligent, well-educated man - he was a doctor, after all.

He was also one of the craftiest, most devious, least sportsmanlike individuals in the history of sport anywhere. Look up the story of his confrontation with the Essex fast bowler Charles Kortwright, if you don't believe me.

Douglas Jardine was an intelligent, well-educated man - who invented leg-theory, aka bodyline, and very nearly killed a couple of Australian batsmen in the process. And the well-educated, intelligent men of the MCC Committee backed him until the whatsit hit the fan, and then they all banded together and let poor old Harold Larwood take the blame...

Tony Greig was a well-educated, intelligent man - but he came out with that crack about making the Windies (Lloyd, Richards, Holding and so on, remember?) GROVEL. He was a racist, thankfully a totally humiliated racist by the end of that tour.

I am an intelligent, well-educated man, but when I was an active fencer (epee - the big sword, because you could HURT people with it :devil: ) I would have taken any advantage fair or unfair within the laws of the sport, and if I had got away with a wee something outside the rules, do you think I would have owned up? Not blooming likely! (BTW - Reinhard Heydrich was also a fencer, a very good one. Maybe he was more sporting-minded than I was, but then I didn't think up the Final Solution... He was an intelligent and well-educated man too.)

What has intelligence or education got to do with it? They wanted to win, and they wanted Bell back at the wicket. Cricket is PROFESSIONAL sport, and has been for as long as it's been played. Cricketers only invoke "the spirit of the game" when there's an advantage to me gained - which is what happened here. Bodyline, according to the ACB, was contrary to the spirit of the game. Lillee and Thomson rapping the ball off English batsmen's helmets and groin protectors wasn't - according to the ACB. Oddly, the MCC thought bodyline was OK, but considered Lillee and Thommo unsporting. Go figure.

On Sunday Mike Holding told the story of a confrontation he had with Steve Waugh. Waugh ran across the wicket while Holding was at the crease. Waugh was wearing spikes. This is contrary to this mythical "spirit of the game". Holding pulled him up for it. Waugh's response was unrepeatable - after all, he IS Australian, I guess. "Spirit of the game"? Aye, right.

So how did Holding sort out the problem? When Waugh came in to bat second innings, Holding rapped two short-pitched, high-speed, rising balls off Waugh's hard hat. Waugh had to have them BOTH replaced - Holding had cracked them like eggshells. Waugh got the message.

Sports have Laws, and the Laws of the Game should be observed at all times.

Bell was out - no arguments - and it was his own silly, stupid fault - he's an experienced batsman and he should have known better. Just because the English supporters didn't know the rules (or maybe just didn't want to), why should Dhoni and the Indian team be labelled as cheats? They observed the rules punctiliously.

I say again - if we're supposed to be all Corinthian and unselfish and idealistic about this, Strauss and Flowers should have made it clear that Kumar was entirely within his rights to run Bell out. Why? Because Bell was out.

And if, in view of the loutish and unsportsmanlike behaviour of the Yahoos in the stands, it was deemed advisable for Dhoni to withdraw his appeal, then Bell - who was properly out due to his own stupidity, remember - should have gone out after tea, and first delivery he faced he should have shouldered his bat and allowed the bowler to knock over his wicket. Then he could have walked back to the pavilion, applauded by the Indian team, and all would have been well and BOTH sides would have observed "the spirit of the game" equally and impeccably.

There IS such a thing as sportsmanship, but it doesn't thrive very well in professional sport at any level. that goes for cricket as well as football.

[hibee62]

WG Grace was a highly intelligent, well-educated man - he was a doctor, after all.

He was also one of the craftiest, most devious, least sportsmanlike individuals in the history of sport anywhere. Look up the story of his confrontation with the Essex fast bowler Charles Kortwright, if you don't believe me.

Douglas Jardine was an intelligent, well-educated man - who invented leg-theory, aka bodyline, and very nearly killed a couple of Australian batsmen in the process. And the well-educated, intelligent men of the MCC Committee backed him until the whatsit hit the fan, and then they all banded together and let poor old Harold Larwood take the blame...

