ICC announces calculator shortage
The headline must be the only reason why the match referees in England's tour of India, Ranjan Madugalle (tests) and Roshan Mahanama (one-day internationals) haven't [so far] found it fit to do something about England's abysmal over rates. I've already written about England's tardy over rate in the tests. Today, it went to new
England's bowling lineup today had four seamers and one spinner. Obviously the four seamers take that much more time to get through their overs. But that isn't an excuse England can dole out. It is their problem - they can pick seven fast bowlers, but they still need to bowl the 50 overs on time.
Isn't it lovely to watch two consecutive games where the scores have been in the 200-230 range? There was this one-day match a couple of weeks ago where one chap threatened to get 200 and both teams got more runs in one innings than India & England have got in their two digs so far!
Labels: over rates
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
I think perhaps the pitches have more to do with scores than anything else.
The current England team would probably struggle to make 400+ but the current Indian batting line up would have had a fair go if they had the same conditions as there were at the Wanderers the other day.
joe: Easy blaming the pitches. Pietersen and Strauss didn't really seem to have problems yesterday and you can add Flintoff to the list for the first game. I doubt if this Indian batting lineup would make 400. The top order barely makes 100.
By 
Jagadish (1 Apr 2006, 4:30:00 pm)
I watched the whole game, it was far too hot for the England bowlers as they were bowling at mid-day. I think this was why they weren't called on the slow over rate.
Joe, I think India could get 400 at the wanderers as Sehwag is a flat-track bully and could score a 100. Dhoni would also have a good go having already made 183(?) already.
By Libero (4 Apr 2006, 2:35:00 am)
I've been away and that explains the delay in this reply. But pratik & libero, even if it was hot, it doesn't explain being _10_ overs (40 mins) behind schedule. Ten minutes is obviously acceptable. It does seem like the refs are turning a blind eye towards some obviously slow over rates ... or the ICC has changed the rules.
By Jagadish (5 Apr 2006, 12:35:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment