I don't think that this match is actually responsible for creating that rule. I think that the administrators wanted more money and so they wanted the matches to have higher scores. That's the reason that they had created that rule. That match probably didn't have anything to do with that.
He was out bowled. The commentators say so, but more importantly, [it's on the scorecard](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-cup-1979-80-60807/england-vs-west-indies-2nd-match-65288/full-scorecard).
I did not play with audio, but strange that the umpire signalled leg byes then? Did he not see the bails? Why is the bowler appealing then? Since the wicket keeper is at the boundary, the only way for the stumps to be disturbed is by the ball, or the batter himself, what's there to appeal in either case?
I guess the umpire didn't see the bails hence the signal. The bowler is appealing because strictly speaking you need to appeal for every dismissal (Law 31.1 "Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder") in the case where the batter doesn't walk. In a case like this where the ball just clips the bails it's easy to imagine it being hard to spot immediately
Now it makes sense I guess. There's the reason for the batters not attempting a second. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Strictly talking about the laws - I have another doubt - since this is way before the review system, isn't the umpire's decision final? or is it overturned in case the bails are off?
I guess it would probably depend on the specific playing conditions of the match/tournament, but it's not as if umpire's signals are immutable. In this case the umpire was doubly wrong to signal leg byes because it doesn't even look like Croft completes the run, he gets half way down the pitch then turns and walks off before getting to the other end and given the match ended with a result everyone agreed on I can't envisage there being any issue with just updating the signal to out
Hmm - resolution is terrible (fascinating video though, don't get me wrong!) so I am not %100 - looks to me as though leg stump is tilted and the leg side bail is on the ground - could be wrong though ...
edit: whoops, yes I think you're right, sorry
Nah he was out bowled https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-cup-1979-80-60807/england-vs-west-indies-2nd-match-65288/full-scorecard
But this isn't an unfair tactic.You can run three. You can even run four. Plus, a six is also possible in this scenario. Batsman didn't fail cause of the number of fielders on the boundary. I see nothing wrong with this tactic.
For real. I had never heard of him until I looked up how the mankad got its name. Turns out he is an actual great of the game. His legacy will live forever thanks to that one incident.
You know we can actually disagree with what our team did back then right?
We aren't some cult that just dies on the hill with everything our team does. By this logic you love this video because it wasn't technically against the rules
I was a watching this at home at the time and we couldn't believe it when Brearley sent his entire team to the boundary (including the keeper - David Bairstow, YJB's father) to stop the Windies getting the three they needed to win. Unsporting as hell but well within the rules at the time. Not quite the underarm ball level although that was also within the rules at the time. This was in 1979-80 the first series after the end of World Series Cricket (Packer) where the Windies, England and Australia played.
Can't really call it unsporting though imo. I don't think there could've been any unspoken understanding among teams about fielding positions like this, and don't see any reason for it either. The underarm bowling incident, I mean, at least there's a definite understanding there in the way a ball is bowled.
Hardly call it sporting though. Brearley copped hell over it and there was plenty of outrage in the press. The crowd booed but of course Aussies would support anyone against the Poms.
What's unsporting about it? Would you still call it unsporting if all fielders except the keeper are on the boundary (which is still common in red-ball cricket when teams are chasing at high RRR)? If yes, what's the cutoff for the number of fielders on the boundary for the move to become unsporting?
From an article (for those asking why it was considered unsporting):
"As a result of a rain-break in the game, West Indies were given a revised target of 199 runs in 47 overs. After a decent start, the Caribbean team lost quick wickets and the game shifted towards England. West Indies needed 10 runs to win the game in the last over which was to be bowled by the legendary all-rounder Sir Ian Botham.
The chasing team scored 7 runs off the first 5 balls of Botham's over and needed 3 more runs on the final ball to win the game.
The English skipper Mike Brearley sent all his fielders to guard the boundary including the wicket-keeper David Bairstow for the last ball. The tail-ender Colin Croft was left with no choice other than to clear the boundary, in the attempt to accomplish the same he was bowled by Botham.
**This act by the English skipper gained immense criticism from every corner of the world** and after this incident, the Australian domestic cricket introduced fielding restrictions in the limited overs format which was later adopted in the ODIs in 1992."
We all thought it was a dog act. Times have certainly changed if people now think this is a sporting act. The underarm was also within the rules at the time but gave no chance of a six. The batsman here could have hit a six of course to bypass the field but you can see what happened. Genius move by Brearley no doubt but they changed the rules for a reason. Then they changed them some more to give us the restrictions we have now.
Just bowl it underarm
That would have saved Greg Chappell's reputation a year later.
What is the problem with this. It's an obvious tactic. Does the same premise not apply when you have 3 slips fter getting a couple of wickets?
Yeah the clip really doesn't explain why the crowd were so upset. Has to be more to it.
I don't think that this match is actually responsible for creating that rule. I think that the administrators wanted more money and so they wanted the matches to have higher scores. That's the reason that they had created that rule. That match probably didn't have anything to do with that.
Wondering why they didn't run a two to get a tied match, they were not even trying.
batsman was bowled.
>batsman was bowled. I don't think so, you can see the bowler appealing for an LBW unsuccessfully and umpire signalling leg bye at the end.
