What's new
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Lancashire CCC 2019

Nice to see national coverage of an issue I’ve been particularly scathing about - the very close links between Lancashire and the Manchester team. The 100 teams were originally supposed to be totally separate from county teams but Gidney, Allott and the coaches are all involved in both - to be blunt, it stinks. I’m also not convinced about the signing of Buttler on a new contract at the same time as signing him for the 100 team.

The 100 isn’t needed, just look at the 2020 crowds this season.
 
Heard a stat the other day that Vilas will be the 7th Lancashire batsman to score 1000 runs and average 70 in a season. Can remember 4 of the other 6, 2 Lancastrians and 2 Aussies, any guesses?
 
bigtallsi said:
Heard a stat the other day that Vilas will be the 7th Lancashire batsman to score 1000 runs and average 70 in a season. Can remember 4 of the other 6, 2 Lancastrians and 2 Aussies, any guesses?
Click to expand...
I'll offer Simon Katich and Mike Atherton.
 
bigtallsi said:
Heard a stat the other day that Vilas will be the 7th Lancashire batsman to score 1000 runs and average 70 in a season. Can remember 4 of the other 6, 2 Lancastrians and 2 Aussies, any guesses?
Click to expand...

Presumably Katich and Law for the Aussies? As for the others, maybe Pilling, Fairbrother, Hayes and maybe an old player like Washbrook? I’d have Fairbrother as my favourite because of the 300 at The Oval in 1990.
 
Katich and Law correct. Fairbrother also correct. That 1990 season with little seam on the ball and flat decks, runs galore. Athers is the other Lancastrian I remember but now you mention Pilling I think you're right (it rings a bell).

Athers would presumably be 1990 too
 
wld said:
Presumably Katich and Law for the Aussies? As for the others, maybe Pilling, Fairbrother, Hayes and maybe an old player like Washbrook? I’d have Fairbrother as my favourite because of the 300 at The Oval in 1990.
Click to expand...
Didn't Ian Greig go close to a triple in that game which shows how flat it was?
 
Haha brilliant. So at one point in that game we were 745/3 in response to 707/8 dec. Decent summer for batting!!
 
wld said:
Good memory!

www.espncricinfo.com

Full Scorecard of Surrey vs Lancashire, Britannic Assurance County Championship, 2nd Innings - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

Get full and detailed scoreboard of Surrey vs Lancashire, Britannic Assurance County Championship, 2nd Innings only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Find the complete scorecard of Surrey v Lancashire 2nd Innings Online
www.espncricinfo.com www.espncricinfo.com
Click to expand...
Dexter Fitton was professional for Carnforth. I was playing for the 3rd XI so our paths didn't cross.
 
Right.. tenuous link to Lancs, as it was Worcs who knocked us out of the T20 but I'll use this thread anyway. I see they had a dramatic 1 run semi-final win after looking unlikely mid innings. But here's a question on the rules.

Last ball. Notts one behind (a tie would have been good enough for them). He swings and misses. Keep (standing up) doesn't gather cleanly but as the batsman slumped down on this haunches in disappointment, the keeper gathers and takes the bails off - but the batsman is not stumped.. he's still in his ground.

The commentator (charles dagnall) said it was a dead ball even before he whipped off the bails... which I don't think is true. But did it become a dead ball when the bails came off? Or, - if the batsman had been switched on and ran... I can imagine that, with the wicket keeper distracted, thinking they'd won, the batsmen might have got home before the wicket keeper realised what was going on and pulled a stump out. I really don't my rules well enough. I do think the commentator was wrong in saying the ball was dead before the bails came off but maybe it was dead when he took the bails off. So, dead ball, or missed opportunity?

www.bbc.co.uk

Watch: Rapids reach T20 Blast final with dramatic last-ball win

Worcestershire Rapids beat Notts Outlaws by one run as Wayne Purnell bowls a dot ball to see his side progress to the final of the T20 Blast at Edgbaston.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Regardless said:
Right.. tenuous link to Lancs, as it was Worcs who knocked us out of the T20 but I'll use this thread anyway. I see they had a dramatic 1 run semi-final win after looking unlikely mid innings. But here's a question on the rules.

