England Vs India Oct 2011 "The payback series"

[anonymous-user]

India, looking for revenge, starts This Friday 14th. .

ODI series

Friday, 14 October 2011
First One Day International
India v England, Hyderabad, 10:00

Monday, 17 October 2011
Second One Day International
India v England, Delhi, 10:00

Thursday, 20 October 2011
Third One Day International
India v England, Mohali, 10:00

Sunday, 23 October 2011
Fourth One Day International
India v England, Mumbai, 10:00

Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Fifth One Day International
India v England, Kolkata, 10:00

Twenty20 Match

Saturday, 29 October 2011
India v England, Kolkata, 15:30
Tuesday, 17 January 2012

England Squad

Alastair Cook (c)
Jonny Bairstow
Ian Bell
Ravi Bopara
Scott Borthwick
Tim Bresnan
Jos Buttler
Jade Dernbach
Steven Finn
Alex Hales
Craig Kieswetter (wk)
Stuart Meaker
Samit Patel
Kevin Pietersen
Graeme Swann
Jonathan Trott
Chris Woakes

India Squad.



Picture from The Times of India

I think that's Dhoni second from right, wearing the cap.

Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 11th October 13:42

[Nom de ploom]

Bairstow making a bid for a place today....

good chance to blood a few players...india "cannot" lose this series....

bring it on!

[DJRC]

First interesting ODI series...for well, forever really. I hope England stick to the plan and give the younger players game time, even if India throw the kitchen sink at them and inflict a few defeats. Lets see what Bairstow and Dernbach can really do in the heat of a motivated India side, screamed on by thousands. Sir Geoff has been telling us all summer Bairstow is the 2nd comming after Himself, so lets see if the kid copes. I want to see how Borthwick and Woakes go aswell, Ive liked what I have seen of Borthwick so far and I think the kid has a genuine future.

[Beardy10]

DJRC said:

First interesting ODI series...for well, forever really..

Couldn't agree more. The competition for places in the test side creates a nice dynamic for the younger players...it's almost the only way into the set up.

Borthwick's started nicely!

[Zod]

Does nobody else think it absurd that this series is taking place so soon after the Indians went home?

[Beardy10]

Zod said:

Does nobody else think it absurd that this series is taking place so soon after the Indians went home?

Absolutely...but the Indians get what they want, money talks.

Having said that given the Pakistan series is going to be played in front of two expats and a dog it's not bad timing...especially as they're trying out some younger players.

[DJRC]

I dont actually, it almost works for me.
India came here being trumpeted as the best side in the world and it was sold as the battle for number 1.

This feels a bit like a Home/Away contest for that number 1 slot. Would be even better if there were some Tests involved.

[fathomfive]

Zod said:

Does nobody else think it absurd that this series is taking place so soon after the Indians went home?

Going by the results of the Test / ODI series, you'd be forgiven for thinking most of them went home a lot earlier than they did.

[Victor McDade]

England have a great chance to beat India in their own back yard here. India missing a lot of their world cup winning team. No Sachin, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Khan, Harbhajan, and Patel who played in the WC final.

The series will be an interesting one because of the new odi rules which come into play. These include:

2 new balls, one from each end, to start the game; no runners allowed for injured/unfit batsmen; the non striking batsman can no longer back up as he can now be run out by the bowler. There are also some changes to when the teams can take the power play overs.

[fathomfive]

Victor McDade said:

England have a great chance to beat India in their own back yard here. India missing a lot of their world cup winning team. No Sachin, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Khan, Harbhajan, and Patel who played in the WC final.

The series will be an interesting one because of the new odi rules which come into play. These include:

2 new balls, one from each end, to start the game; no runners allowed for injured/unfit batsmen; the non striking batsman can no longer back up as he can now be run out by the bowler. There are also some changes to when the teams can take the power play overs.

How the hell does the 2 new ball thing work then?

[suthol]

fathomfive said:

How the hell does the 2 new ball thing work then?

As per the other post, one from each end.

Over 1 and over 2 are both bowled with new balls and the ball used for over 1 is used for every odd over and the ball for over 2 is used for every even over.

That wasn't too difficult to grasp then was it.

[Beardy10]

Victor McDade said:

the non striking batsman can no longer back up as he can now be run out by the bowler.

Hey ? That's always been in the rules. Admittedly the done thing is to warn ruther than run out a batsmen first time up but teams woudln't be shy of doing so if they saw the non striker 5 yeards down the pitch.

[Black can man]

Beardy10 said:

Hey ? That's always been in the rules. Admittedly the done thing is to warn ruther than run out a batsmen first time up but teams woudln't be shy of doing so if they saw the non striker 5 yeards down the pitch.

I thought they changed the rule recently , seems silly as you could be halfway down the track before the bowler bowls

[Victor McDade]

Beardy10 said:

Victor McDade said:

the non striking batsman can no longer back up as he can now be run out by the bowler.

Hey ? That's always been in the rules. Admittedly the done thing is to warn ruther than run out a batsmen first time up but teams woudln't be shy of doing so if they saw the non striker 5 yeards down the pitch.

