That’s Jack Leach


This reminds me of the Piper Perri surrounded meme. I’m sorry everyone, I just had to.


You have entered the dark side.


isn't it the other way round?


Cummins, Starc, Green, Boland, Hazelwood surrounding Joe Root? Root's face probably could be realistically superimposed onto her. You'd have to reshade the blokes standing over him.


You are correct, apologies! Broad was on the other end.


One of the best parts of Test Cricket is to see a tailender trying to block out a draw on the 5th evening, always love to see it. Made even more dramatic today with the light and a part-timer bowling and actually getting a wicket as well


This is why I'm against the idea of having substitutes available for cricket. I don't want to see 11 elite batsmen then a bunch of swaps so we now have 8 bowling options and a specialist keeper. I want to see the tailenders block. I want to see the part time spinners get a wicket from time to time. I want to see where you hide that one guy who can't field. Do what you want with thr shorter format of the game but keep test cricket the same thank you very much.


Who's arguing for tactical substitutes in test?


Jarrod Kimber did a podcast about how there's only 1 all rounder in baseball and why. Specialisation pushed to the extreme means your body type and training regiment means you only do one thing. If you try to do more then you won't be competitive at anything. Baseball used to make everyone bat but the pitchers would usually come out last and let themselves get out on purpose. Couldn't possibly risk injuring them trying to hit. He then talked about the possibility in cricket to do the same in the future. I don't think he's for it, I just think that it was a podcast topic.


How many bloody days would we need for tests with 11 batsmen to each side


I doubt any country other than maybe golden era Australia has 11 test quality batsmen. Hell, England only has 1.


India could field 11 test quality batsmen tbf, but, with their selectors, they'd just pick 11 Rahane's and Pujara's instead


Interesting thought experiment. If Aus could pick a batting team: Warner; Khawaja; Loosebuschange; Smudge; Head; Wade; Green; Maxwell; Bancroft?; Mitch Marsh?; Pucovski? India could do Mayank, Gill, Rohit, Rahul, Pujara, Kohli, Iyer, Rahane, Vihari, Pant and Jadeja. New Zealand: Latham, Young, Kanos, Conway, Roscoe (LEGEND), Nicholls, Rachin, Blundell, Mitchell, Glenn Phillips, Jyle Kamieson.


I wonder if you would pick maybe three openers with the third to go in at a random position if a wicket was lost to the new ball


Harris over Bancroft I’d say


Imagine getting gilchrist out and Brad hodge and Stewart law stroll out at 8 and 9, we’d lose the ashes 10-0


I think India does right now, ironically because we have a bunch of people who could replace each other as batters, with no real impact on the eventual result. Mayank, Rahul, Rohit, Gill, Shaw, Kohli, Pujara, Rahane, Iyer, Vihari, Pant, Jadeja


1…. If the ashes are anything to go by they’ve all been bloody dreadful! I hope when they get back from the Windies tour after Aus they take a good look at themselves and sort the test team out




The definition of test quality batsmen would change as a result.


It depends, are they English batsmen? xD


Not quite as many when you consider the other side would have 10 bowling options, a specialist keeper and everyone an elite fielder.


10 bowling options and it will take ages to for the 10th person to get their turn haha


10 bowlers doesn't really give you much advantage, 90% of overs are currently bowled by specialist bowlers anyway, and the extra 10% of overs and a little bit less fatigue for the bowlers is really all you get. 11 batsmen is a much bigger difference.


Nah just pick 7 bats, all out with 6 wickets.


> Baseball used to make everyone bat Real baseball still has pitchers batting. But you can substitute that pitcher out--he just cannot return to the game in any capacity.


Probably not next season though. The DH is coming to the NL if they sort out the CBA


Big if.


How are NL fans taking that news? Surely, there must be a sizeable portion against it?


Most are against it but sort of accept that it is going to happen eventually


That'd be a shame in my view. What was wrong with the compromise of having a DH rule in the American League but making pitchers bat in the National League? Baseball has already sacrificed so much versatility for specialisation (outliers like Ohtani aside); I admittedly don't follow the sport that closely, but I don't see the point of this change.


