Ashes 2013 - see mod warning in post 689

Hunterbiker

kryogen wrote: »

Think it was a case of Aus letting one slip away there sadly, would have been great for the series if they had won it imo

That opening game was great for the series regardless. Okay we are not at a level of controvasy as Bodyline but that 1 game gave more than some whole series of games. Lords will be a different challenge. Lots more to come from both teams and a slight advantage to England could easily be wiped out at Lords.

Going forward...

Tom Moody says Agar out bowled Swann. I thought I was the only one who saw that. Austraila played him well, special mention has to go to Hughes here after what happened to him with spin in India. He was a revelation actually, he isn't a walking wicket anymore.

padd b1975

What a difference a year makes....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2116812/Graeme-Swann-blast-Sri-Lankan-cheat.html

Beefy78

It's not cheating if it's against Australia.

For Paws

Beefy78 wrote: »

It's not cheating if it's against Australia.

Although it's understandable that Australia are seen to be hypocritical when they accuse other sides of cheating, particularly not walking, it's not true of every Australian batsman.

Adam Gilchrist brought on his team mate's glares when, on more than one occasion, he walked without waiting for the umpire's signal.

Broad's failure to walk will be remembered by some longer than his best innings.
Who wants that kind of legacy as a Test player ?

When not walking becomes standard, what other forms of cheating are next to be accepted ?

It may be that a change in the Laws is needed to remove the shadow of cheating.
Increasing the number of DRS appeals allowable might help.

Beefy78

Not walking is standard nowadays, I'd have said. It's not for Broad to do the umpire's job for him. It's not for Broad to do Clarke's job for him and keep referrals back. I understand why Australia were angry and I understand why Swann was angry a year before against Sri Lanka.

For me it's part of the theatre that is this rivalry. I think Broad would have walked normally but in this series against this team he's not going anywhere. He'll no doubt be public enemy #1 in the winter and I'm looking forward to cheering him twice as loudly in Melbourne and Sydney as a result.

TrueDub

For Paws wrote: »

It may be that a change in the Laws is needed to remove the shadow of cheating.
Increasing the number of DRS appeals allowable might help.

<pedantry>DRS appeals are not a matter of the Laws of Cricket, they're a test match regulation. </pedantry>

A Law change to deal with this would be interesting - it might have to be counter-intuitive, by saying that no player can give himself out, but must wait for the umpire to dismiss him. This would then have to apply for everything, including bowled. That could give rise to a ridiculous situation where a batsman has all 3 stumps removed by a ball that completely beat him, but must stand there waiting for the ump to raise his finger...

Sounds outlandish, but several years of reading regulations and assisting umpires with strategies for coping with situations shows me that if you can imagine a situation then it's fairly likely to happen at some point in the season!

Rascasse

For Paws wrote: »

Although it's understandable that Australia are seen to be hypocritical when they accuse other sides of cheating, particularly not walking, it's not true of every Australian batsman.

Adam Gilchrist brought on his team mate's glares when, on more than one occasion, he walked without waiting for the umpire's signal.

It interesting that you mention Gilchrist then bring up this;

For Paws wrote: »

When not walking becomes standard, what other forms of cheating are next to be accepted ?

It may be that a change in the Laws is needed to remove the shadow of cheating.
Increasing the number of DRS appeals allowable might help.

Gilchrist, as I'm sure most here will know, was a wicketkeeper. Much of his career was pre-UDRS, so how many wickets do you think he helped get by claiming catches he know hadn't hit the bat, LBWs he knew were pitching outside or missing. etc. Is that an excusable part of the game? Are we holding batsmen to higher standards than bowers and wicket keepers?

Most of the whining about this is coming from the Aussie media, yet there seems to be no mention of Haddin not walking. If I could hear the edge then he must have heard it. He knew his bat and the ball were nowhere near his pad and as soon as it hit his head shot around to see if it was taken. He didn't walk, but it didn't matter as England used their reviews properly - for checking poor calls not gambling on marginal LBW shouts in desperation.

No changes to DRS required with the exception perhaps with better detection of run outs & stumpings (e.g. Agar)

djimi

I take issue with not walking being referred to as cheating. The umpire is there to do their job, and if they dont give the player out then why should the batsman overrule the umpires decision? Broads one the other day was a shocker from the umpire; you can lambast Broad all you want but thats the bottom line. Australia were not helped also by the fact that they wasted their DRS referrals.

To me walking is one of those things that should be applauded when it happens but should never be expected. Not any more.

