twoleftfeet
9:22 Wed Jun 2
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Typical British mentality.
Build them up to knock them down.
I couldn’t give a shit what he said 8 years ago but we live in a woke country so no doubt the usual suspects will expect him to resign.
|
shammer
10:18 Wed Jun 2
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
The offending tweets can be seen on the Wisden site, here:
https://wisden.com/series-stories/england-v-new-zealand/ollie-robinson-apologises-after-racist-and-sexist-tweets-resurface-during-test-debut
Not at all what I expected; immature jokes, and that's about it.
|
Sven Roeder
12:20 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Could have been worse
They might have picked Craig Overton
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:21 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Come On You Irons 1:05 Wed Jun 2
The law is to prevent fast bowlers coming round the wicket and bowling at the batsmen's heads.
Essentially, it's one of the the law-changes, along with only two fielders allowed behind square on the leg side, that was brought in to prevent 'bodyline'.
|
Sven Roeder
12:32 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
I don't believe if a ball pitches outside leg that it has EVER been LBW.
It was 1937 before a ball pitching outside off could be LBW
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-evolution-of-the-lbw-1074311
Obviously if you couldnt be LBW when bowlers were going around the wicket and pitching outside leg then BODYLINE was an even more despicable tactic
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
1:13 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Following the events of Bodyline in 1933, the law was altered. It was accepted that bowlers needed to be given an incentive for bowling at the stumps. To prevent another bodyline, the leg side was excluded.
The law was trialed in the county championship from 1935 and passed into the laws in 1937.
|
zebthecat
2:43 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
The aftermath of bodyline was the restriction of fielders behind square leg so the bowler could no longer aim the head and body bowling to leg knowing that it carried no risk of giving runs away.
It must have been fun as a genuinaly quick bowler firing it into the bat with that field (I was sharpish when I was young and had a good bouncer).
|
zebthecat
2:47 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
I have just repeated exactly what Surf said only more incoherently.
Lessons learned:
Read the thread
Go to bed
|
Come On You Irons
11:19 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
My view is that the leg side no-LBW law should be abolished as it doesn't even prevent bowlers from bowling bouncers.
A case like yesterday, when the ball pitches on a good length just outside leg stump and is projected to hit MIDDLE stump, shows up the law for the ass that it is. It should be binned.
|
Westside
11:27 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Another reason to keep the existing lbw law, re pitching outside leg stump, is the rough a right handed over the wicket bowler generates, when bowling.
This will be outside leg stump, when a right handed batsman is facing a bowler from the other end. A spinner just has to pitch the ball in that rough, get very sharp turn and the batsman, will have very little chance, to defend his wicket with bat only, to say nothing of playing any sort of attacking stroke.
|
El Scorchio
1:45 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Don't look remotely like getting anyone out at the moment.
Big total coming here, so it's all going to be on whether England don't panic and bat like a proper test side or just collapse trying to play stupid shots or having lapses in concentration.
Let's face it, we've been here before. We'll be all out for less than 200.
|
El Scorchio
1:49 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Glad I wrote that.
Wicket!
Here goes again. 'We don;t look remotely like getting them all out for less than 350.'
Fingers crossed...
|
Mr. Burns
2:28 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Good work here Scorch
|
Come On You Irons
2:29 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Brilliant use of DRS there by England to get rid of the mulletted Zimbabwean.
|
El Scorchio
2:30 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Mr. Burns 2:28
Yup! That post at 1.45 has really stood the test of time, I feel :)
|
Coffee
3:12 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Keep up the good work, Scorch.
|
El Scorchio
3:40 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
'We've no hope of polishing them all off in the next hour.'
|
El Scorchio
3:44 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Regardless of any of that silly stuff, what a wonderful innings from Conway in context of the rest of his team.
|
Rossal
3:58 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Lad here went a school with Conway......he is a Saffa who couldnt oust De Kock so switched to the kiwis
some innings on debut mind
|
Sven Roeder
4:20 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
What is the highest Test score in someones first innings at Lords?
|
Come On You Irons
4:24 Thu Jun 3
Re: First Test - England v New Zealand at Lords
|
Ever heard of Google, DULLARD?
|
| 
