Cricket, lovely cricket

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

The mind boggles at this idea, and I admit to being amused and bemused at the same time. Fantastic is one word that could be used yes.. as regards
how concentrated the players would be, I think we should all assume a false name for the game, someone involved or connected to the crimes etc.
A tail ender could be "Sir Charles Warren", as going in down the order, they would be classed as a rabbit. (rabbit...warren..oh never mind...)

An opening bat could be "Morris" (he goes and opens - doors)

As I used to be a bowler ages ago before this shoulder problem, "Halse" could be my name.. you know, arrives at the wicket, tells the others where to go, then walks off marking out his run, and takes an eternity to come back to the very same wicket, having talked to a few strangers (a pub landlord and his mate), or popped off to see whats happening at a mortuary (another, dead end pub) before returning with news of the state of the beer prices written in chalk on a slate outside the pub. "The brewers are the men that will not be paying for nothing"

hahaha!

best wishes

Phil

[Steven Russell]

lbw and DRS

Great idea, Adam. Good luck getting it organised.

I am a big fan of the DRS (Desision Review System) but would like to see a minor alteration and wondered what other fans thought. My idea might seem a bit counter-intuitive at first but bear with me.

Consider those lbw decisions where all other criteria are fulfilled (and ignore the 2.5m business) and Hawkeye predicts that the ball would have just clipped the stumps. On these occasions, "on-field call" is the verdict if a review is asked for. So if the batsman has been given out and reviewed the decision, he is still out which is the correct decision. No problem. But if he is given not out and the fielding side reviews, he is still not out even though Hawkeye suggests that the ball would have hit the stumps (if only just). The suggestion is that the technology is not 100% reliable which may indeed be the case. However, this gives the batsman an unfair advantage as it makes the virtual stumps in effect smaller than their tangible counterparts.

Should not a verdict of "on-field call" be given if Hawkeye suggests the ball would have narrowly missed the stumps? If there is a margin of error, surely it should cut both ways. A very minor point admittedly but I would be interested in hearing any opinions.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[martin wilson]

Hi all
Thats a good point,although remembering the paddy Katich had in 2005 when the replay on the big screen showed he'd been sawn off,does tend to suggest that the subtleties of that thinking might be lost on the players.
I've heard a lot of people say one bad decision can change the course of a match or even ruin someones career.
I dont know,does it really?
I still cling on to the view that decisions even themselves out and over the course of a 5 test series the better team wins anyway.
Perhaps it would be better for the safety of all concerned if they just appealed all decisions, I'm thinking of Ponting here,as you never know what the vicious little bugger is going to do next.
It wouldnt surprise me if a fielder catches him out and is later on in the game found lying face down near the boundary rope,having been murdered.
Meanwhile,the best story of this world cup is the incident where our Geoffrey ,the notorious international terrorist was found to be in possesion of some dangerous looking sandwiches and some luckless security guard tried to prevent him taking them into the ground!
All the best.

[Steven Russell]

Thanks, Martin but I was talking about the World Cup. Naturally, in an Ashes series, all decisions benefiting England would be upheld.

So far as Geoffrey's sandwiches go, who knows what he would be capable of?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Adam Went]

Phil:

Some brilliant thinking there. I like the idea of Warren the rabbit batting at 11.

If it wasn't possible to organise an international team against a British one, using your idea of false identities, it could even be a case of criminals versus policemen, or something like that.

So long as Monty and I were on opposing teams, it doesn't really bother me. Because we would then presume Monty would be keeping wicket, in which case we would just have to let as many balls go as possible and watch the byes add up!

Steven:

I agree with you to a point about DRS. In my view, it should be solely up to the umpire whether to review a decision or not. The whole idea of DRS was to eliminate the shocker of a decision - almost every team now uses it for reasons it wasn't designed for. For instance, if they are 9 wickets down and want to prolong an innings or a game, they use it just "cos they can". If left up to the umpires, it allows them peace of mind for the more difficult decisions and doesn't make them look stupid when their decisions get reversed.

Martin:

Ponting?
He's an angel compared to Collingwood and Strauss!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

All those byes huh? As you watch, from the balcony, after being stumped on a first baller.....again.

Even Clarke would last longer.

