I never understood why T20 couldn’t have been marketed in exactly the same way as The Hundred has been, i.e. city franchises, women’s matches on the same day, music, pyrotechnics etc. The same supposedly new audience would have been attracted and the rest of cricket wouldn’t have been pushed to the margins so much.
Certainly some very good hitting in this game . England made 199 ( excellent knock by Ali and Duckett ) and Pakistani openers certainly going for it . Some ropey fielding too though .
I don’t care for T20 at all, but I thought it did have music and pyrotechnics? And the crowds have seemed pretty good on the rare occasions I have switched on, so I don’t really get the “new audience” argument anyway. As for the city franchise thing, I’m fairly sure that was discussed but that the counties were concerned that it might be the thin end of a wedge as regards their continued existence.
Those are fair points and worthy of discussion, but it strikes me that the rule differences in the 100 are just gimmickry given that the two formats are so similar.
221 for 3 after a great 139 unbroken partnership between Duckett and Brook. However probably about 80 runs short given the last Pakistan batting effort
Controversial ending for the ladies v India. In the rules but unfair sporting wise? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/63022555
And it was the last wicket with us still needing 17 runs to get. Obviously thought we would shown them up. after India had been in control up till then.
Supposedly the bowler is supposed to give a warning before carrying out a run out. However watching the video, the batsperson was half way down the wicket before the ball was bowled so I can understand their irritation and the temptation.
So the batsman can start half way down the wicket when running to the danger end for any quick singles ?
They can if they want, and can get away with it if the bowler/fielding team aren’t observant. But the whole point (and unwritten rule) is to give them a gentleman’s warning first. So even if you did that they wouldn’t get any advantage and would hopefully stop going so far down the wicket for future deliveries. If they did it again, then they’re fair game for a mankad. Simple stuff really. The Indians certainly didn’t cheat, but were definitely not playing within the spirit of the game.
I think the idea is the bowler stops or something . If a run out was done every time the batsmen or women edged up the crease you’d never get any cricket probably as the bowler would just take the bails off each time !
I don’t agree with that. You should be able to take a chance to get a quick single - it’s the equivalent of trying to steal a base in baseball where the pitcher can throw to the base (instead of the batter at home plate) in order to get the runner out. However, given the conventions and traditions of cricket I do think there should be a warning given to the batter before running them out in this fashion.
I agree. The batsman has to be behind the crease at the moment of release. Their forward momentum can take them out of the crease after delivery which is fine. But under the current rule they have to simply not back up at all or be subject to potential mankads. You could easily do 5 mankads a game at the minute and I think if that actually happened the rules would change. Which is a shame because it's been predominantly fine up to now with the spirit of the game being prevalent. To win a game with a mankad (when the series was won already) is ******* abysmal sportsmanship and should be called as such.
Dean was nowhere near half way down the wicket. I know you're exaggerating a bit, but when Deepti was in her delivery stride her bat was still behind the line and she just walked a couple of paces down the pitch, not exactly sprinting for a quick single. If the ball had been released normally she would hardly have been out of her ground much at all. She just kept walking not realising the bowler had stopped. Yes, it's within the rules but that was an anticlimax for the paying fans and a lousy way to win a game of cricket
Yes I was exaggerating but the batsman should be in the crease until the ball is released and she was clearly already out of her ground. As I said before she should have been warned by the bowler.
She was only very marginally out of her ground at the anticipated equinox of the delivery. Can you imagine a commentator praising the skill in pulling off a mankad? "Warne really fooled the non striking Batman there with a truly wonderful piece of disguise as he caught him just out of his crease." It's like diving for a penalty.
That's part of the issue I suppose. Relying on "sportsmanship" to give a warning isn't satisfactory. I've never looked at the laws of cricket, but not sure why it's not a dead ball if the bowler hasn't actually bowled it.
It's a bit of a shame when Womens sport really prides itself on having much better levels of sportsmanship than the equivalent Mens sports, which in football it most certainly does. If England had done this to the Indian batter I'd have been mortified.
But its not at all like diving. The run out was fully and clearly within the laws of the game. The only issue is that within the spirit of cricket the bowler should of warned the batter first, not run them out first time. But even warning is not required in the laws. Equating it to diving in football is totally wrong.
Yes a couple of feet which given her desire to get back on strike must have been irritating for the Indians but as I've said before they really should have given her a warning and only taken a wicket if she persisted. No I can't imagine a commentator ever praising a mankad but the analogy to cheating by diving for a pen in football isn't a good one.
Maybe the laws should be changed such that a warning is mandatory ie the first mankad in an innings or against a particular bowler must act as a warning. Not sure why it isn't a dead ball either, or then whether you can still run someone out over a dead ball ?
It's exactly the same as diving. Or rather going down if you feel contact. Within the laws of the game but not in the spirit.
Diving is cheating, it's pretending there was sufficient contact to make you fall over, when there wasn't. A mankad isn't cheating, it's 100% within the laws of the game but considered unsporting behaviour without a prior warning. Big difference.