HonalD

djimi wrote: »

I take issue with not walking being referred to as cheating. The umpire is there to do their job, and if they dont give the player out then why should the batsman overrule the umpires decision? Broads one the other day was a shocker from the umpire; you can lambast Broad all you want but thats the bottom line. Australia were not helped also by the fact that they wasted their DRS referrals.

To me walking is one of those things that should be applauded when it happens but should never be expected. Not any more.

I'd have 100% walked. It was a very loud nick and was obvious. The Spirit of the Game is a clear level above all/most other sports. Football (diving), Rugby (gouging), GAA (where do I start).....

I like Broad as a player and good bloke but feel he didn't do the right thing.

bilston

Rascasse wrote: »

England side unchanged for Lord's. I know it's Finn's home ground, but I expected him to be subbed for Bresnan.

I think they just named the squad which is the same as it was at Trent Bridge, that change to the XI could still happen.

Dozen Wicked Words

HonalD wrote: »

I'd have 100% walked. It was a very loud nick and was obvious. The Spirit of the Game is a clear level above all/most other sports. Football (diving), Rugby (gouging), GAA (where do I start).....

I like Broad as a player and good bloke but feel he didn't do the right thing.

Haddin didn't walk at the end there. People are just not going to walk this series.

bilston

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Haddin didn't walk at the end there. People are just not going to walk this series.

Very few players walk, although didn't Bairstow walk in the 2nd innings? I think he was given out anyway but he didn't hang about for it.

Gordon Gecko

Reading a cricinfo article there about the ICC defending the umpiring and they didn't even mention the Agar stumping which for me, as a wicketkeeper, is the most glaring, blatant and frankly inexplicable bit of bad umpiring I say in the match!

Going forward...

Third Umpire decision. Can't even hide Erasmus up there and I think he is in the middle for Lord's.:eek:

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Haddin didn't walk at the end there. People are just not going to walk this series.

Faintest of nicks against the big deflection of Broad's. With fifteen to get, he was never walking for that.

That's the gray area people talk about. Nobody will hold that against Haddin unlike those incidences of Broad and Clarke.

bilston

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Reading a cricinfo article there about the ICC defending the umpiring and they didn't even mention the Agar stumping which for me, as a wicketkeeper, is the most glaring, blatant and frankly inexplicable bit of bad umpiring I say in the match!

The Agar stumping was probably the most significant umpiring error but the miss for the Broad catch behind was breathtaking!

bilston

Going forward... wrote: »

Third Umpire decision. Can't even hide Erasmus up there and I think he is in the middle for Lord's.:eek:

Faintest of nicks against the big deflection of Broad's. With fifteen to get, he was never walking for that.

That's the gray area people talk about. Nobody will hold that against Haddin unlike those incidences of Broad and Clarke.

The irony is that nearly all Australians won't hold anything against Broad, it will be people in this neck of the woods that will!

Dozen Wicked Words

Going forward... wrote: »

Third Umpire decision. Can't even hide Erasmus up there and I think he is in the middle for Lord's.:eek:

Faintest of nicks against the big deflection of Broad's. With fifteen to get, he was never walking for that.

That's the gray area people talk about. Nobody will hold that against Haddin unlike those incidences of Broad and Clarke.

Haddin said he knew he nicked it, so what is the difference. So you judge when to be gallant by how important the moment in the match is, or how much of the bat you hit? My opinion of Broad is fairly low, but not because of the non walk, that is modern cricket.

Poor umpiring generally, very high pressure gig though.

booth70

Clarke calls Watson a 'cancer' !.....according to Mickey Arthur

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/michael-clarke-called-shane-watson-a-cancer-on-the-team-says-former-coach-mickey-arthur-20130716-2q26s.html

Australia have to simply win at Lords......the wheels will come off if they don't

Rascasse

booth70 wrote: »

Clarke calls Watson a 'cancer' !.....according to Mickey Arthur

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/michael-clarke-called-shane-watson-a-cancer-on-the-team-says-former-coach-mickey-arthur-20130716-2q26s.html

Australia have to simply win at Lords......the wheels will come off if they don't

He's a bit of a reputation for this with Katich, Hussey and now Watson having rows with him.

baboo800

Where can I listen to coverage on fm radio?

Going forward...

Was Clarke a bad choice as captain then? Not much to choose from at the time or now even. Cricket is pretty much an individual game anyway and the new regime with Lehmann seems to be working well so far.

For Paws

A Law change to deal with this would be interesting - it might have to be counter-intuitive, by saying that no player can give himself out, but must wait for the umpire to dismiss him. This would then have to apply for everything, including bowled. That could give rise to a ridiculous situation where a batsman has all 3 stumps removed by a ball that completely beat him, but must stand there waiting for the ump to raise his finger...