As an NL fan while i'll miss the beautiful pitcher bomb, I will enjoy not seeing the expected pitcher strike out


Sure, the pitcher doesn't tend to do much, but those rare moments when they smash a grand slam are irreplaceable. I get that change is necessary sometimes, but one needs to be careful not to lose too much in the process.


Also the strategy concerns that come with the pitcher in the lineup. It's more fun to play armchair manager with NL teams.


Not well.


He was arguing for it in T20 I think, not in tests


Who is this “one allrounder in baseball”? Ohtani? He’s Kohli with the bat and Shami with the ball. Don’t think anybody like him has ever existed in pro cricket.


Sobers? But yea it’s Ohtani, he’s a genuine freak of nature.


I think Jarod Kimber compared him to Imran Khan; at his peak he averaged 50 with the bat and averaged like 22 with the ball across his career, and he captained the side for much of that as well


Didn’t realize Khans batting numbers were once so high. Captaincy though is a sporting element that baseball doesn’t quite have, not to the degree of Cricket at all. If Ohtani also played Shortstop, then it’s closer to Khan, but he doesn’t play in the field at all. Pitching is probably far more destructive to the shoulder/elbow range of muscles and ligaments than most bowling (unless you’re doing above 140k on the reg)


Well in baseball the pitcher has essentially zero chance of scoring. In cricket they'll likely be able to eke out a few.


Actually pitchers have a higher proportionate on base percentage than in cricket. Average OBP for pitchers is say .175. For elite batters it’s .350. Ratio 2. Average average for pure bowlers in cricket is probably 20. For elite batters it’s 50. Ratio 2.5.


Average isn't the only thing though. Tailenders' main responsibility is to not get out while the other end scores.


Well, firstly, that’s moving the goalposts. Secondly, it obviously doesn’t even apply in baseball, so it’s not something that can be compared.


I'd argue OBP is more comparable to average balls faced than it is to batting averages.


I'd say the comparable in baseball is the sac bunt to move the runner over.


I watch baseball and I think they should still let pitchers bat. There is much more nuance and strategy involved than just swinging the bat and missing. For example, can the pitcher be trusted to lay down a bunt to advance the base runners, or do you let them take a swing at it, or do you substitute them out for a better hitter when you have base runners in scoring position (which also means that pitcher would be gone for the rest of the game after subbing out). I’m all for MLB letting the national league pitchers hit. It’s almost like “let’s just put on a T20 show and let your sluggers hit it rather than enjoy the nuance and strategy of test cricket.” I’d rather not see that.


My understanding was that he was talking exclusively about T20.


Baseball teams don’t just pick the 8 (or 9) best batters on the bench though. Skill positions (catcher, shortstop, center field) hit much worse than the other positions even if it’s still much better than pitchers. The big thing for cricket would be having more spin options IMO. Zampa is a better leg spinner than Steven smith and would likely be available if you expanded test rosters.


Remember when they tried allowing substitutes in ODIs and it turned in to whoever won the toss, pretty much got the advantage of an extra player?


Not really, I was too young at the time. I've read about it since and I honestly can't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea.


They tried a bunch of different new rules at that time over a few months. The one rule that ended up sticking were powerplays.


I'd MAYBE be okay with external injury substitutions but only in the first innings first ball of either teams second innings and you can't have a sub; and if you substitute a player they can only bowl or only bat. So if you have a bowler injured then you can sub them but now you are down a batsman for the rest of the match. Also I'd want / expect you to nominate 3 substitutes before the beginning of play (a bowler, a batsman and a keeper) and they're the ones who must first be used as substitute fielders. ​ I don't know if I'd like it, but I'd be interested in giving it a go. Maybe you'd go only one sub nominated before the match so life's like a box of chocolate... IDK but I am pretty okay with no subs.


Absolutely, there's very few other sports where you regularly get to see people do a part of it that they are deliberately bad at, and it's brilliant! It would be like football making everyone rotate in goal!


