The Cricket Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Surrey are just getting towards something which they might be able to defend, if they can get a mixture of good bowling, bad batting, and a helpful day four pitch.
 
tomw24 said:
He won't - a hat-trick has to occur in the same match.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on how you define a hat-trick. If it is defined as taking three wickets in three consecutive balls, then taking two wickets with the last two balls of a match, followed by taking one wicket with the first ball of the next match, fulfills the definition.
If the definition is tighter than that, such that a hat-trick should only be three wickets with three consecutive balls, in the same over. Taking two wickets on balls five and six of an over, followed by a wicket on ball one of a subsequent over, should not be a hat-trick, but it is often described as such. So what definition of a hat-trick is correct, or at least accepted by cricket cognoscenti?
 
Lemons and Oranges said:
I suppose it depends on how you define a hat-trick. If it is defined as taking three wickets in three consecutive balls, then taking two wickets with the last two balls of a match, followed by taking one wicket with the first ball of the next match, fulfills the definition.
If the definition is tighter than that, such that a hat-trick should only be three wickets with three consecutive balls, in the same over. Taking two wickets on balls five and six of an over, followed by a wicket on ball one of a subsequent over, should not be a hat-trick, but it is often described as such. So what definition of a hat-trick is correct, or at least accepted by cricket cognoscenti?
Click to expand...
A hat-trick can be done between overs or innings in the same match but not in different matches. That's what I've always heard anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges
The longer Surrey keep batting today, the bigger the lead grows and the more hot and bothered Glamorgan get. And because they sent in 2 nightwatchmen, they have 2 very capable batters at the crease for the final wicket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wing Wizard
Presumably means they'll miss the games against Kent, Middlesex and Essex. Maybe Sussex too but hopefully not.

Assuming they're both available for the two games before then - Yorkshire and Kent - it'll be interesting to see how we line up, because it would be the first time that Baker and Jack are both available.

Kent and Middlesex don't have anyone in the squad, but Essex have Cox. Which is very good news for us.
 
I expect it will be Baker for Lumsden, Vince for Lehmann from the Surrey game and then the choice between Prest, Orr, Mayes (or Lehmann) for the final batting spot.

When Baker and Dawson have to drop out, then it'll be Neal for Dawson and either Jack, Wheal or Lumsden back in for Baker?
 
Watching the women’s T20 and just seen a bats person arguing over her dismissal by the 3rd umpire.
A catch behind the stumps went for review.
On the split screen, the image from the side indicated a “snick” but the image from behind the bowler showed, imo, a sizeable gap between bat and ball.
Assuming that both images are synchronised, shouldn’t the front on image show contact?
The batter was far from happy.
 
Oscar Cricket said:
I expect it will be Baker for Lumsden, Vince for Lehmann from the Surrey game and then the choice between Prest, Orr, Mayes (or Lehmann) for the final batting spot.

When Baker and Dawson have to drop out, then it'll be Neal for Dawson and either Jack, Wheal or Lumsden back in for Baker?
Click to expand...

A 17-man squad does seem somewhat unnecessary for tomorrow. Nine names are nailed on, a 10th (Fuller) is almost certain, and then it's just that final spot as you say.

As much as I like to watch a double-header at the Bowl, I don't think I could survive it tomorrow in this heat.
 
Given that Dawson is contributing well again with the bat, you could use that final spot for Neal and get 6 bowlers in. It would probably mean Cartwright at 4, unless we've made a flying start and want to ensure Stubbs gets in with a bit of time to spare. However, I expect they'll stick with 5 bowlers, having Currie at 9 and Wood at 10, so still plenty of batting depth on paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back