Official England Cricket Thread

[Cricket_Fan]

I have a different opinion on this. First of all, they were not reverse sweeps. Because you're changing the way you hold your bat, you're effectively becoming a left-hander batsman. You don't do that in reverse sweep, so this cannot be called reverse sweep.

Second of all, my problem with this is that a batsman can change his batting style, and can make a ball, that would've been very good to a right hander, look into an ordinary one. If a bowler is allowed to change his bowling angle (over the wicket/around the wicket) without telling the umpire as a compensation for this, then it's fine with me. It's a great skill to be able to be able to change style, but it's not fair to the bowlers.

[lucknowii sky]

Originally Posted by Cricket_Fan

I have a different opinion on this. First of all, they were not reverse sweeps. Because you're changing the way you hold your bat, you're effectively becoming a left-hander batsman. You don't do that in reverse sweep, so this cannot be called reverse sweep.

Second of all, my problem with this is that a batsman can change his batting style, and can make a ball, that would've been very good to a right hander, look into an ordinary one. If a bowler is allowed to change his bowling angle (over the wicket/around the wicket) without telling the umpire as a compensation for this, then it's fine with me. It's a great skill to be able to be able to change style, but it's not fair to the bowlers.

These are suffering days for bowlers. They are being discriminated.

[phaedrus]

Originally Posted by Cricket_Fan

I have a different opinion on this. First of all, they were not reverse sweeps. Because you're changing the way you hold your bat, you're effectively becoming a left-hander batsman. You don't do that in reverse sweep, so this cannot be called reverse sweep.

Second of all, my problem with this is that a batsman can change his batting style, and can make a ball, that would've been very good to a right hander, look into an ordinary one. If a bowler is allowed to change his bowling angle (over the wicket/around the wicket) without telling the umpire as a compensation for this, then it's fine with me. It's a great skill to be able to be able to change style, but it's not fair to the bowlers.

then change the rules in such a way that the umpires then judge it as a left handers shot.
i dont think allowing the bowler to change his angle would really help that much because(especially with a fast bowler) when he changes his runup and the batsman will be able to see which angle he is taking. and more than the batsman, it might put the bowler off
the shot itself if very skillful and innovative and i think it should stay.

[Pobbie]

I definitely think bowlers should be allowed to bowl on whichever side they choose to without having to consult the umpire beforehand.

I also think bowlers should be allowed to use whichever bowling hand they wish: this doesn't give the bowler an unfair advantage, as changing hands in the run-up or delivery stride would be a very difficult move to execute without completely fucking it up (even for an ambidextrous bowler).

[KiwiBrit]

It would be hard for the bowler to change from over to around the wicket without consulting the umpire simply because of where would the 2nd batsman stand?

Bowlers are beginning to get the short straw with new some of the new innovations in the game, but remember they have certain things which aid them. Amongst which they get the benefit of a waring pitch when spinners get to bowl in to footmarks.And they do not have to warn the batsmen before they bowl in-swingers, out-swingers, yorkers, slow balls or bouncers. Imagine if they had to bowl a certain line and length all the time.

My point is bowlers can vary their game plan, to give uncertainty to the opposition. So why shouldn't the batsmen?

[Pobbie]

Originally Posted by KiwiBrit

It would be hard for the bowler to change from over to around the wicket without consulting the umpire simply because of where would the 2nd batsman stand?

Couldn't the second batsman just stand a bit further away? That's what runners do when a batsman plays on with an injury. In theory, as long as they are within the umpires' line of sight there shouldn't be a problem.

[KiwiBrit]

I guess so Pobbie.

[phaedrus]

yup, a little away from the main pitch should do the trick, giving the bowler enough space.
hey, if the bowlers can use this to their advantage then this should totally be allowed.
and all this talk of the umpires not being able to judge, screw it, use technology.

[BeestonLad]

switch hitting at this early stage is hardly an unfair advantage to the bowlers, hardly anyone at the moment is capable / got the balls to play it and if they do then its a very high risk shot giving the bowler more chance of taking a wicket

[KiwiBrit]

Good point.

[lucknowii sky]

No one following England vs South Africa test match?
England doing pretty good!!

[KiwiBrit]

Pretty good? I'd say England are doing bloody well sharaf!

[Noostairz]

i am watching this over the internets.

[lucknowii sky]

Originally Posted by KiwiBrit

Pretty good? I'd say England are doing bloody well sharaf!

Not anymore, Smith and Mackenzei are batting pretty good and taking match away from England.

[phaedrus]

great rear-guard actuation by the south africans.
sets the match up for tomorrow. lets see what the bowlers can do.
Still going for england at this time. a quick couple of wickets is what they need in the first session

[Durbsboi]

Draw on the cards, quite suprised at the resistance those 2 have put up, wasnt the best to watch, but a fight none the less. Smith got out cheaply, think from pure frustration from batting the whole day. Niel's going at it very cautiously, I think should go give his wife some company in the stands whilst he bats their the whole day

Hope Alma gets into his stride today, makes a ton as well, he made 170 in the practice match.

[phaedrus]

so, giving her company then Durbs? looks like he is going to be on the ground for some time.

[nezzybaby]

England doing there best to avoid winning a test match, once they realised they weren't going to lose a day for rain they had to find another way to force a draw.

[Durbsboi]

Originally Posted by sn1101

so, giving her company then Durbs? looks like he is going to be on the ground for some time.

shes a stunner, but thought since Niel banged her up already, I should rather go for her sister.

[BeestonLad]

what a boring match, Mckenzies hundred was one of the dullest ive ever seen. Another nail in the coffin of test cricket . Wicket was terrible - another reason why Lords shouldnt be hosting two tests per year