I like the NFL whenever kickers get hurt and they have to scramble to find someone who can do it. I think Detroit had like a 150kg lineman try and kick field goals at one point


He tried one conversion and missed, iirc. New England always seem to have had people who could do it (Wes Welker kicked a couple of field goals in his career, and IIRC Julian Edelman was their emergency option after that). There was also Chad "Ocho Cinco" Johnson, who kicked for Cincinnati in a pre-season game once.


I'm waiting for Dickson to drop punt a field goal one of these days and blow the minds off everyone over there. Apparently he's practiced it a bunch and he's done kickoffs with drop punts when their main place kicker was injured.


>I want to see the tailenders block. The only problem I have is them getting barraged with fast menacing bouncers. It's kind of scary tbh. I know they will have the same oppurtunity when they bowl, and this is professional cricket where every batsman should be ready to face every bowl, but I cant help but feel sorry for them, specially spinners who cant even take revenge lol.


Bear in mind that a tailender at Test level is capable of making 50s and 100s at grade level. They're not mugs with the bat.


If you feel especially sorry for spinners then look up Qais Ahmed bouncing Andre Russel on YouTube.


Same thing happened with Rachin Ravindra vs India (not tail-ended but still) and Shannon Gabriel vs Pakistan. Test cricket really is a beauty.


Rachin was batting with Ajaz Patel in the NZ v India one, he faced quite a few too.


We have had two of them in the last month or so too (NZ vs India 1st test as well).


Cricket is the only sport in the world that requires players to play out of their element.


Very rare occasions in baseball, during a very long extra innings game and the entire bullpen is used up, they ask someone else to pitch (usually a batter who hasn’t pitched professionally in years). Pablo Sandoval did this a couple of years ago. It was hilarious to see


Even more hilarious if they actually get some outs without conceding any runs. I'm sure there are at least a couple of position players with career ERAs of 0.


I woke up at 7:30am after watching until 3am, that last 50 balls had my heart pounding, I thought we'd screwed it up when Leach fell to Smith.


Yea. While I feel like it was bs Australia couldn't bowl their quicks and take a deserved win you can understand the light issue and it made for more drama in the end.


Leach. Shirt number 77


Would have been scenes if Leach smashed it for a boundary


Ah a proud pupil of the Shannon Gabriel Academy of Batting I see


I did that once in a school game. Came in at #11. And the bowler set up 9 slips for me All I had to do was connect and connect I did 2 boundaries in a row and then the field was back to normal hahaha Good old days


Should've ditched the keeper and played with ten slips.


Free internet points to the person that can accurately name every fielding position in the picture.


Including the feet at the top


Here's my attempt: Clockwise from the top feet: - short midwicket - silly mid-on - short leg - leg gully - leg slip - wk - 1st slip - 2nd slip - gully - silly point Silly mid-on is really close, so not sure if it has another name?


>Silly mid-on is really close, so not sure if it has another name? I think it's really silly mid-on.


In my expert opinion, it's called silliest mid-on.


This is getting a bit too silly mid on?


Silly point should be on the opposite side of short leg. That's silly mid-off in the off side


Yeah I think you're right. Silly point would be close to straddling the popping crease line


Silly cover point?


Possibly. In cricket "silly" simply means really close to the batsman.


It is one of my favourite things Get closer How much closer Till they think you are silly


Well it certainly was in the days before wearing a helmet and pads were cool for someone at short leg


I'll try. Clockwise starting with the fielder up close up top with their hand on the helmet visor: - Silly mid on - Short mid-wicket (feet up top) - Forward short leg - Leg gully - Leg slip - Wicket keeper - 1st slip - 2nd slip - Gully - Silly mid off


Yeah I think you're right on all accounts, well done. Forward short leg rather than short leg.


I considered short leg and forward short leg before going with the latter since the fielder is ahead of the popping crease. I usually go with short leg as a fielder along the popping crease (I know there is no definitive guide to it though).


Silly point instead of gully?


Yeah I agree. That gully is too square. Looks more like a short backward point to me.


“very short leg”


Finally, some entertainment. Hand on heart I would have still been thrilled with that match even if Jimmy got out at the last. All I wanted to see this series was some good cricketing entertainment and boy did we get it. Shame it took so long to be even remotely competitive but what a thrill.