170 odd, on a flat track, and we won.....you are consistant Adam. Doh!

Monty

[martin wilson]

Hi all
I agree with Adam on DRS, if you are going to use technology to help with decisions then allow the umpire to check anything he is not 100% sure of and scrap the appeals.
The danger is that umpires will simply refer all decisions, but as long as its right what does it matter?
Under the current system, once a team has run out of appeals,its possible for a batsman to be get a right howler of a decision, and nobody can do anything about it, how does that help the game?
The daftness of the system is that Steven is absolutely right, but its not something I would ever expect to be implemented because it would be controversial, and would probably lead to the likes of Ponting going berserk and running around the outfield like a wild man,whaling fielders with his bat.
Give the power back to the umps,and tell the whingers to shut up,and if at all possible,stop being Australian.
All the best.

[Steven Russell]

Adam and Martin: I think the DRS is excellent; umpires are only human and will make mistakes. My suggestion was intended to make it more fair in terms of the time-honoured struggle between bat and ball.

On an unrelated topic, I do not feel that the loss of Pietersen is a massive problem for England given his current form. The main difficulty will lie with having to promote someone to opener (Bell?) and therefore mess about with the batting order.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[martin wilson]

I thought EIoioioin Morgan was coming in to replace Pieterson? I know England have asked for permission to replace Broad with Tremlett, I wonder how fit Broady actually is? How come he was picked?
Some interesting comments by Andy Flower about Pieterson's injury in the paper, I think the inference is he could have played through it.
Of course we all know KP is a big drama queen, is he beginning to get on peoples nerves a bit?
No argument about the talent, but between the ears? hmmmm.
All the best.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Naturally, being a charity game and with amateur cricketers in both sides (i.e. you), some backyard rules might need to be implemented, such as you can't get out first ball.

Having said that, i'm not one to meander out of my crease at any point, let alone on the first ball. Sounds as if you fear my aggressive intent already, Monty!

Martin:

Agree with you. The way it is at the moment, a team can have a group conversation for some considerable time on whether to review or not before being hurried up by the umpire. If it's left solely up to the umpire, the players won't have a say and the umpire has the extra assurance that if he makes an error, he has the sole ability to review it. Which has got to be comforting to know if you decide to give Sachin Tendulkar out LBW for 0 in an Indian home final in the World Cup, for instance....

Steven:

Traitorsen is indeed no great loss. However, the UN have had a habit of shuffling their openers around of late. Why not just leave Prior up there? He's fine as long as he isn't facing Brett Lee.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

"I do not wander out of my crease" and "agressive intent" ?

The contradiction.

Just bring your tray and a napkin. You can serve drinks.

Its what you're best at in the game.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

If you're going to quote me, at least do it accurately!
Who says you have to charge down the wicket in order to show aggressive intent? Apart from Monty Panesar's over in Perth in 2007 (you know the one?), how many times did you see Adam Gilchrist marching down the wicket? Very rarely. And yet he was one of the finest strikers of a ball of all time.

What about you then? I'm presuming that you're something of a Dravid-esque block artist?
Your favourite shot is the forward defensive, eh?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

If I was quoting you I'd mention that you said it. I didn't.

If you aren't coming out of your crease then expect to be bowled at according. You can only realistically at the bad ball, and if you aint getting em you gotta go looking for em.

And you aint no Gilly son.

Me? I play as it comes. Driving is my strength but other than that I'm not fussed.

And mines a G&T old boy....with a slice.

Chop chop.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

No, you're right. I'm no Gilly. I'm a right-hander, for a start.

So you would actually be keen to try and organise something along these lines then? I'm thinking that for it to have any chance of succeeding it needs to be around the same time as a Ripper conference, when there's plenty in town....

Of course, it's not just players that would be required, it's umpires, scorers, runners etc to bring out everybody else's drinks and your cream cakes.

By the way, got a joke for ya....you'll love this:

Q: How do we know Jesus wasn't born in Leicestershire?
A: You try finding three wise men and a virgin there.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Steven Russell]

Adam: unfortunately my knees are totally buggered but if you need an umpire I might be able to help. I should warn you though, I can be bought and I doubt Hawkeye will be available.

Just watched Bangladesh v. England. I'm going out now. And I may be some time.

Steve.