Sounds outlandish, but several years of reading regulations and assisting umpires with strategies for coping with situations shows me that if you can imagine a situation then it's fairly likely to happen at some point in the season!

With a respectful nod to your experience, dealing with 'not walking' in this way only continues with placing the onus on umpires to give correct decisions, without in any way providing them with any better means to do so. Arming the batsman with yet another degree of latitude will not stop players & spectators believing that a batsman should walk if he knows he's out.
If the umpire errs in not giving a player out, and that player, certain that he is out, cannot 'walk' then the Laws are only preventing him from being honest in favour of him being correct.

For me, acceptance of umpiring errors is part & parcel of the game.
And so is 'walking'.

djimi

I suppose the counter argument to that is that the ICC have implemented the DRS system so that players have a way of challenging the umpires decision if they feel that it is incorrect. Had Australia not wasted their referrals on some nonsense LBW challenge then they could have reviewed Broads dismissal and he would have been given out. Its a strategic part of the game nowadays; for Broad to have walked would have allowed Australia off the hook for wasting their two DRS referrals. They had the means to review and challenge the decision, and its not the batsmans fault that they didnt use the system wisely enough.

decies

Come on Aus we need to win the toss and bat at lords !!

For Paws

decies wrote: »

Come on Aus we need to win the toss and bat at lords !!

+1

Test Series going all the way to the last session on the 5th day (Sun Aug 25) of the 5th Test

Beefy78

I've booked Thursday and Friday afternoons off of work this week. No pretending to work whilst listening to TMS for me this week.

Well... only for the morning sessions anyway

Kia_Kaha

Beefy78 wrote: »

I've booked Thursday and Friday afternoons off of work this week. No pretending to work whilst listening to TMS for me this week.

Well... only for the morning sessions anyway

Haha - me too ! TMS on - sat in a the garden under a tree - glass of 'lemonade' on the go - bliss.

Grandpa Hassan

Not a great start for England!

wicorthered

The last session today is going to be huge.

After such a strong start the Aussies look completely out of ideas. If England get to stumps 5 down, it's a long way back for Australia, having such a weak batting line up!

Lovely Bloke

Yeah, England have recovered really well today, fair play to them.

I think there's no reason why they can't get to the end of the day with only the 4 down, and somewhere up around the 330 mark, come in tomorrow and rack up another 250 or so and finish up in or around 500, maybe even make Australia follow on.

Rascasse

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I think there's no reason why they can't get to the end of the day with only the 4 down,

Jinxer

Lovely Bloke

Sorry Bellers!

dfx-

last Prior wicket huge in terms of quickly amassing big runs

big news of the day: Ryan Harris has made it through without injuring himself. He even managed 20 overs. 21 would be pushing it..

matthew8

Watson is such a tool. Again wastes a review and again it costs Australia.

skeleton_boy

This has been a very interesting hour or so since lunch.

wicorthered

After being the reason I started watching cricket 15 years ago, it pains me to see how rubbish Australia have become!!

Can't bowl, can't bat, can't review properly. If England don't win 5-0 Cook should be sacked!!!

mike65

Peiterson catches Khawaja. 68-4. Jubbly.

djimi

Australia really are foolish when it comes to the reviews. England have been very clever and very measured when deciding when to review. Watson was a moron for reviewing that; he didnt even look remotely convinced.

wicorthered

Would Australia be better off being forced to follow on. If they could somehow scrap out 400 second time round, they might have an outside chance of defending 180-200 on a final day pitch?

That being said doubt England would enforce the follow on. Knowing the only thing Australia can chase is their own tail!

Beefy78

Yeah I doubt England would enforce a follow on. They'll look to bat Australia out of the game (which doesn't look like it would need much).

Rascasse

I agree. Pitch is still in good condition so bat all day tomorrow while giving the bowlers a rest.

mike65

booth70

That was absolutely hopeless from Australia.....this series as a contest is over now

22 overs left today.....If England get stuck in this could end before lunch tomorrow:(

C'mon Australia....SHOW SOME FIGHT!

mike65

A sell out for 5 days and that will be mean a fair few refunds!

booth70

England not enforcing the follow on....at least we'll have a fourth day then!

booth70

The opening batsman also opens the bowling for Australia........what is going on with Australian cricket:(

Rascasse

He was meant to be giving up the bowling to prevent injuries. They'll regret it if he over does it and gets injured again - he pulled up in the first test with a niggle in his leg.

mike65

Nothing worse than a bad all rounder!

decies

Am watching the golf , Aussies a disgrace to their past greats !!!