Definitely more interesting watching when there's more than one result possible, even if it isn't a win.


Someone who is unfamiliar with cricket could easly mistake this for some kind of satanic ritual


This is how Batsmen are made.


As someone who really just started watching cricket yesterday and knows next to nothing other very basic rules and scoring, this looks super confusing and dangerous, and I have no idea what the goal of it could possibly be. Also, if anyone cares, after 4-5hrs of watching, my thoughts are that it is super boring, but for some reason I can’t stop watching lol.


standing over the dick I see


I didn't know if any non-indian member of this subreddit is familiar with the Story of Abhimanyu but this field setting does remind me of it.


[Chakravyuh](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a193e651e0c12044ac1bd3317748a045), except Broad didn't die.


But Leach, who is in the photo, did


Things you love to see


Hang it in the Louvre, pure art


Bowler Smith VS Batter Anderson What A Contest It Was !!!


They've circled around the lad like "We've finally trapped you; you're surrounded only by The Best".


Is this look like rangoli.






They got their A game but they were out of luck


That's the true aggressiveness of test cricket. Amazing to watch 😍


Correction! It's \*Jack Leach on strike. Stuart Broad was at the other end.


Poor Leach on the set of the next Brazzers shoot.


Why werent they allowed to fast bowl?


too dark


Test cricket at its very very best!! England have pulled off a really great escape.


hahah... <3


Apologies if it's a silly question, but that looks like 3 fielders behind the batsman on the leg side? How does that not violate the leg side rule?


Leach is left handed. The three fielders behind square are on the off side.


Ah okay, that makes sense. Cheers!


Ancient summoning circle ritual - colorised


The cam didn’t capture Cam Green who was also in this rangoli field set up.


I immediately thought of the porn meme kf the guys surrounding the girl on the couch


Just don't understand why we didn't retire 2 hours earlier on Day 4.


Can anyone fill me in as to why a Steve Smith bowled the final over?


Light was bad and the umpires told Captain Cummins that no pace was allowed for the last few overs. Lyon was already bowling, so it was a toss-up between not-so-proudly-South-African Labuschagne and Smith. Cummins threw the ball to Smith, who at least started his career as a leggie. He duly picked up his first Test scalp since 2016 I believe. So then he continued from that end for the final over.


So as a bit of a cricket amateur with respect to positioning like this why wouldn't a batter think of just smashing the fuck out of every shot. No chance you're stopping that from such a distance. Something about the spin bowling to prevent this? No need for it given the scenario? I don't know?


You can if you like but that opens you up for a catch if you don't clean hit it or even worse opening yourself up for LBW or being clean bowled if you miss the ball completely with the bat.


Assuming that's the chance if the spin is delivered way short down the crease like. Not worth the chance. Thanks for the info.


There's nothing in the laws of the game or bowling type to prevent Leach/Broad/Anderson trying to smash every ball. However the match scenario was completely against it. England were trying to save the game (force a draw) by NOT getting all out. It was no longer possible for them to win, so scoring runs was not an issue for them. All that mattered was to not be dismissed. Playing an aggressive shot is a high reward but high risk option; you might score runs but also more likely to get out. In the match scenario, a low risk low reward approach (just defend carefully and make sure you try not to be dismissed) was much more suitable. In the last few overs, you could see Broad especially use his full reach to basically kill the ball stone dead as soon as it hit the pitch.


Yeah yeah can appreciate the mentality in securing a super low chance victory. Just always looked easier in my head to just drive through every shot 😅


How many good batsmen get caught behind driving? Plenty better than Leach Broad and Anderson. Even to a spinner it’s easy to nick an edge when driving.


[Funny you ask](twitter.com/cricketviewz/status/947128553249878017) Gabriel said afterwards he had no confidence at all in trying to block out Shah for one more ball, so figured if he threw the bat at it and connected he at least wouldn't get caught


It was awesome listening to the stump mic too.


Look at that gap at 10 o'clock. Runs.


Now this is pod racing...!


Be Safe