Cricket thread

[deptfordmarmoset]

If you analyse the results home and away, it is getting harder and harder for away teams to win for whatever reason. The reality is that India have almost no chance in these conditions and England has almost no chance in Indian conditions. For any sport to be compelling there needs to be a reasonable chance of an upset. So I'd be in favour of something to tip the balance a bit such as giving the away team the bat/bowl choice. It would also reduce the likelihood of groundstaff preparing pitches specifically to suit the home team

It makes sense to me.

 

[Serge]

Standardisation for starters. All tests should be played with the Dukes ball.

Second, nobody should have any sympathy for this Indian team. The entirety of their warm up for a five test tour over six weeks was one three day game against a substandard county side.

Third, I'm going to stop ranting before I burst a blood vessel.

Anyway, Anderson, Curran, Woakes, Broad! We're bloody world beaters!

My carer tells me it's time for bed. Night night.

 

[Beebo]

Taking a standard 90 overs per day, that match actually lasted less than 2 days.

There were only 169 overs in the whole match which isn’t good enough. The pitch was fine.

It does seem that home advantage in test matches is growing. The advantage is less pronounced in the shorter format.

 

[srw]

I wonder what could be done to balance things up a bit.

Perhaps overseas players could be given the chance to play regularly in domestic tournaments around the world?

 

[Dayvo]

Taking a standard 90 overs per day, that match actually lasted less than 2 days.

There were only 169 overs in the whole match which isn’t good enough. The pitch was fine.

It does seem that home advantage in test matches is growing. The advantage is less pronounced in the shorter format.

Don't forget to take the weather into consideration. Not a ball was bowled on the first day, and the players were off the pitch for long periods on the days of actual play for rain, not to mention bad light.

It's not just about the pitch either: having damp or wet bowlers' run-ups and outfield are difficult areas to play on when the conditions aren't right. And when a ball becomes 'swollen' it is difficult for fast, seam and spin bowlers to control.

 

[Beebo]

Stokes found not guilty.

 

[rich p]

Stokes found not guilty.

I bet Woakes or Curran are gutted

 

[Pale Rider]

Stokes found not guilty.

Straight back into the squad for the next Test.

Fair enough, he's legally not guilty of any offence.

Seems there's to be a disciplinary hearing for bringing the game into disrepute.

He might struggle to get out from under that charge, given what the criminal trial jury heard - and saw.

 

[Pale Rider]

To the victor the spoils...

Stokes' lawyer is now talking about his '11 months of hell' and how hard it's been for him and what it's cost him.

I hope someone's told Stokes it's not compulsory to get bladdered in a nightclub and knock out two fellow citizens.

 

[Dayvo]

Stokes found not guilty.

Stokes in for Buttler, then, methinks.

But WTF do I know?

 

[Serge]

Stokes in for Buttler, then, methinks.

But WTF do I know?

I think it'll more likely be Stokes for Curran.

Personally, I'd keep the same side.

 

[Beebo]

Do any legal experts know why they were both found not guilty.
The CCTV looked fairly clear cut.

 

[srw]

Do any legal experts know why they were both found not guilty.
The CCTV looked fairly clear cut.

 

[Beebo]

That’s Helpful in a not very helpful kind of way.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Do any legal experts know why they were both found not guilty.
The CCTV looked fairly clear cut.

I'm certainly no expert but I gathered that the affray charge doesn't always apply when the perpetrator faces an imminent threat to him/herself, i.e. there's a kind of right to self defence. Part of Stokes testimony apparently mentions him being hit by a bottle as the trigger to his actions, so it may have been the self defence aspect that kept the jury exercised.