Forum » General » News and Announcements » nd the ball curls past the wrong

nd the ball curls past the wrong

  • 15887
      May 22, 2020 10:23 PM MDT
  • 4060
    导出博客文章How do you go about solving a puzzle like Virat Kohli? Such will have been the question taxing Englands management on the flight from Visakhapatnam to Mohali, where this intriguing Test series rumbles, already, into its third act. Ecco Sandaler Herre Udsalg .While Virats Vizag contributions - utterly imperious in first wresting the initiative and then snuffing out the light as England sought an unlikely route back into the game - ensured the plot played out to pre-series expectations, he probably hadnt imagined hed spend the final session in Rajkot in survival mode. Nevertheless, he rose to and embraced the challenge, displaying the timeless virtues of batting on capricious, turning pitches: quick to judge length, light on his feet, poised, balanced, judicious and pragmatic in shot selection, and, as always with Kohli, doing everything he can to cow the bowler with that strutting body language.Two Tests, then, and two masterclasses of technical brilliance and adaptability. Kohlis transitions from defensive resolve to relentless, single-minded orthodoxy to counterattacking flair as the differing match situation and pitches have demanded have served to remind of crickets endless variety and richness, its ceaselessly modulating challenges.While Visakhapatnam kept relatively low and (eventually) offered sharp, red-earth sidespin, the bounce and overspin in Rajkot presented a different examination, of both the Indian captains defensive game and of Englands trio of spinners. Picking Adil Rashid from the hand and, frankly, toying with Zafar Ansari, Kohlis biggest threat - in line with Duncan Fletchers theory that the ball spinning in is more dangerous when its spinning miles - was Moeen Ali, who bowled perfectly respectably (no worse than the standout fingerspinner in county cricket the last five years, Jeetan Patel, recently pawed like a ball of twine in Kolkata), yet could find no way through. Kohlis relentless excellence squeezed Moeens margins down to the finest calibrations: above a certain pace to challenge the footwork, on an ultra-precise length and exact line (the absence of left-arm seamers, or scarcity of left-handers in the India line-up that would justify the heavy-footed seamers going round the wicket to create rough magnifies this), and then hoping the pitch obliged by having the ball spit.The varying degrees of bounce and spin have brought a subtly different geometry to the game - angle of attack, alignment at the crease, arrangement of fielders - to which Englands itinerant spin-bowling coach, Saqlain Mushtaq, has helped his charges adapt. Most noticeably, Moeen has regularly eschewed the standard long-on in favour of a deep straight midwicket (cow corner, if you prefer), which serves both to prevent the easy bunt down the ground (making the batsman play slightly more across the ball for an easy single), while also covering, from an offspinners attacking line, the natural arc of the slog sweep. Its a canny move, yet there was another aspect of this absorbing Rajkot cat-and-mouse that even Saqlains voodoo couldnt overcome.With one of the more likely modes of dismissal being the gloved catch round the corner, Moeen was unable to attack Kohli exactly as he would have liked, all because of an archaic law devised over 80 years ago in the aftermath of the Bodyline Ashes series. Once the initial furore over the leg-theory line of attack had abated, in 1935 umpires were given explicit powers - and the moral responsibility - to intervene if they felt the bowler was deliberately trying to injure the batsman. Then, in 1960, a new clause was added to Law 44 (today, Law 41.5), since which time, as every daydreaming young square-leg fielder knows, only two fielders are permitted behind square on the leg-side. For an offspinner bowling to a right-hand batsman (or slow left-armer to a leftie) on a surface offering bounce as well as turn, the leg slip is de rigueur (and even then this area still feels undermanned from a close-catching perspective). But where to put the other man permitted behind square? If hes at deep-backward square, then anything marginally short can be nudged, fairly safely, into that area for a single. Bring him up, on that same angle, and the hard sweep almost certainly goes for four. Either way, a well controlled lap-sweep would run away through short fine-leg, with a top edge falling safe - unless, that is, you move your backward square-leg finer, in which case...Its all part of crickets cat and mouse, of course, but theres always an escape route