Australia v England, 5th ODI, Adelaide, 26 January, 2014

OP Tipping wrote:"By the way, I actually think Cook may be getting his faults as a captain tactically."

I don't understand.

Charlie was clearly rage-fulminant during that post. He also wrote "one" where it must be "won".

From the context, I can only take him to mean "Cook may be getting to grips with his faults as a captain technically". Maybe he was so furious, he rewrote the line a couple of times. Recipe for those "phrase/meaning dropouts", as I know myself.

PeterCS wrote:

skully wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Of course if Wade had gloved the ball cleanly we wouldn't be having this discussion. But that's in some other parallel universe replete with porcine dirigibles.

This and Mon-keh and D's assertions that Bops wouldn't have got 'em home anyway are mute points, I guess. It's a HALATSB instance, but an interesting discussion point.

I'm interested in the Assassin's thoughts, but.

You must mean moot? Can't be mute if they've been raised!

Indeed Petey, my bad.   

holcs wrote:

By the way, I actually think Cook may be getting his faults as a captain tactically.

If you mean getting over, or improving in some way, I'd disagree.

Every player found it virtually impossible to hit down the ground during the game, and anyone that tried to hit over the top got out. At 60/4 it was absolutely ridiculous for Cook to have mid on and mid off back, giving Australia easy singles when he should've been squeezing the life out of them, demanding that they play big, risky shots if they want to keep the scoreboard moving.

Once again, in a position of strength, he took his foot off the throat and defaulted to damage limitation mode.

He'll never change. He sticks rigidly to his pre-approved plans, handed down by the statisticians and computer geeks, whatever the situation. That's not captaincy.

I agree. He'll never change. He's brave like that. Has integrity. Yeah, we've lost. We've lost bad. But look how stoically he's stuck to the quivering, opposition-wary, speculative-at-best, Robototron tactics. It's pretty admirable.

What do the numbers say? No slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with.

Finch has just slotted two over extra cover, looks like he's going to do it again. What do the numbers say? No slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with.

Numerous edges through second slip. What do the numbers say? No slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with.

We've got two quick wickets, two new men at the crease. What do the numbers say? No slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with.

He's a lesson in sticking to your guns. Jimmy Savile raped kids. What do the numbers say? No slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with.

There're two burritos left during the ECB Mexican night. What do the numbers say? No slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with. Maybe a mojito if I'm feeling daring... no. The numbers say no slips, everyone back on the 30 yard circle, as many boundary riders as you can get away with. I won't. I just won't.



I am Robototron
Exo-skele-titanium
I am cyborg-champion

I was in a car crash
Or was it the war?
Well, I've never been quite the same
Little white lies like "I was there"

"We are here to serve you"
The "captain" has
A different face but the tactics never change ...
You wouldn't believe
The things they do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ci7lssNMRI

I prefer Evil Scarecrow if I were to be blunt.

To be frank, I'd prefer a decent captain.

These tablets and their auto correct!

Anyway, what I meant was, that Cook seems to understand that his weakness as a Captain is exactly what Dan and Dello were stating.

Which is a move in the right direction. However, I am just not sure he has the ability to recognise this during a game.

We are stuck with him, so I am taking any glimmer of a potential positive I can!

The more worrisome part is his and either coaching set-ups inability to inspire any of his team to stand up and be counted!

cook is a bit unimaginative and defensive...but then look at the team at his disposal...I think he should be persisted with...the poms seem to have forgotten their wins v Oz and the Bannies last year...I doubt the pom selectors would consider bell or broad

Dello wrote:He'll (Cook) never change. He sticks rigidly to his pre-approved plans, handed down by the statisticians and computer geeks, whatever the situation. That's not captaincy.  

Interesting point. Flair and imagination is clearly what sets the better captains from the by-the-stats-&-book types.

I blame Ned Flanders.

Since the Assassin appears to have rolled in...

A, your learned opinion please?

skully wrote:On the stumping, I thought the law was that a bail had to be totally separated from the groove. However they said a number of times while the 3rd ump reviewed that only one end of the bail needs to be out of the groove. There was a clear stop frame shot from behind Weed that showed the left end of the bail well out of the groove and Ravi's foot off the ground.

MB, what exactly is the rule, and what was your opinion (see the clip above from Dello, if you haven't seen it) about the decision?

The parochial Aus commbox (including Healy, who confirmed the law a number of times) had no doubt it was out.

Marty appears to have rolled out again.

Or maybe he has been consulting the Laws.

self evident..twas out

The scoreboard suggests so. Was merely after the White Coated One's learned opinion.

Praps he's too busy ATM, or doesn't know/care.   