Tony Greig was a well-educated, intelligent man - but he came out with that crack about making the Windies (Lloyd, Richards, Holding and so on, remember?) GROVEL. He was a racist, thankfully a totally humiliated racist by the end of that tour.

I am an intelligent, well-educated man, but when I was an active fencer (epee - the big sword, because you could HURT people with it :devil: ) I would have taken any advantage fair or unfair within the laws of the sport, and if I had got away with a wee something outside the rules, do you think I would have owned up? Not blooming likely! (BTW - Reinhard Heydrich was also a fencer, a very good one. Maybe he was more sporting-minded than I was, but then I didn't think up the Final Solution... He was an intelligent and well-educated man too.)

What has intelligence or education got to do with it? They wanted to win, and they wanted Bell back at the wicket. Cricket is PROFESSIONAL sport, and has been for as long as it's been played. Cricketers only invoke "the spirit of the game" when there's an advantage to me gained - which is what happened here. Bodyline, according to the ACB, was contrary to the spirit of the game. Lillee and Thomson rapping the ball off English batsmen's helmets and groin protectors wasn't - according to the ACB. Oddly, the MCC thought bodyline was OK, but considered Lillee and Thommo unsporting. Go figure.

On Sunday Mike Holding told the story of a confrontation he had with Steve Waugh. Waugh ran across the wicket while Holding was at the crease. Waugh was wearing spikes. This is contrary to this mythical "spirit of the game". Holding pulled him up for it. Waugh's response was unrepeatable - after all, he IS Australian, I guess. "Spirit of the game"? Aye, right.

So how did Holding sort out the problem? When Waugh came in to bat second innings, Holding rapped two short-pitched, high-speed, rising balls off Waugh's hard hat. Waugh had to have them BOTH replaced - Holding had cracked them like eggshells. Waugh got the message.

Sports have Laws, and the Laws of the Game should be observed at all times.

bell was out - no arguments - and it was his one silly, stupid fault - he's an experienced batsman and he should have known better. Just because the English supporters didn't know the rules (or maybe just didn't want to), why should Dhoni and the Indian team be labelled as cheats? They observed the rules punctiliously.

I say again - if we're supposed to be all Corinthian and unselfish and idealistic about this, Strauss and Flowers should have made it clear that Kumar was entirely within his rights to run Bell out. Why? Because Bell was out.

And if, in view of the loutish and unsportsmanlike behaviour of the Yahoos in the stands, it was deemed advisable for Dhoni to withdraw his appeal, then Bell - who was properly out due to his own stupidity, remember - should have gone out after tea, and first delivery he faced he should have shouldered his bat and allowed the bowler to knock over his wicket. Then he could have walked back to the pavilion, applauded by the Indian team, and all would have been well and BOTH sides would have observed "the spirit of the game" equally and impeccably.

There IS such a thing as sportsmanship, but it doesn't thrive very well in professional sport at any level. that goes for cricket as well as football.

Very fair points, and I'm sure Strauss and Flower would have said they were within their rights. I reckon that they would have gone in and said "Look, we know he was an idiot, and we know he is out by the rules of the game, but he wasn't trying to score a run, and he simply made a mistake,please will you reconsider".

As far as WG Grace, and co I don't know much about what went on with them, and I also don't know all the details about Bodyline. I do know a story about WG Grace once being clean bowled, he turned round, put the bails back and said to teh bowler "they've come to see me bat, son, not to see you bowl".

Since Sunday, I have changed my mind on the incident, I only blame Bell and well accept the Indian team were well within their rights to run him out. But, I still think it was teh right thing to do and I see no reason why Bell would have to then give his wicket away. I applaud the Indian team for what they did, although I still don't like them with their DRS and alleged bullying antics:devil:

I also mean no offence with the well educated remark, I was referring to the players, where, in general, cricket boys are in general a little posher and more gentlemanly than your average footballer. I can't see a Hearts player ever calling back a Hibs player who was sent off after a dive for example in the way that Strauss with Mathews years ago or Dhoni with Bell yesterday did.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I don't think so, if the umpire, standing still looking straight at it didn't see the edge, how do you suppose the guy on his follow through moving at huge pace would see it? Given the opportunity I don't think the English would have called him bck, just saying they never had the chance. Right then, this is getting silly now, why do bowlers appeal so much for lbw decisions then, if they cant see whats going? Surely its just not crick... oh, wait a minute!Hibee62 are you singing Jerusalem as you make some of these posts?!!