for the batsman, always an in-built restriction for the bowler. This is especially true at those times when the pitch is really spitting, or when youre really pushing for wickets - times such as in Rajkot - and two close catchers behind square on the leg side - a fine leg slip and a leg gully - is optimal. Doing this, though, means that any hard sweep will go for a certain four, and, save for a freak rebound-off-the-body dismissal, any poorly played lap-sweep will arc unfailingly to safety. In these conditions, the Bodyline Law means there is no way for the bowler simultaneously to stop the batsman scoring with impunity in this area and attack him as he would like (with more than that of-necessity lone catcher).And therein lies the quandary for our trusty fingerspinner: always, in some sense, at a disadvantage. Why should a fast outswing bowler presented with ideal conditions for his craft be able to fill his preferred quadrant with five or six catchers when the same possibility is denied the fingerspinner? Is it time, therefore, to consider repealing the Bodyline Law - or at least modifying it slightly?One objection is that such a change could pave the way for tediously negative leg-side bowling at the back end of a Test match (We flippin murdered em territory), or perhaps for tediously intimidatory bowling at any stage - not that the West Indies teams of the 1980s saw rules preventing four leg gullies as any sort of disincentive for a rib-rattling attack. Besides, there is already ample provision in the current Laws for umpires to nip this in the bud.Rather than doing away with the Law entirely, it could simply be tweaked to allow one extra fielder behind square. And if a team wishes to assign three fielders there for a quick bowler, despite the restrictions on the number of bouncers bowled per over, then so be it. (Theres a legitimate gripe that allowing even three fielders behind square enables a pace bowler to pound away at the ribs with both a leg gully and two men back for the hook, thus covering both the attacking and defensive options, but the amendment could stipulate that the wicketkeeper has to be stood up to the wicket for the third fielder to be allowed.)It seems that, regarding the games variety, the pitch giveth but the Law taketh away. Allowing three fielders behind square - on the rare occasions it is expedient and desirable to have them - wouldnt close off all scoring options in that area, nor stack everything in favour of the bowler, especially with most contemporary batsman having the field-mangling reverse sweep in their locker. It would merely bring a new dimension to the bat-versus-ball problematic, enhancing the cat-and-mouse struggle of a batsman attempting to manoeuvre the spinners field, among the most compelling the game has to offer. Ecco Intrinsic 2 Herre . Its 1987 and a Brazilian playmaker, known as Mirandinha, is being paraded around St James Park to the passionate Newcastle fans. Tilbud ECCO Herre Intrinsic Sandaler 842004-51052 Sort/Sort Udsalg . Hazard cut in from the left and scored with a swerving right-footed shot for ninth goal of the season, which proved to be enough for the victory despite Chelseas forwards again lacking a cutting edge up front. . But what about the officials? Every sport has officials and they also have stories about hard work and sacrifice but their accomplishments are seldom recognized by anyone outside their inner circle.Ref Watch is back to debate another batch of controversial decisions from the weekends football. After a weekend of questionable red card decisions, disallowed goals and penalty shouts, former top-flight referee Dermot Gallagher joined Rob Wotton in the Sky Sports News HQ studio to go through each contentious call.Read on for Gallaghers verdict... MATCH: Chelsea v Manchester United, Sunday No penalty was the right decision here, says Gallagher INCIDENT: Chelsea appeal for a penalty after John Terrys shot appears to hit Daley Blinds arm.SCENARIO: A cross comes in from the right and Terry sends a volley towards goal; Blind throws himself in front of the shot with his right arm outstretched and blocks the effort. The ball hits Blinds left arm, tucked in close to his body, and goes out for a corner. No penalty given.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Correct decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: The ball strikes him (Blind), he does not strike the ball. The arm outstretched is not the arm the ball strikes. It hits the arm tucked into his chest and it would have hit his chest anyhow - I think it would have been very, very harsh. Also, it has come at such speed and when you look at it further on, the referee cant see it.MATCH: Chelsea v Manchester United, Sunday Daley Blind brings down Diego Costa on the edge of the box INCIDENT: Blind pushes Diego Costa over on the edge of the Manchester United area.SCENARIO: A ball is played over the top for Costa and, as he tries to drive into the penalty area, Blind shoves him over. The striker falls inside the area with a free-kick and yellow card awarded.