I used to think I knew a bit about cricket, but I retired from playing at 40 and that's now an amazing 28 years ago. And now I find I don't even know the rules and probably never did!
In the England v Pakistan game, whilst going for a run out a bail was accidentally dislodged before the ball arrived at the stumps. I would have said the only way then to achieve a run out was to uproot a stump with ball in hand, but apparently if only one bail has been dislodged all you need to do is dislodge the other bail. It surprised the England batsman Livingstone and came as a total shock to me.
Anyway it set me thinking about the rules and the inventive way batsmen are now encouraged to play, and I wondered has this always been allowed? Did the rules change? Why I ask is the prevalence of the reverse sweep. To me that seems the equivalent of changing to bat the other way round mid-ball. I question this because I used to play in the same team as a totally ambidextrous player. If he felt his timing was off batting right handed, or perhaps that the team would benefit if the bowler were disrupted by having to bowl at a left and right handed partnership he would change and bat left-handed. BUT to do this he would tell the umpire, who let the bowler and captain know, so that the field could be changed and we would bring out a pair of left-handed batting gloves. He was a very decent player and would have been very capable of changing from left to right handed during a bowler's run up if he were playing T20 or the One Hundred now. So if a reverse sweep is okay can a batsman change hands now at will Ronnie O'Sullivan style? And could we always have done that? Is it just innovation and not a rule-change?
Then last night I watched Nerine bowling very cleverly, running up with the ball hidden behind his back so the batsman had no chance to read the spin he was going impart from his grip (much like a top table-tennis player serving). I'd never seen that done so slyly before. Naturally, me being an idiot, I started to consider an ambidextrous bowler. We always announced ourselves, "Right Arm Over Sir" to the umpire who then informed the batsman. Is that a rule, or simply etiquette? Could an ambidextrous bowler run up with the ball held in front of him in both hands, transfer to one hand at the last moment and bowl right-arm outswing one ball and left-arm inswing the next?
I ask because we played a couple of times against a player, whose own team listed him in the paper as Percy Fruitbowl as a joke, because his delivery was so eccentric. He wasn't a chucker, but he would arrive at the wicket not looking as though he were in any position to deliver a ball at all. Then his head went down somehow, his arm came round and ball appeared, swinging from somewhere near his ear. Right-arm over was information of no use at all if you'd never seen him bowl. He was kind of a massively more eccentric and much much slower version of Malinga the slinger. As someone who has never got the concepts of left and right I just wonder whether right-arm-over tells a batsman much? If you could bowl with either hand, could you just decide to do it or would there be worldwide disapproval?
Only recently having Sky, I haven't watched much top-class cricket for years. Things that have occurred to me are that whilst now everyone fields in the way I and just a few others fielded years ago and the game is better for it, they almost all bounce the ball into the keeper when throwing Can't they wing it in just over the bails like we did. Why take the shine off the ball? And wicket-keeping, how has it been allowed to slide so far back. Rizwan's a lovely keeper, but England seems to have only Foakes, who is anywhere near that level. The rest don't dive properly, regularly drop catches and let the extras mount up without looking suicidal. For sure they can bat, but, but, but I'd better say no more.
The Hundred is okay, but it's just T20 by a different marketing outfit isn't it? If for instance you got 4 for a boundary hit in the air over the ropes and a 6 for hitting the ball along the ground through a ring of fielders that would be a radical change. If hitting the ball completely out of the ground or bowling a hat trick gained your team an extra over, that would be a radical change ......... but this is just different shirts and team names which have little basis of support. Entertaining, but is it sport or an excuse to get pissed with your family? And will the kids excited by this form of the game learn to play that way and no other, leaving them ill-equipped to compete in the game at the highest levels? Or worse still will the highest levels begin to become more like baseball? I love exciting hitting and innovation, but I also like to see an excellent bowler met head-on by a determined defensive batsman ..........
In the England v Pakistan game, whilst going for a run out a bail was accidentally dislodged before the ball arrived at the stumps. I would have said the only way then to achieve a run out was to uproot a stump with ball in hand, but apparently if only one bail has been dislodged all you need to do is dislodge the other bail. It surprised the England batsman Livingstone and came as a total shock to me.
Anyway it set me thinking about the rules and the inventive way batsmen are now encouraged to play, and I wondered has this always been allowed? Did the rules change? Why I ask is the prevalence of the reverse sweep. To me that seems the equivalent of changing to bat the other way round mid-ball. I question this because I used to play in the same team as a totally ambidextrous player. If he felt his timing was off batting right handed, or perhaps that the team would benefit if the bowler were disrupted by having to bowl at a left and right handed partnership he would change and bat left-handed. BUT to do this he would tell the umpire, who let the bowler and captain know, so that the field could be changed and we would bring out a pair of left-handed batting gloves. He was a very decent player and would have been very capable of changing from left to right handed during a bowler's run up if he were playing T20 or the One Hundred now. So if a reverse sweep is okay can a batsman change hands now at will Ronnie O'Sullivan style? And could we always have done that? Is it just innovation and not a rule-change?
Then last night I watched Nerine bowling very cleverly, running up with the ball hidden behind his back so the batsman had no chance to read the spin he was going impart from his grip (much like a top table-tennis player serving). I'd never seen that done so slyly before. Naturally, me being an idiot, I started to consider an ambidextrous bowler. We always announced ourselves, "Right Arm Over Sir" to the umpire who then informed the batsman. Is that a rule, or simply etiquette? Could an ambidextrous bowler run up with the ball held in front of him in both hands, transfer to one hand at the last moment and bowl right-arm outswing one ball and left-arm inswing the next?
I ask because we played a couple of times against a player, whose own team listed him in the paper as Percy Fruitbowl as a joke, because his delivery was so eccentric. He wasn't a chucker, but he would arrive at the wicket not looking as though he were in any position to deliver a ball at all. Then his head went down somehow, his arm came round and ball appeared, swinging from somewhere near his ear. Right-arm over was information of no use at all if you'd never seen him bowl. He was kind of a massively more eccentric and much much slower version of Malinga the slinger. As someone who has never got the concepts of left and right I just wonder whether right-arm-over tells a batsman much? If you could bowl with either hand, could you just decide to do it or would there be worldwide disapproval?
Only recently having Sky, I haven't watched much top-class cricket for years. Things that have occurred to me are that whilst now everyone fields in the way I and just a few others fielded years ago and the game is better for it, they almost all bounce the ball into the keeper when throwing Can't they wing it in just over the bails like we did. Why take the shine off the ball? And wicket-keeping, how has it been allowed to slide so far back. Rizwan's a lovely keeper, but England seems to have only Foakes, who is anywhere near that level. The rest don't dive properly, regularly drop catches and let the extras mount up without looking suicidal. For sure they can bat, but, but, but I'd better say no more.
The Hundred is okay, but it's just T20 by a different marketing outfit isn't it? If for instance you got 4 for a boundary hit in the air over the ropes and a 6 for hitting the ball along the ground through a ring of fielders that would be a radical change. If hitting the ball completely out of the ground or bowling a hat trick gained your team an extra over, that would be a radical change ......... but this is just different shirts and team names which have little basis of support. Entertaining, but is it sport or an excuse to get pissed with your family? And will the kids excited by this form of the game learn to play that way and no other, leaving them ill-equipped to compete in the game at the highest levels? Or worse still will the highest levels begin to become more like baseball? I love exciting hitting and innovation, but I also like to see an excellent bowler met head-on by a determined defensive batsman ..........