[LiverpoolHibs]

They said that after a visit from Straus and Flower though. Without this "friendly" visit would they have done the same thing?

Why is 'friendly' in inverted commas? Is there any suggestion that Strauss and Flower were unfriendly or that they co-erced the Indian side in any way? Do you think the reaction of the Indian players when Bell was eventually dismissed would have happened if they felt they'd been made to do something they didn't want to do?


What about the 2nd delivery of Broads hat-trick, a huge inside edge, it was so obviously not out, nae mention of the spirit of the game with Broad 2/3s of the way to a hat trick.

This is nonsense. I watched that live and it looked plum, no-one in the commentary box picked up the inside edge until the slow-mo replay and the umpire failed to pick it up.

Why, then, do you expect a pumped up bowler who has just bowled an 85mph delivery to notice it or anyone else for that matter. That is the sort of mistake that happens in cricket all of the time.


WG Grace was a highly intelligent, well-educated man - he was a doctor, after all.

He was also one of the craftiest, most devious, least sportsmanlike individuals in the history of sport anywhere. Look up the story of his confrontation with the Essex fast bowler Charles Kortwright, if you don't believe me.

Yup, W.G. was a pretty horrible chap by all accounts.


Douglas Jardine was an intelligent, well-educated man - who invented leg-theory, aka bodyline, and very nearly killed a couple of Australian batsmen in the process. And the well-educated, intelligent men of the MCC Committee backed him until the whatsit hit the fan, and then they all banded together and let poor old Harold Larwood take the blame...

Jardine didn't invent leg-theory, it had been used in county cricket for years prior to the 32-33 tour. It was used by an English team touring Australia in 1911-12 and had even been used in Australian domestic cricket.

The tactics were nasty but there's a strange mythology grown up around the series. Bert Oldfield's fractured skull - the worst injury of the series by far - didn't come from a bouncer but from Oldfield top edging a standard delivery into his own head. He admitted that Larwood and Jardine were not to blame yet wicked Douglas Jardine had presents delivered to his wife and children.


Tony Greig was a well-educated, intelligent man - but he came out with that crack about making the Windies (Lloyd, Richards, Holding and so on, remember?) GROVEL. He was a racist, thankfully a totally humiliated racist by the end of that tour.

It's one of the oddities of cricket that despite being a huge fan of the English cricket side, I'd have been delighted to see the 'Blackwash' series go the way it did. Take that Greigy. Another plug for Fire in Babylon at this point, it covers that series brilliantly.

In a weird twist, Greig is quite an interesting person to mention given that he was involved in an incident almost identical to Bell's.

During an English tour of the West Indies in 1974 Bernard Julien blocked out the last ball of the day from England and then started walking towards the pavillion. Greig picked up the ball and ran Alvin Kallicharan (playing beautifully on 142) out. The West Indian fans were furious and started a near-riot (so it's not just those 'loutish' 'Yahoos' or 'English prats'), Greig decided to withdraw the appeal and Kallicharan was reinstated for the next days play.


bell was out - no arguments - and it was his one silly, stupid fault - he's an experienced batsman and he should have known better. Just because the English supporters didn't know the rules (or maybe just didn't want to), why should Dhoni and the Indian team be labelled as cheats? They observed the rules punctiliously.

I say again - if we're supposed to be all Corinthian and unselfish and idealistic about this, Strauss and Flowers should have made it clear that Kumar was entirely within his rights to run Bell out. Why? Because Bell was out.