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Correct decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: Definitely outside the area, definitely a foul and definitely a yellow card. Hes got a promising attack but Costa delays a little bit and then goes down inside the area. For me, its a good decision by both parties because the assistant has probably said thats where it happened [outside the box] and no [it was not denying a clear goalscoring opportunity].MATCH: Chelsea v Manchester United, Sunday Louis van Gaal complains to the fourth official INCIDENT: Full-time whistle blown on 96 minutes as United try to counter-attack.SCENARIO: Manchester United clear a Chelsea corner and try to counter-attack but are stopped in their tracks as the referee blows the full-time whistle. Six minutes added-time had been announced but, during that time, Chelsea had scored and a substitution had taken place.GALLAGHERS VIEW: If hed have played on, nobody could have argued, the fact he didnt play on left him a little bit vulnerable.GALLAGHER SAYS: I think he (Van Gaal) felt aggrieved because six minutes was put up and in the six minutes Chelsea scored and a substitute, Ander Herrerra, came on. United attack and the only winner then can be United because Chelsea arent going to get the ball back [before the final whistle] and thats why hes aggrieved because the whistle goes smack on six minutes. Unfortunately, hes realised that and the fourth official is in a position where he cant defend it.MATCH: Manchester City v Leicester, Saturday Pablo Zabaleta was on the line when he was brought down by Christian Fuchs INCIDENT: Christian Fuchs trips Pablo Zabaleta as the Manchester City full-back breaks into the area.SCENARIO: Zabaleta cuts inside Fuchs and is tripped as he tries to get into the area, despite trying to jump over the challenge. Replays show the foul was on the line. A free-kick was awarded.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Technically incorrect decision, however no choice but to give a free-kick rather than a penalty.GALLAGHER SAYS: The line is part of the penalty area and I think this is a really, really tough call. If you slow it down his foot is on the line, but what I would say is that you can show me as many pictures as you want of his foot on that line but you have to say the referee could never, ever be sure where he was and he is compelled to give a free-kick. Although you can show that his foot is on the line, and I would have to say yes, that is a penalty, its not possible to give that. He has to be convinced its a penalty but, in my view, he cant possibly be.MATCH: Stoke v Everton, Saturday Should Jack Butland have been carded for bringing Cleverley down? INCIDENT: Everton awarded a penalty after Jack Butland brought down Tom Cleverley.SCENARIO: Cleverley is played through on goal, knocks the ball away from goal to try and go round Butland and he is taken down by the goalkeeper. Penalty given but no card for Butland.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Correct decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: Its a foul, and its a foul he (Butland) doesnt have to make because the ball is going away from goal and I also dont think it is a yellow card. The referee has done well there.MATCH: Southampton v West Ham, Saturday Victor Wanyama saw red for this foul on Dimitri Payet INCIDENT: Victor Wanyama sent off for a tackle on Dimitri Payet.SCENARIO: Wanyama attempts to tackle Payet but missses the ball and takes the West Ham midfielder down with his back leg coming round in a scissor motion. ECCO Herre Intrinsic Sandaler 842004-55894 Tarmac Tarmac Tilbud DK. The referee gives Wanyama a straight red card.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Correct decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: Whats interesting is that I dont think the referees gut reaction is red card, but I think when he runs it through his mind or whether he gets advice from the fourth official looking in, hes taken his time and has come to the right decision. Its a bad enough tackle, its a scissor tackle and a tackle he doesnt have to make.MATCH: Bournemouth v Arsenal, Sunday Flamini should have been sent off his this tackle, according to Gallagher INCIDENT: Mathieu Flamini is shown a yellow card for a lunging tackle on Dan Gosling.SCENARIO: Flamini dives into a tackle, two-footed, on Gosling around 30 yards from his own goal. He plays the ball but also the man. Bournemouth are awarded a free-kick and Flamini is shown a yellow card.