Cricket

[Stan]

Bloody hell. England have made this ridiculously easy for Australia. Getting tempted to hit every short ball is the downside of 'Bazball'. 

All they had to do, especially after Lyon's injury, is ride the storm and the tempo Australia built from Pope's wicket. But instead they've essentially just took the bait that Australia served up. Just needed to tire the Aus bowlers out as the day ended. 

If they played a bit more sensibly and not so overtly aggressively, you're probably exceeding Australia's total. Instead it looks like they may go in a fair bit behind.

[Lucas]

43 minutes ago, Spike said:

How many batsmen his height ever become elite? KP is all I can think of

Not many but he could be.

Beautiful to watch, get's in and starts to really dictate the flow of runs.

Then just has a random brain fart and undoes his work. So frustrating. Not sure what the stats are but I bet his percentage of converting centuries from 40/50 odd is shocking.

[Lucas]

Got to say, we've really threw away a solid foundation.

188-1 to 222-4. This at a time when Lyon's out the attack injured and the seamers are starting to feel it. Not through any really great balls, just mindless shots.

Three wickets out from short balls. Timid ways to get out but especially frustrating for Pope and Duckett, the latter on 98.

Root never looked comfortable. Got lucky to get away with the out off the no ball from Green in truth.

Big pressure on Stokes now. Wouldn't trust Harry Brook not to play a silly shot so it's vital Stokes get's in and stays there because before you know it, a tremendous start evaporates to 320-340 all out and you're staring at a big deficit.

Got to be a balance with this style. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Lucas

[Stan]

21 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Not sure what the stats are but I bet his percentage of converting centuries from 40/50 odd is shocking.

Nine 50s

Three 100s. 

[Lucas]

22 hours ago, Lucas said:

Big pressure on Stokes now. Wouldn't trust Harry Brook not to play a silly shot so it's vital Stokes get's in and stays there because before you know it, a tremendous start evaporates to 320-340 all out and you're staring at a big deficit.

Got to be a balance with this style. 

What the fudge did I say?

325 all out. And with it, the match, probably.

Stokes lasts 2nd ball of the day. Gone.

Harry Brook. Get's to 50, plays an absolute soft as shit swot shot from a high ball and off he walks.

Bairstow, poor timing, gives a dolly to the fielder.

You can't just keep expecting to whack the best team in the world all over the shop. It's bordering on arrogance and nearly every dismissal just looks incredibly naive.

But as long as we're entertaining along the way right? Cake walk for the Aussies and they are basically playing steady eddie cricket watching us implode.

[Spike]

19 hours ago, Lucas said:

What the fudge did I say?

325 all out. And with it, the match, probably.

Stokes lasts 2nd ball of the day. Gone.

Harry Brook. Get's to 50, plays an absolute soft as shit swot shot from a high ball and off he walks.

Bairstow, poor timing, gives a dolly to the fielder.

You can't just keep expecting to whack the best team in the world all over the shop. It's bordering on arrogance and nearly every dismissal just looks incredibly naive.

But as long as we're entertaining along the way right? Cake walk for the Aussies and they are basically playing steady eddie cricket watching us implode.

It’s okay. England decided to copy Australia’s fielding and bowling strategy.

[Spike]

Allan Border has Parkinson’s  

[Spike]

Ridiculous that Starc’s catch isn’t a ‘catch’. It was in his hands for two bloody seconds before dragging the ball on the ground. If Cameron Green had a catch against India, how is Starc’s not?

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Ridiculous that Starc’s catch isn’t a ‘catch’. It was in his hands for two bloody seconds before dragging the ball on the ground. If Cameron Green had a catch against India, how is Starc’s not?

Because Green's shouldn't have been either .

In all seriousness, I think the right decision was made. The ball has been grounded while he's still in the movement and momentum of catching it. I'm surprised there's even much debate about it as I think it's quite clear-cut. 

As much as it was in his hands for 2 seconds, he's also had the same amount of time dragging it across the floor almost to balance himself? 

[Spike]

6 minutes ago, Stan said:

Because Green's shouldn't have been either .

In all seriousness, I think the right decision was made. The ball has been grounded while he's still in the movement and momentum of catching it. I'm surprised there's even much debate about it as I think it's quite clear-cut. 

As much as it was in his hands for 2 seconds, he's also had the same amount of time dragging it across the floor almost to balance himself? 

Yeah, he should have used his face instead of his hands to break his fall. Fingers were under the ball, caught with two hands, if he had caught the ball and chucked it up in the air before landing they would have called it a catch and you know it.

[Lucas]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Ridiculous that Starc’s catch isn’t a ‘catch’. It was in his hands for two bloody seconds before dragging the ball on the ground. If Cameron Green had a catch against India, how is Starc’s not?

I actually think that is more of a catch than Steve Smith's was of Root.

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Spike said:

Yeah, he should have used his face instead of his hands to break his fall. Fingers were under the ball, caught with two hands, if he had caught the ball and chucked it up in the air before landing they would have called it a catch and you know it.

Well yeah, if he wanted to make sure the ball didn't touch the floor

And yeah, obviously he caught the ball and chucked it up in the air, it would have been a catch. Because the ball didn't touch the floor? Not sure how that proves it was a catch? 

[Spike]

8 minutes ago, Stan said:

Well yeah, if he wanted to make sure the ball didn't touch the floor

And yeah, obviously he caught the ball and chucked it up in the air, it would have been a catch. Because the ball didn't touch the floor? Not sure how that proves it was a catch? 

