When a batsman is dismissed caught in the field, if the two batsmen at the crease have crossed whilst the ball was in the air then the new batsman is not on strike.
Why should the team that have lost a wicket (Been defeated) benefit from having a set batsman on strike for the next delivery? The bowling side should be rewarded by bowling at the new and undercooked batsman.
The rule irks me (Can you tell?) My opinion is that the new batsman should always be on strike, unless of course it had been the final delivery of the over, in which case the already not out batsman should, in my opinion, be on strike to the first ball of the next over. When such a dismissal occurs, no run has been scored. If the ‘Out’ batsman had been dismissed bowled or even caught behind then the new batsman (Unless it was the final delivery of the over) would be on strike, so why should it be any different when caught in the field? It seems an odd rule to me and one that if I were chairman of the ICC (Or would I need to be chairman of the MCC?) would seek to change. That’s right, not content with changing the structure of international cricket, I’d like to implement a rule change to one that’s probably stood for a century or more.