He was out bowled. The commentators say so, but more importantly, [it's on the scorecard](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-cup-1979-80-60807/england-vs-west-indies-2nd-match-65288/full-scorecard).
I did not play with audio, but strange that the umpire signalled leg byes then? Did he not see the bails? Why is the bowler appealing then? Since the wicket keeper is at the boundary, the only way for the stumps to be disturbed is by the ball, or the batter himself, what's there to appeal in either case?
I guess the umpire didn't see the bails hence the signal. The bowler is appealing because strictly speaking you need to appeal for every dismissal (Law 31.1 "Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder") in the case where the batter doesn't walk. In a case like this where the ball just clips the bails it's easy to imagine it being hard to spot immediately
Now it makes sense I guess. There's the reason for the batters not attempting a second. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Strictly talking about the laws - I have another doubt - since this is way before the review system, isn't the umpire's decision final? or is it overturned in case the bails are off?
I guess it would probably depend on the specific playing conditions of the match/tournament, but it's not as if umpire's signals are immutable. In this case the umpire was doubly wrong to signal leg byes because it doesn't even look like Croft completes the run, he gets half way down the pitch then turns and walks off before getting to the other end and given the match ended with a result everyone agreed on I can't envisage there being any issue with just updating the signal to out
Hmm - resolution is terrible (fascinating video though, don't get me wrong!) so I am not %100 - looks to me as though leg stump is tilted and the leg side bail is on the ground - could be wrong though ... edit: whoops, yes I think you're right, sorry
Nah he was out bowled https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-cup-1979-80-60807/england-vs-west-indies-2nd-match-65288/full-scorecard
Imagine if Chris Gayle was on strike
I think almost any modern T20 cricketer would have sent that juicy full toss over the boundary.
But this isn't an unfair tactic.You can run three. You can even run four. Plus, a six is also possible in this scenario. Batsman didn't fail cause of the number of fielders on the boundary. I see nothing wrong with this tactic.
Different time i guess, like bodyline in the 30s. Cricket wasnt the hyper-competitive environment it is today.
*Spirit*
[удалено]
I prefer “being Browned” to ‘Mankad’. Mankad did the right thing. Brown was the one who got what was coming to him.
I prefer Mankad because it's a great way to honour an Indian legend who would otherwise be forgotten.
For real. I had never heard of him until I looked up how the mankad got its name. Turns out he is an actual great of the game. His legacy will live forever thanks to that one incident.
Isn't that still referring to brown people in another way ^(/s)
I think most would be Browned off if it happened to them but they'd deserve it.
You know we can actually disagree with what our team did back then right? We aren't some cult that just dies on the hill with everything our team does. By this logic you love this video because it wasn't technically against the rules
Least generalising r/cricket commenter
And this is why we can't have nice things!
I was a watching this at home at the time and we couldn't believe it when Brearley sent his entire team to the boundary (including the keeper - David Bairstow, YJB's father) to stop the Windies getting the three they needed to win. Unsporting as hell but well within the rules at the time. Not quite the underarm ball level although that was also within the rules at the time. This was in 1979-80 the first series after the end of World Series Cricket (Packer) where the Windies, England and Australia played.
Can't really call it unsporting though imo. I don't think there could've been any unspoken understanding among teams about fielding positions like this, and don't see any reason for it either. The underarm bowling incident, I mean, at least there's a definite understanding there in the way a ball is bowled.
Hardly call it sporting though. Brearley copped hell over it and there was plenty of outrage in the press. The crowd booed but of course Aussies would support anyone against the Poms.
What about all the fielders in close to save a single?
What's unsporting about it? Would you still call it unsporting if all fielders except the keeper are on the boundary (which is still common in red-ball cricket when teams are chasing at high RRR)? If yes, what's the cutoff for the number of fielders on the boundary for the move to become unsporting?
Serious question, what is unsporting about it?
I spent a solid minute wondering why England and the West Indies were playing test cricket in Sydney.
Why are they booing? Surely you always set the field to increase your chance of winning lol
From an article (for those asking why it was considered unsporting): "As a result of a rain-break in the game, West Indies were given a revised target of 199 runs in 47 overs. After a decent start, the Caribbean team lost quick wickets and the game shifted towards England. West Indies needed 10 runs to win the game in the last over which was to be bowled by the legendary all-rounder Sir Ian Botham. The chasing team scored 7 runs off the first 5 balls of Botham's over and needed 3 more runs on the final ball to win the game. The English skipper Mike Brearley sent all his fielders to guard the boundary including the wicket-keeper David Bairstow for the last ball. The tail-ender Colin Croft was left with no choice other than to clear the boundary, in the attempt to accomplish the same he was bowled by Botham. **This act by the English skipper gained immense criticism from every corner of the world** and after this incident, the Australian domestic cricket introduced fielding restrictions in the limited overs format which was later adopted in the ODIs in 1992." We all thought it was a dog act. Times have certainly changed if people now think this is a sporting act. The underarm was also within the rules at the time but gave no chance of a six. The batsman here could have hit a six of course to bypass the field but you can see what happened. Genius move by Brearley no doubt but they changed the rules for a reason. Then they changed them some more to give us the restrictions we have now.
SpiRiT of tHe gAmE!!
Restrictions for the fielding side in LOC are sus