Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

[Southie]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

Congratulations to Team Pakistan and fans! What an achievement. Well done!

[Southie]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

And of course, congratulations to all the Muslims of the world.

Man of the Match - Hanibal Jinx

[GoldenAsif]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

@Southie

Remove the word conclusively. If it hits any part of the steps of bails batsman is out. This way no room for interpretation or foul play.

I never understood why if ball pitches outside leg stump batsman cannot be lbw. But pitching outside off stump is fair game as long as ball hits pad.in line with atumps.

In baseball balls and strikes don’t matter as much as in cricket. Because one wrong call in cricket can make a zero batsman hero.

I suppose that is partly to discourage negative bowling i.e. bowling down the leg all the time and stopping batsman from playing a shot. That would not be attractive cricket.

[hanibal]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

@Southie

And of course, congratulations to all the Muslims of the world.

Man of the Match - Hanibal Jinx

Thanks…it was tough, conditions were against us, specially with new Parchi players and Younis out of form…

If you want i can support ur favorite team next time:)

[Southie]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

@GoldenAsif

I suppose that is partly to discourage negative bowling i.e. bowling down the leg all the time and stopping batsman from playing a shot. That would not be attractive cricket.

Bowling outside leg to stop scoring woukd be applicable if ball woukd not hit stump. As in ball moving further away or just moving straight past leg stump

But if ball turns or swings onto stumps, that is due to skill of bowler. Bowler is actually attacking the stumps. Hence that logic does not appear to apply.

It was my understanding western batsmen had difficulty against leg spin. Hence the lbw rule for balls pitched outside leg was introduced.

[phoenixdesi]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

@Southie

Bowling outside leg to stop scoring woukd be applicable if ball woukd not hit stump. As in ball moving further away or just moving straight past leg stump

But if ball turns or swings onto stumps, that is due to skill of bowler. Bowler is actually attacking the stumps. Hence that logic does not appear to apply.

THAT IS IT

that is exactly what i said in my other post that imagine if the ball was pitched 500KM outside the leg stump but it turned so much that it beat the bastman to crush into stumps, he will be out. PERIOD

so why the hell he is NOT OUT if for the exact same ball, he has his leg or body in between?

or change the rule and declare that bastman will be not out if the ball pitches outside the leg stump even if the ball hit the stumps

exact same argument for offside and impact bul****

we know our cricket ICC. change stupid rules or we will kick cricket forum from gupshup. last warning for ICC.

[GoldenAsif]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

PD and Southie you guys have a point but then not everything makes sense in cricket.

Take limited overs cricket for instance. Why is it that there is restriction on the number of overs a bowler can bowl but no such restriction for a batsman? It has essentially become a batsman’s game. I have always felt that there should be a minimum requirement of 4 bowlers (instead of 5) to help redress the balance between bat and ball in limited overs cricket.

Why not reduce it to 48 overs a side. 6 solid batsmen, 1 w/k, minimum 4 competent bowlers (max. 12 overs each. one or more of whom could be all-rounders). No need to play bits and pieces cricketers just to have a 5th bowling option which most teams do these days.

In T20 it is easy 20 overs and 5 overs each.

[Moonstar201]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

@GoldenAsif

PD and Southie you guys have a point but then not everything makes sense in cricket.

Take limited overs cricket for instance. Why is it that there is restriction on the number of overs a bowler can bowl but no such restriction for a batsman? It has essentially become a batsman’s game. I have always felt that there should be a minimum requirement of 4 bowlers (instead of 5) to help redress the balance between bat and ball in limited overs cricket.

Why not reduce it to 48 overs a side. 6 solid batsmen, 1 w/k, minimum 4 competent bowlers (max. 12 overs each. one or more of whom could be all-rounders). No need to play bits and pieces cricketers just to have a 5th bowling option which most teams do these days.

In T20 it is easy 20 overs and 5 overs each.

That will be interesting. Bowlers will be focusing on bowling only while batters will be focusing only on the batting. Use fielders of any choice… No need for bowlers to bat and batters to bowl… End of all rounders . I dont mind though. In the modern world we are not ahving any genuine all rounders like kallis.. Even our ppl consider wahab as all rounder

[GoldenAsif]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

The best thing is the test series passed off smoothly without any controversies, no shenanigans this time around either on or off the field, no spot-fixing or ball-tampering nonsense. The series was played in good spirits which is good to see.

lekin phir bhi kuch na kuch hona hota hai

England v Pakistan: Tourists fined for slow Oval over rate - BBC Sport

[Southie]

Re: Pakistan V England - 4th test match at Oval

@GoldenAsif

The best thing is the test series passed off smoothly without any controversies, no shenanigans this time around either on or off the field, no spot-fixing or ball-tampering nonsense. The series was played in good spirits which is good to see.

lekin phir bhi kuch na kuch hona hota hai

England v Pakistan: Tourists fined for slow Oval over rate - BBC Sport

One over? They got fined for one over under target rate?

Shouldn’t 5he fine be prorated based on number of overs under target rate. Why 5his binary systen?

I want Phoenixdesi to issue an unconditional apology to all desis immediately.