Because it’s the flaw of the laws. When does the catch start and end? He had it in 100% in control in his hands, thats the catch, ball is dead. He throws it up in the air for the celebration, hits the floor after the celebration, but it is a catch.

The whole ‘in control of the body’ phrasing is nebulous nonsense, equally as nebulous as ‘fingers under the ball’, which they were, not a lot of finger mind, but they were still under the ball.  Everyone that isn’t from England thinks it was a terrible umpire decision. Whatever, it’s passed, I’m sure the next non-catch will be given as a wicket to even things out again.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Spike

[Stan]

17 minutes ago, Spike said:

Because it’s the flaw of the laws. When does the catch start and end? He had it in 100% in control in his hands, thats the catch, ball is dead. He throws it up in the air for the celebration, hits the floor after the celebration, but it is a catch.

The whole ‘in control of the body’ phrasing is nebulous nonsense, equally as nebulous as ‘fingers under the ball’, which they were, not a lot of finger mind, but they were still under the ball.  Everyone that isn’t from England thinks it was a terrible umpire decision. Whatever, it’s passed, I’m sure the next non-catch will be given as a wicket to even things out again.

You're bringing in a premise that, while is a law in itself, isn't actually comparable to the situation we're discussing. 

He's let the ball hit the floor. Even if there was a bit of finger under it, there's not enough of it I think, and he's let the ball drag on the floor, clearly making contact.

There's people saying it evens out the Smith decision, so where does the even-ing out end?! 

33.3 Making a catch

The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement

 

That's the rules. So control of the body clearly isn't as useless or irrelevant as you make it out to be. Starc used his hands and the ball on the ground to control how he falls. So going back to your previous point, if he had to use his face to ensure it was a fair catch and eliminate all doubt, then do so... 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Stan said:

You're bringing in a premise that, while is a law in itself, isn't actually comparable to the situation we're discussing. 

He's let the ball hit the floor. Even if there was a bit of finger under it, there's not enough of it I think, and he's let the ball drag on the floor, clearly making contact.

There's people saying it evens out the Smith decision, so where does the even-ing out end?! 

33.3 Making a catch

The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement

 

That's the rules. So control of the body clearly isn't as useless or irrelevant as you make it out to be. Starc used his hands and the ball on the ground to control how he falls. So going back to your previous point, if he had to use his face to ensure it was a fair catch and eliminate all doubt, then do so... 

We are just disagreeing here on basic interpretations of the wording. I think the writing is very vague and nebulous, very poorly defined. It doesn’t specify how much ‘finger’ needs to be under, so can it be just fingertips? I’d say yes if it doesn’t specify. They explicitly say that it doesn’t matter if the ball touches the ground as long as fingers touch underneath, it is so ridiculous, but that is what the umpires say. I’d also argue that ‘momentum’ would be more appropriate than ‘movement’. I’d say everyone that is fully capable is always in control of their own ‘movement’. If I were were fall off a ladder, I’d still be in control of my body own movements but not the momentum of gravity!

The problem isn’t that it is or isn’t a catch the problem is that the laws create the argument.

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

We are just disagreeing here on basic interpretations of the wording. I think the writing is very vague and nebulous, very poorly defined. It doesn’t specify how much ‘finger’ needs to be under, so can it be just fingertips? I’d say yes if it doesn’t specify. They explicitly say that it doesn’t matter if the ball touches the ground as long as fingers touch underneath, it is so ridiculous, but that is what the umpires say. I’d also argue that ‘momentum’ would be more appropriate than ‘movement’. I’d say everyone that is fully capable is always in control of their own ‘movement’. If I were were fall off a ladder, I’d still be in control of my body own movements but not the momentum of gravity!

The problem isn’t that it is or isn’t a catch the problem is that the laws create the argument.

Now that we can agree on! 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Stan said:

Now that we can agree on! 

It’s a welcome spark of life for the Ashes, so shan’t complain too much.

[Spike]

What is Bairstow doing? Why would he immediately start walking like that? Is he drunk? He is a bloody wickie himself.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Spike

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

What is Bairstow doing? Why would he immediately start walking like that? Is he drunk? He is a bloody wickie himself

Absolutely no issue with the dismissal from me. 

Quick thinking from Carey to do that, and notice Bairstow did it a few times before. 

And pure laziness from Bairstow. Stupid. 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

Absolutely no issue with the dismissal from me. 

Quick thinking from Carey to do that, and notice Bairstow did it a few times before. 

And pure laziness from Bairstow. Stupid. 

Fuck me dead how often was Bairstow walking out of his crease to preempt Carey immediately tossing it at the wicket before he even walked? English will be mad at Australia but they should be mad at Bairstow.  How many days has he fucked up for England just these Ashes?

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Fuck me dead how often was Bairstow walking out of his crease to preempt Carey immediately tossing it at the wicket before he even walked? English will be mad at Australia but they should be mad at Bairstow.  How many days has he fucked up for England just these Ashes?

Exactly. Sky showed the 3 balls before, and he did it every time. 

England will be mad, but I think it's probably more frustration and misplaced anger. 

 

Yeah it's not usual to see it, but it's also not against the rules. Aussies are just more ruthless with that. 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

Exactly. Sky showed the 3 balls before, and he did it every time. 

England will be mad, but I think it's probably more frustration and misplaced anger. 

 

Yeah it's not usual to see it, but it's also not against the rules. Aussies are just more ruthless with that. 

Stokes is on fire, wow

[Stan]

Stokes. Love it. This is quality. 

[Spike]

Stokes is going to win this alone what the fuck 

[Stan]

How can anyone not love Ashes cricket.