Last ball. Notts one behind (a tie would have been good enough for them). He swings and misses. Keep (standing up) doesn't gather cleanly but as the batsman slumped down on this haunches in disappointment, the keeper gathers and takes the bails off - but the batsman is not stumped.. he's still in his ground.

The commentator (charles dagnall) said it was a dead ball even before he whipped off the bails... which I don't think is true. But did it become a dead ball when the bails came off? Or, - if the batsman had been switched on and ran... I can imagine that, with the wicket keeper distracted, thinking they'd won, the batsmen might have got home before the wicket keeper realised what was going on and pulled a stump out. I really don't my rules well enough. I do think the commentator was wrong in saying the ball was dead before the bails came off but maybe it was dead when he took the bails off. So, dead ball, or missed opportunity?

www.bbc.co.uk

Watch: Rapids reach T20 Blast final with dramatic last-ball win

Worcestershire Rapids beat Notts Outlaws by one run as Wayne Purnell bowls a dot ball to see his side progress to the final of the T20 Blast at Edgbaston.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

I said something similar as soon as it happened, half in jest, but said they should have run. The ball would be dead, however, when the ball has passed the stumps, is gathered by the keeper and there is no run being attempted. Duckett was clearly not attempting to run so it would be dead.

Having said that, I did wonder what on earth tubby was doing at the non strikers end - he advanced a heard or two and then stopped. Surely he had to run even if there was only a very outside chance of a run, in fact the keeper did fumble it so you never know.
 
OK...
wld said:
I said something similar as soon as it happened, half in jest, but said they should have run. The ball would be dead, however, when the ball has passed the stumps, is gathered by the keeper and there is no run being attempted. Duckett was clearly not attempting to run so it would be dead.

Having said that, I did wonder what on earth tubby was doing at the non strikers end - he advanced a heard or two and then stopped. Surely he had to run even if there was only a very outside chance of a run, in fact the keeper did fumble it so you never know.
Click to expand...

OK - getting more tenuous... what if the non-striker had been doing his job and was half way down, hurtling to the other end. In other words, attempting a run. And then Duckett had took off as soon as the bails came off?
 
Regardless said:
OK...

OK - getting more tenuous... what if the non-striker had been doing his job and was half way down, hurtling to the other end. In other words, attempting a run. And then Duckett had took off as soon as the bails came off?
Click to expand...

Assuming the bails were off (I think they were), Cox would have had to rip a stump out of the ground with the ball in his hand or run Duckett out at the bowlers end. Either way, totally awful from Patel.
 
wld said:
Assuming the bails were off (I think they were), Cox would have had to rip a stump out of the ground with the ball in his hand or run Duckett out at the bowlers end. Either way, totally awful from Patel.
Click to expand...

Not quite the question I'm asking. In your previous post, you said the ball is dead "when the ball has passed the stumps, is gathered by the keeper and there is no run being attempted"
If Patel had been going full tilt, but with the batsman still in his ground, is the ball definitely considered dead at the moment that the wicketkeeper gathers it? There would be no doubt in my mind if the keeper had collected it cleanly and immediately took off the bails. But the wicketkeeper had initially fumbled and one of the batsmen was attempting a run.
 
Regardless said:
Not quite the question I'm asking. In your previous post, you said the ball is dead "when the ball has passed the stumps, is gathered by the keeper and there is no run being attempted"
If Patel had been going full tilt, but with the batsman still in his ground, is the ball definitely considered dead at the moment that the wicketkeeper gathers it? There would be no doubt in my mind if the keeper had collected it cleanly and immediately took off the bails. But the wicketkeeper had initially fumbled and one of the batsmen was attempting a run.
Click to expand...

It’s quite common for teams to run a single in the scenario you’re talking about
 
Regardless said:
I've never seen it in my life, and I've watched my fair share of cricket. If you've seen it and can reference any report of such a run, I'd be interested.
Click to expand...

Can’t find anything specific but it’s not out of the ordinary, so it probably wouldn’t be reported as such.
 
Sports Trader said:
Can’t find anything specific but it’s not out of the ordinary, so it probably wouldn’t be reported as such.
Click to expand...

It would have been out of the ordinary - the keeper was up to the stumps, so next to impossible to run a single. If he’d been standing back there are plenty of examples - including one off the last delivery of the first semi final when Moores missed the stumps.
 
Top