And if, in view of the loutish and unsportsmanlike behaviour of the Yahoos in the stands, it was deemed advisable for Dhoni to withdraw his appeal, then Bell - who was properly out due to his own stupidity, remember - should have gone out after tea, and first delivery he faced he should have shouldered his bat and allowed the bowler to knock over his wicket. Then he could have walked back to the pavilion, applauded by the Indian team, and all would have been well and BOTH sides would have observed "the spirit of the game" equally and impeccably.

There IS such a thing as sportsmanship, but it doesn't thrive very well in professional sport at any level. that goes for cricket as well as football.

No-one was accusing Dhoni or anyone else of cheating. Neither has anyone suggested that Bell should not have been given out under the laws of the game.

The simple fact is that the nature of the game will mean that incidents such as this will happen fairly regularly because you can't codify this sort of thing (and remember that the Indian side were heading for the pavillion as well as Bell). At this point it's up to everyone to be sensible and sort things out together. And that's exactly what happened.

Would people seriously have wanted Collingwood to have followed through with his appeal against Grant Elliot in the Ryan Sidebottom incident. I wouldn't even though he was 100% out under the laws of the game. Dhoni et. al. just showed that they were more admirable individuals than Collingwood (I love you Paul, so sorry, but it's true).

[hibee62]

Right then, this is getting silly now, why do bowlers appeal so much for lbw decisions then, if they cant see whats going? Surely its just not crick... oh, wait a minute!Hibee62 are you singing Jerusalem as you make some of these posts?!!

I'm sorry, but don't be so petty. I support the English cricket team, yes, but everyone who saw Harbhajan's wicket thought it was out except Harbhajan, beacuse he felt the edge, and thats just bad luck. I was watching it and thought it was out, LiverpoolHibs was watching it and thought it was out, SkySports commentary team thought it was out, TMS were watching it and thought it was out and Marais Erasmus was watching it and thought it was out. Anyone know if Dravid saw the edge from the non-strikers end? I doubt it. So by that point, I can't see how Broad would have thought it was not out. Lest we forget that had the Indians allowed hawk-eye, they could have reviewed it and got away with it, now who's fault is that?

Bowlers are unlikely to know for sure if an appeal is out, they are on their follow through and see the ball hit pad somewhere in the vicinity of the stumps so appeal, it's upto the umpire, who is standing perfectly still, to decide whether or not to uphold the appeal.

[hibee62]

Why is 'friendly' in inverted commas? Is there any suggestion that Strauss and Flower were unfriendly or that they co-erced the Indian side in any way? Do you think the reaction of the Indian players when Bell was eventually dismissed would have happened if they felt they'd been made to do something they didn't want to do?



This is nonsense. I watched that live and it looked plum, no-one in the commentary box picked up the inside edge until the slow-mo replay and the umpire failed to pick it up.

Why, then, do you expect a pumped up bowler who has just bowled an 85mph delivery to notice it or anyone else for that matter. That is the sort of mistake that happens in cricket all of the time.



Yup, W.G. was a pretty horrible chap by all accounts.



Jardine didn't invent leg-theory, it had been used in county cricket for years prior to the 32-33 tour. It was used by an English team touring Australia in 1911-12 and had even been used in Australian domestic cricket.

The tactics were nasty but there's a strange mythology grown up around the series. Bert Oldfield's fractured skull - the worst injury of the series by far - didn't come from a bouncer but from Oldfield top edging a standard delivery into his own head. He admitted that Larwood and Jardine were not to blame yet wicked Douglas Jardine had presents delivered to his wife and children.



It's one of the oddities of cricket that despite being a huge fan of the English cricket side, I'd have been delighted to see the 'Blackwash' series go the way it did. Take that Greigy. Another plug for Fire in Babylon at this point, it covers that series brilliantly.

In a weird twist, Greig is quite an interesting person to mention given that he was involved in an incident almost identical to Bell's.

During an English tour of the West Indies in 1974 Bernard Julien blocked out the last ball of the day from England and then started walking towards the pavillion. Greig picked up the ball and ran Alvin Kallicharan (playing beautifully on 142) out. The West Indian fans were furious and started a near-riot (so it's not just those 'loutish' 'Yahoos' or 'English prats'), Greig decided to withdraw the appeal and Kallicharan was reinstated for the next days play.