The Law is ambiguous on the point . The wicket has been broken because the bail does come off . It just doesnt say conclusively that the ball hitting the wicket or the bail coming off is the decisive moment . Probably because until this incident it didnt matter

I would say not out (but could easily argue it was out too) ...and it only ever be a question when there is a third umpire ...ie at normal speed you would just say not out (then shrug and say you needed a tv replay to give it out )

I reckon Drarmasena had the sound up, and was hearing all of those knowledgeable, fair-minded commentators in the Nine commentary box declare it "definitely out".

embee wrote:The Law is ambiguous on the point . The wicket has been broken because the bail does come off . It just doesnt say conclusively that the ball hitting the wicket or the bail coming off is the decisive moment . Probably because until this incident it didnt matter

I would say not out (but could easily argue it was out too) ...and it only ever be a question when there is a third umpire ...ie at normal speed you would just say not out (then shrug and say you needed a tv replay to give it out )

Cheers A.

My gut feel at the time was not out.

Maybe the Law (given the much increased use of TV technology) needs to have an amendment. Something like the wicket is deemed broken if a bail is displaced from the groove AND DOES NOT REMAIN ON TOP OF THE WICKET. The not-remaining bit can be after a foot is regrounded i.e if at the time of a batsman's foot not being grounded behind the line the wicket is broken, and then the bail falls to the ground after the foot grounding, it is out.  

Henry wrote:I reckon Drarmasena had the sound up, and was hearing all of those knowledgeable, fair-minded commentators in the Nine commentary box declare it "definitely out".

oh well I guess you have to get your consoling thoughts where you can Mr Mudge

skully wrote:

embee wrote:The Law is ambiguous on the point . The wicket has been broken because the bail does come off . It just doesnt say conclusively that the ball hitting the wicket or the bail coming off is the decisive moment . Probably because until this incident it didnt matter

I would say not out (but could easily argue it was out too) ...and it only ever be a question when there is a third umpire ...ie at normal speed you would just say not out (then shrug and say you needed a tv replay to give it out )

Cheers A.

My gut feel at the time was not out.

Maybe the Law (given the much increased use of TV technology) needs to have an amendment. Something like the wicket is deemed broken if a bail is displaced from the groove AND DOES NOT REMAIN ON TOP OF THE WICKET. The not-remaining bit can be after a foot is regrounded i.e if at the time of a batsman's foot not being grounded behind the line the wicket is broken, and then the bail falls to the ground after the foot grounding, it is out.  

There should be youtube somewhere of a BBL game where Dilshan threw the ball into the stumps and the zinger bails came off and went back on again ...the Thunder didnt have much go right for them

embee wrote:

skully wrote:

embee wrote:The Law is ambiguous on the point . The wicket has been broken because the bail does come off . It just doesnt say conclusively that the ball hitting the wicket or the bail coming off is the decisive moment . Probably because until this incident it didnt matter

I would say not out (but could easily argue it was out too) ...and it only ever be a question when there is a third umpire ...ie at normal speed you would just say not out (then shrug and say you needed a tv replay to give it out )

Cheers A.

My gut feel at the time was not out.

Maybe the Law (given the much increased use of TV technology) needs to have an amendment. Something like the wicket is deemed broken if a bail is displaced from the groove AND DOES NOT REMAIN ON TOP OF THE WICKET. The not-remaining bit can be after a foot is regrounded i.e if at the time of a batsman's foot not being grounded behind the line the wicket is broken, and then the bail falls to the ground after the foot grounding, it is out.  

There should be youtube somewhere of a BBL game where Dilshan threw the ball into the stumps and the zinger bails came off and went back on again ...the Thunder didnt have much go right for them

Aye. I didn't see that one but I've seen enough examples in Tests where a ball impact made a bail bounce but not fall off. That's why my reaction at the time was not out. The TV umpire only knew the raised-out-of-the-groove bail would fall off after Ravi's foot was regrounded. Hence my question to you.

Then again, I guess if the bail fell back in the groove, there'd be no appeal. So perhaps the appeal removes any need for the "fall to the ground" component. As such, the wicket IS broken once the bail has lifted from the groove.

If the bail was up before the foot was in then he's out. 

Who cares if it COULD have lodged back, it didn't. 

Common sense.

JGK wrote:If the bail was up before the foot was in then he's out. 

Who cares if it COULD have lodged back, it didn't. 

Common sense.

Yes, the additional sentence I added above (as you were posting) agrees with that.  

JGK wrote:If the bail was up before the foot was in then he's out. 

Who cares if it COULD have lodged back, it didn't. 

Common sense.

"Common sense can only be applied when it is consistent with the Laws of Cricket or relevant playing conditions"

B Rennie ...WACA umpire co-ordinator

embee wrote:

JGK wrote:If the bail was up before the foot was in then he's out. 

Who cares if it COULD have lodged back, it didn't. 

Common sense.

"Common sense can only be applied when it is consistent with the Laws of Cricket or relevant playing conditions"

B Rennie ...WACA umpire co-ordinator

Fairy nuff
But it is in this case isnt it
Isnt inconsistent anyway which is good enough for me