2024 - 2025 Summer of Cricket

The pressure is certainly on India to score runs, there is no weak link in the Australian bowling lineup today.

Webster being able to bowl more than a token few overs and not concede many runs will prevent the other Australian bowlers being over bowled.
 
Oh yeah, I have some saucy sporting cricketing celeb goss. Yesterday on my flight to Nelson on a small plane, the Wellington women’s team (the Blaze) was on board. Ellyse Perry is playing a couple of games for them so was on board. As the flight attendant (there was only one since it was a tiny plane) was doing her safety instructions she had to stop partway through and tell Perry off coz she had her headphones on and wasn’t listening. 😬😂
 
Relentless sustained pressure from Australia eventually in a wicket fell and one wicket often leads to 2.

Pant fought hard and got hit multiple times but eventually he made a mistake.

This pitch isn’t easy to bat on but India will be very disappointed with their score.
 
jamesgould said:
Oh yeah, I have some saucy sporting cricketing celeb goss. Yesterday on my flight to Nelson on a small plane, the Wellington women’s team (the Blaze) was on board. Ellyse Perry is playing a couple of games for them so was on board. As the flight attendant (there was only one since it was a tiny plane) was doing her safety instructions she had to stop partway through and tell Perry off coz she had her headphones on and wasn’t listening. 😬😂
Click to expand...
I reckon Ellyse would be pretty well versed as to where the whistle is located on the life jacket.
 
Whatever Konstas did, he really irritated Bumrah.

Australia will need to bat well tomorrow. The forecast is for mostly sunny weather tomorrow which will help us.
 
What did you all think of the no catch ruling? Didn’t really make a difference in the end, luckily.

Those rulings always seem to be such a lottery, one day they aren’t bothered at all when they check it, the next it’s a no catch.
 
jamesgould said:
What did you all think of the no catch ruling? Didn’t really make a difference in the end, luckily.

Those rulings always seem to be such a lottery, one day they aren’t bothered at all when they check it, the next it’s a no catch.
Click to expand...
The replay appeared to show the ball briefly touching the ground, I accepted that Kolhi was given not out.
 
Last edited:
jamesgould said:
What did you all think of the no catch ruling? Didn’t really make a difference in the end, luckily.

Those rulings always seem to be such a lottery, one day they aren’t bothered at all when they check it, the next it’s a no catch.
Click to expand...
There are two pairs of glasses in my house: a red and blue pair, and a green and gold pair.

I thought Smith got his fingers under the ball, but at the same time the ball did seem to brush the ground. That said, I thought the law was that he had to be in control of the ball, which I thought he was at all times. I can live with it either way.
 
Battler said:
There are two pairs of glasses in my house: a red and blue pair, and a green and gold pair.

I thought Smith got his fingers under the ball, but at the same time the ball did seem to brush the ground. That said, I thought the law was that he had to be in control of the ball, which I thought he was at all times. I can live with it either way.
Click to expand...
No you can’t let it touch the ground while it’s in your hands, unless like you’re fully standing up and the catch is finished. In control of your movements is the phrase I think.

I think what confuses me is they seem to accept it touching the ground if they think you have fingers underneath it. But then if it touches the ground in any other way, like it did with Smith, because it wasn’t a fingers under the ball situation, it’s a no-catch.

So I dunno, maybe it does have a weird logic to it.
 
jamesgould said:
No you can’t let it touch the ground while it’s in your hands, unless like you’re fully standing up and the catch is finished. In control of your movements is the phrase I think.

I think what confuses me is they seem to accept it touching the ground if they think you have fingers underneath it. But then if it touches the ground in any other way, like it did with Smith, because it wasn’t a fingers under the ball situation, it’s a no-catch.

So I dunno, maybe it does have a weird logic to it.
Click to expand...
I remember an incident last summer (or maybe the one before?) where an Australian fielder dived forward, clearly caught the ball cleanly, but kinda used the ball (in his hand) to brace himself against the ground. It was ruled not out, as you say above 'not in control of your movements' or whatever.

I agree with you though - if it brushes the ground with fingers under it, that seems fine. If the hand (and therefore ball) rotates inwards or outwards, and the ball brushes to ground, not out.
 
Battler said:
I remember an incident last summer (or maybe the one before?) where an Australian fielder dived forward, clearly caught the ball cleanly, but kinda used the ball (in his hand) to brace himself against the ground. It was ruled not out, as you say above 'not in control of your movements' or whatever.

I agree with you though - if it brushes the ground with fingers under it, that seems fine. If the hand (and therefore ball) rotates inwards or outwards, and the ball brushes to ground, not out.
Click to expand...
That must be it. There was also one for NZ a few summers ago where Kyle Jamieson pushed the ball against the ground during his dive after he’d taken a very clean caught and bowled and it was given not out.

Personally I’d be happy if they just gave them all out, it’s a bit pedantic haha.
 
jamesgould said:
What did you all think of the no catch ruling? Didn’t really make a difference in the end, luckily.

Those rulings always seem to be such a lottery, one day they aren’t bothered at all when they check it, the next it’s a no catch.
Click to expand...
It did touch the ground and he didnt have control, im happy with it seems to be a consistent ruling the last few years. If he had have caught it himself i would have a problem with the call.
 
Another intriguing test match is underway.

Khawaja should have been given not out as the ball appeared to touch the ground just after being taken last night. Just like the when Smith ‘caught’ Kohli which was given not out.

India bowled very well to bowl Australia out cheaply without Bumrah.

India may have to try to bowl Australia without Bumrah, which is much harder than dismissing the Australian lower order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top