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Incorrect decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: All I can think is the referee thinks hes (Flamini) played the ball. He has got the ball, I dont think there is any doubt about that but he is out of control, its two-footed and hes also caught the man. He plays the ball but also plays the man and that is the difference; you cant use the ball to go through the man. Kevin (Friend, the referee) sees him get the ball and he doesnt compute anything else, you see him say to the players hes got the ball. I think thats why he yellow cards him.MATCH: Bournemouth v Arsenal, Sunday Giroud should have been shown at least a yellow card, for this challenge, says Gallagher INCIDENT: Olivier Giroud evades a booking after treading on Adam Smiths Achilles after the full-back had past him with the ball.SCENARIO: Smith has the ball on the right touchline around halfway, Giroud goes over to challenge and stands down on the back of the defenders foot as he moves away from him. Free-kick given but no card shown.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Incorrect decision, should be at least a yellow card.GALLAGHER SAYS: I think this is a really bad tackle, I really do. He should be punished with at least a yellow card. Whether he means it or not I dont know, but he catches Smith right across the Achilles with his studs. On any given day, in a feisty match it could easily be a red card but it has to be a minimum of a yellow card for me. In that game [the referees] tolerance level was a bit too high.MATCH: Manchester City v Leicester, Saturday Was Sergio Aguero offside? INCIDENT: Sergio Aguero scores a consolation goal for Man City with a header late on.SCENARIO: Aguero is clearly in an offside position as the ball is played but moves back in an attempt to get onside before the cross comes in from the Man City right. When the ball is delivered, Aguero, unmarked eight yards out, heads into the far corner. The goal is given despite Leicester appeals for offside.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Offside, just.GALLAGHER SAYS: I think its probably just offside but its very, very difficult for the assistant to give because hes moving back. The assistant has to be in line with the second rear-most defender, which he is, but I think the fact that Aguero comes back and then goes forward again, thats what deceives him.MATCH: Newcastle v West Brom, Saturday Tiote saw his goal chalked off for offisde INCIDENT: Cheick Tiotes shot from range finds the back of the net but is ruled out for offside despite not hitting another player.SCENARIO: Tiote shoots from long range and the ball curls past the wrong-footed Ben Foster in the West Brom goal but the goal is ruled out for offside with Aleksandar Mitrovic, standing in an offside position, adjudged to be interfering with play as he blocked the goalkeepers line of vision.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Correct decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: When it is hit, the assistant knows that Mitrovic is stood in an offside position, what he doesnt know is how he is interfering with the goalkeeper. When Lee Mason goes across, the assistant has said to him this is where he is and I think between them they have come to the right decision.MATCH: Rangers v Kilmarnock, Saturday Higginbotham was quickly shown a red card after this challenge INCIDENT: Kilmarnocks Kallum Higginbotham shown a straight red card for a high tackle on James Tavernier.SCENARIO: With the ball bouncing near the touchline, Higginbotham stretches to try and put the ball out of play as Tavernier tries to control it. However, he goes in high, with his studs showing, and catches Tavernier on the follow through. He is swiftly shown a red card.GALLAGHERS VIEW: Correct decision.GALLAGHER SAYS: Its definitely a red card and this is an occasion where by quickly getting the red card out, it stops everybody coming in. Like in the Bournemouth game, everyone came charging in because they didnt see a card. On this occasion, the tackle is very high and very dangerous so its a red card every day of the week. By getting the card out so quickly, the referee has stopped it escalating. Also See: Premier League video Fixtures Table Live on Sky Jerseys NFL China Cheap NFL Jerseys Jerseys NFL China Cheap Nike NFL Jerseys Stitched Jerseys China Womens NFL Jerseys Youth NFL Jerseys China ' ' '
      June 1, 2018 2:52 AM MDT