No-one was accusing Dhoni or anyone else of cheating. Neither has anyone suggested that Bell should not have been given out under the laws of the game.

The simple fact is that the nature of the game will mean that incidents such as this will happen fairly regularly because you can't codify this sort of thing (and remember that the Indian side were heading for the pavillion as well as Bell). At this point it's up to everyone to be sensible and sort things out together. And that's exactly what happened.

Would people seriously have wanted Collingwood to have followed through with his appeal against Grant Elliot in the Ryan Sidebottom incident. I wouldn't even though he was 100% out under the laws of the game. Dhoni et. al. just showed that they were more admirable individuals than Collingwood (I love you Paul, so sorry, but it's true).

Finally, someone talks sense. And you know a lot more about the history of cricket than me, all very interesting. I saw Fire in Babylon without knowing anything about Greig, afterwards I couldn't believe he had come out with such a crass comment. Totally uncalled for. As for bodyline, as was said in Fire in Babylon, the only teams that complain about the fast bowlers are the ones who don't have them.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Anderson and Broad have started really well this morning. Looking to be a bit of an error to have brought Sehwag back when he hasn't played in so long.

Anyone up in arms about him trying to claim Broad's delivery hit him on the arm when he must have known it hit his glove?

[hibee62]

Anderson and Broad have started really well this morning. Looking to be a bit of an error to have brought Sehwag back when he hasn't played in so long.

Anyone up in arms about him trying to claim Broad's delivery hit him on the arm when he must have known it hit his glove?

:greengrin:top marks

[hibee62]

Well that couldn't have gone any better for England today. India could still get right back into it but we've been saying for sometime now now that this will be the day the real India show up, it's not happened yet...

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Cannae see it happening, bowlers who are consistently struggling to take wickets (with the odd wee exception now and again) and a batting line-up consistently failing to make 300 isnt a good recipe for success.

[hibee62]

Historically though, this batting line up is one of the best ever! ST is going to get his hundredth hundred, but when...? My money's on the dead rubber next week.

[--------]

Very fair points, and I'm sure Strauss and Flower would have said they were within their rights. I reckon that they would have gone in and said "Look, we know he was an idiot, and we know he is out by the rules of the game, but he wasn't trying to score a run, and he simply made a mistake,please will you reconsider".

As far as WG Grace, and co I don't know much about what went on with them, and I also don't know all the details about Bodyline. I do know a story about WG Grace once being clean bowled, he turned round, put the bails back and said to teh bowler "they've come to see me bat, son, not to see you bowl".

Since Sunday, I have changed my mind on the incident, I only blame Bell and well accept the Indian team were well within their rights to run him out. But, I still think it was teh right thing to do and I see no reason why Bell would have to then give his wicket away. I applaud the Indian team for what they did, although I still don't like them with their DRS and alleged bullying antics:devil:

I also mean no offence with the well educated remark, I was referring to the players, where, in general, cricket boys are in general a little posher and more gentlemanly than your average footballer. I can't see a Hearts player ever calling back a Hibs player who was sent off after a dive for example in the way that Strauss with Mathews years ago or Dhoni with Bell yesterday did.


That was in an exhibition match to raise funds for a charitable cause, and I suppose Grace had reason on his side there. Rae's biography (which is a great read, btw) tells various stories of the good doctor's shenanigans.

The Kortwright story relates to a match between Grace's side, Gloucestershire, and Essex. Grace had been cheating all through the match - claiming bump balls as catches, bullying the umpires, standing his ground when he knew very well he was out and appealling for Essex wickets when he knew very well the batsman WASN'T out.

Charles Kortwell was probably the fasted bowler of his day, and he didn't object to causing pain to batsmen. When Grace went in in Gloucestershire's second innings, Kortwright went after him. Three successive deliveries went something like this - the first took the outside edge, Essex all appeal for caught behind. Umpire raises his finger, Grace bellows at him down the wicket, umpire lowers finger, gives him not out. Second ball pitches on line, carries on straight into Grace's pads, Kortwright appeals for lbw, unpire gives Grace not out.