Yes, sorry I didn't explain it clearly. At the moment a bowler can run out a batsman during a bowlers delivery stride but this is fairly difficult. They are going to change it so that a bowler can simply run up with no intention to bowl at all and still run out a batsman who may be backing up. If the batsman does not realise this is going to happen then tough.

http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/Wil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_out#Running_out_a...

[Beardy10]

Victor McDade said:

Beardy10 said:

Victor McDade said:

the non striking batsman can no longer back up as he can now be run out by the bowler.

Hey ? That's always been in the rules. Admittedly the done thing is to warn ruther than run out a batsmen first time up but teams woudln't be shy of doing so if they saw the non striker 5 yeards down the pitch.

Yes, sorry I didn't explain it clearly. At the moment a bowler can run out a batsman during a bowlers delivery stride but this is fairly difficult. They are going to change it so that a bowler can simply run up with no intention to bowl at all and still run out a batsman who may be backing up. If the batsman does not realise this is going to happen then tough.

http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/Wil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_out#Running_out_a...

Any bowler of any remote pace that attempts to run out a batsman in his delivery stride never had any intention to bowl the ball.....it's simply not possible to be in a delivery stride with every intention of bowling a legal ball and then stump a batsman. You have to make the decision to try and stump him before you get to the wicket. Even a medium pace bowler is leaping in his delivery stride before he gets to the wicket. As that wikidpedia link shows people have already been dismissed like this so I don't see what has changed ?!?!

[Victor McDade]

Beardy10 said:

Any bowler of any remote pace that attempts to run out a batsman in his delivery stride never had any intention to bowl the ball.....it's simply not possible to be in a delivery stride with every intention of bowling a legal ball and then stump a batsman. You have to make the decision to try and stump him before you get to the wicket. Even a medium pace bowler is leaping in his delivery stride before he gets to the wicket. As that wikidpedia link shows people have already been dismissed like this so I don't see what has changed ?!?!

Good point. I think I've even confused myself now. This is from the ICC. What is your interpretation of it?

ICC Website said:

Bowler attempting to run-out non-striker before delivery (Tests, ODIs and T20Is)


Previously, the bowler could only run out a non-striker backing up if he did so before he had entered his delivery stride. This meant that as the bowler's back foot landed, the non-striker could move down the wicket before the bowler actually delivered the ball, gaining an unfair advantage.

The following new playing condition 42.11 addresses this point and reads as follows:

"The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible."

It should be noted that umpires shall deem the bowler to have completed his delivery swing once his bowling arm passes the normal point of ball release.

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=17254_1317283680

[Beardy10]

Victor McDade said:

Beardy10 said:

Any bowler of any remote pace that attempts to run out a batsman in his delivery stride never had any intention to bowl the ball.....it's simply not possible to be in a delivery stride with every intention of bowling a legal ball and then stump a batsman. You have to make the decision to try and stump him before you get to the wicket. Even a medium pace bowler is leaping in his delivery stride before he gets to the wicket. As that wikidpedia link shows people have already been dismissed like this so I don't see what has changed ?!?!

Good point. I think I've even confused myself now. This is from the ICC. What is your interpretation of it?

ICC Website said:

Bowler attempting to run-out non-striker before delivery (Tests, ODIs and T20Is)


Previously, the bowler could only run out a non-striker backing up if he did so before he had entered his delivery stride. This meant that as the bowler's back foot landed, the non-striker could move down the wicket before the bowler actually delivered the ball, gaining an unfair advantage.

The following new playing condition 42.11 addresses this point and reads as follows:

"The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible."

It should be noted that umpires shall deem the bowler to have completed his delivery swing once his bowling arm passes the normal point of ball release.

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=17254_1317283680

What they appear to be saying is that under the old rules a ball was not considered "live" once the bowler had entered his delivery stride and could not attempt to stump the batsman....presumably they would incur a no ball if they did?!?! What they are saying now is a ball is not live until it has actually left the bowlers hand.

In practice is if a bowler was going to try and run someone out in the past they would fake the leap for the delivery stride and basically not bring their arm over and stump the batsmen (or threaten to).

It sounds like what was happening in practice wasn't actually allowed by the rules and they have brought the rules into line with reality.

[fathomfive]

suthol said:

fathomfive said:

How the hell does the 2 new ball thing work then?

As per the other post, one from each end.

Over 1 and over 2 are both bowled with new balls and the ball used for over 1 is used for every odd over and the ball for over 2 is used for every even over.

That wasn't too difficult to grasp then was it.

Aw fanks! I gathered that much, despite a massive lack of caffeine yesterday morning.

Ok, I'll ask another question, what's the point of it?

Edited by fathomfive on Friday 14th October 06:52

[mantis84]

Pleased we're giving some youngsters a crack and not just sticking with a set team of the recognised names. As much as we've got nothing to worry about right now, it does seem like we're setting ourselves up quite well to try and stave off the possibility of a huge fall from grace when our top players retire, like when McGrath and co' retired for the crims.

Still, it's only pyjama cricket so I won't be getting too excited.

England to win the series 3-2.

[anonymous-user]

WTF? Pictures blackout in India SKY 1 commentary over a phone line from Hyderabad?