Third delivery is a full length, goes between bat and pad, off-stump rockets 50 yards square on the off, middle-stump nearly impales the wicket-keeper (who was 2/3 of the way to the boundary and in mortal fear of his life). Grace looks down, sighs, tucks his bat under his arm and sets off for the pavilion.

As he passes Kortwright grins and says, "You're not leaving yet, Doctor, are you? There's one stump still standing..."

Grace complained to the Essex secretary that he had never bee so insulted in all his life.

The secretary consoled him - "Oh, come on Doctor - I'm sure you must have been - often."


My point is that if we're going to adopt a Corinthian attitude to what is now a thoroughly professional game, then this should apply to both sides.

India took Bell's wicket in a legitimate manner - neither Bell, Strauss nor Flowers had any real grounds for an appeal to Dhoni's 'better nature'. Dhoni had done nothing wrong, so why should he and the Indian side be penalised by Bell returning to the crease to continue to make runs?

If their concern - a legitimate concern, I agree - was to avoid the rest of the match and the series being played in an atmosphere of resentment and booing, fair enough. But once Dhoni had withdrawn his appeal, Bell should have had the decency and sportsmanship to acknowledge that he was in fact out, and out perfectly fairly, by sacrificing his wicket immediately after the resumption of play.

You either appeal to the letter of the law - Bell out through his own stupid fault - or to the Corinthian spirit, in which case Bell makes the sacrifice of his wicket. the series then continues in a thoroughly sporting, though somewhat surreal spirit, and we all pretend that professional cricketers are really perfect gentlemen in a good old English public school way.

BTW - the late great Gordon Smith was once clattered by a young full-back playing his first senior game. The referee was about to send the boy off, when Gordon interceded with him on the full-back's behalf. "I'm fine, ref, the laddie didn't mean it, give him a chance, it's his first game..." The ref relented, and GS turned to the boy and told him to calm down, he didn't need to go in like that, play his normal game and he'd do fine, he was a much better player than that.

The boy settled down, completed the match and gave Gordon a real problem throughout - fairly.

But that was in the early 1950's, and I wasn't there. My dad was - he told me the story.

[--------]

Jardine didn't invent leg-theory, it had been used in county cricket for years prior to the 32-33 tour. It was used by an English team touring Australia in 1911-12 and had even been used in Australian domestic cricket.

The tactics were nasty but there's a strange mythology grown up around the series. Bert Oldfield's fractured skull - the worst injury of the series by far - didn't come from a bouncer but from Oldfield top edging a standard delivery into his own head. He admitted that Larwood and Jardine were not to blame yet wicked Douglas Jardine had presents delivered to his wife and children.




You're right - I was unfair on Jardine. Leg theory was a legitimate tactic adopted by a number of captains other than Douglas Jardine. I'd say that it was the combination of leg theory and the phenomenal pace of Harold Larwood that did the damage.

The 'Bodyline' TV mini-series someone mentioned only perpetuated the mythology you refer to - a Murdoch production IIRC, about as accurate and balanced a historical account as the movie he financed about Gallipoli. Dreadful rubbish.

I might have said that Jardine and Larwood together were treated very badly by the 'great ones' of the MCC who had approved the tactics before the fact and then did a U-turn when the solids hit the air-conditioning...

[LiverpoolHibs]

Anderson and Broad have started really well this morning. Looking to be a bit of an error to have brought Sehwag back when he hasn't played in so long.

Anyone up in arms about him trying to claim Broad's delivery hit him on the arm when he must have known it hit his glove?

Well that couldn't have gone alot worse for poor old Virender.

This really is a very, very good English side.

Oh and Eoin Morgan must have one of the strangest, ugliest batting techniques I've ever seen. Why on earth does he do that thing with his back leg? Genuinely peculiar.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

He almost holds the bat by the blade too, most unorthodox.

[LiverpoolHibs]

He almost holds the bat by the blade too, most unorthodox.

Yeah, noticed that as well. Presumably something to do with having played a lot of hurling as a kid.

[LiverpoolHibs]

That's an odd one. Dravid outranked by Tendulkar?

I love cricket, there's surely no other sport where your style of shoelace tying can have a major impact on the play.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Is this what it felt like to be Australian in the 90s? It's awfully unsettling.

[hibee62]

Is this what it felt like to be Australian in the 90s? It's awfully unsettling.

Now now, let's not get too carried away... :wink:

Certainly on recent viewings the only team who can come close to England at present are South Africa, Dale Steyn is rather terrifying! But how did India ever get to number 1???

Next summer's series is now bigger than this one IMO...:agree:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Another easy win for England makes it 4-0 in the series, now officially ranked 1 in the world, good effort all round.

[CFC]

Some interesting posts on the first couple of pages here about the appeal of cricket. I'd have to say Im no uber fan but Ive always had a casual interest in the sport and one of the big positives in the sport for me is the fact that (in common with Rugby) playing for your country is still considered the pinnacle of the game. Contrast to football where the Champions league and money have really undermined the international game. It is also a sport (again, like Rugby) that has more or less stayed true to its traditions. Some might beg to differ but imo the "true corinthian values of sport" are more evident in cricket and rugby than in modern football and mores the pity (for football that is).

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I attended my first ever cricket match at The Oval last Sunday night, really enjoyed the match and the result!

[CFC]

I attended my first ever cricket match at The Oval last Sunday night, really enjoyed the match and the result!

Bit of a turn up for the books that one, England had a very gettable run total and just collapsed ..............4 run outs!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

In all honesty I wanted England to win, but, enjoyed the banter going on between the 2 sets of fans.
I've often thought it must be quite tricky to follow whats going on sitting so far from the wicket, but, wasnt an issue.
Only bad point of the evening was a local in a pub near Vauxhall Station nearly wanting to go fighting cos I wouldnae get as angry as he wanted me to be when he was slagging me about the Argentina rugby result that morning! I was too bevvied to give a flying one to be honest!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Is there any chance of India managing to lose any of the current one day internationals in this series? 2 0 up with 3 to play, England have been so poor that anything other than 5 0 looks very unlikely. I know sub-continent conditions are extremely different, but, what a huge turnaround in such a short time.

[hibee62]

Is there any chance of India managing to lose any of the current one day internationals in this series? 2 0 up with 3 to play, England have been so poor that anything other than 5 0 looks very unlikely. I know sub-continent conditions are extremely different, but, what a huge turnaround in such a short time.

IMHO the English don't take ODIs seriously enough if they want to win the world cup. This resting players nonsense, whether or not they play all the games is one thing, but they should be taking everyone in the team on tour at least.

And dropping Ian Bell seemed a very strange decision to me, OK Bairstow deserves to play but I'd have dropped Kieswetter or Bopara first.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

A better effort from England batting first today - 298-4. Trott 2 short of a ton and a fine 70 by Patel. I get the feeling they may be a few runs short of picking up their maiden win in this series though.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

India win with 4 balls remaining. 300-5.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Is there any chance of India managing to lose any of the current one day internationals in this series? 2 0 up with 3 to play, England have been so poor that anything other than 5 0 looks very unlikely. I know sub-continent conditions are extremely different, but, what a huge turnaround in such a short time. Oh dear! As i was saying, 5 0, what a tanking!

[hibee62]

Just in case anyone's interested, Scotland are taking part in the Hong Kong Cricket Sixes Tournament for the first time. Drawn with Sri Lanka, New Zealand and an All Star team featuring Shahid Afridi, Sanath Jayasuriya and Shaun Tait, Scotland have beaten both New Zealand and the all stars to reach the quarter finals where they will face Hong Kong.

http://www.cricket.com.hk/db/ARCHIVE/2011-12/OTHERS/HKG_LOCAL/HKSIXES2011.html