Ashes 2013 - see mod warning in post 689

booth70

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I think Test cricket is fine. One sided series or clean sweeps are nothing new. The West Indies did it nicely to England and others in the past, as did the Aussies. The fact there is no one dominant team makes it much more interesting.
Even teams who have struggled for a while have shown improved performances. The Kiwis were incredibly unlucky not to beat England at home, and weren't push overs or anything like, in England.

Well....I'd reckon 3-2 makes for far more compelling viewing than 5-0

We are only in the second Ashes test of the year and its already looking like its 8 tests too many for Australia

booth70

Hughes struggled to get the ball off the square against the Indian spinners earlier this year.....he is a walking wicket when the spinners are on

What's surprising is Clarke batting behind him in the order!

mike65

This is a bigger ceremonial parade than Chris Froomes Tour De France victory will be tonight.

/come on Lee Westwood for the hat trick!

booth70

mike65 wrote: »

This is a bigger ceremonial parade than Chris Froomes Tour De France victory will be tonight.

/come on Lee Westwood for the hat trick!

Beefy78

KevIRL wrote: »

Was a silly move by England to take the option to bat this morning to try and give Root the 200, Australia had every right to try take advantage.

It wasn't a silly move. Cocky? Yes. Arrogant? Yes. Silly? Nope.

The forecast is fine and England believe that they can bowl this Australian team out in significantly fewer than six sessions. It's hard to argue that they're wrong.

If Australia did manage to bat through for two days then they'd get the 570ish that England were ahead at the start of the day anyway.

Royale with Cheese

There's not a hope in hell Australia were ever going to bat out 5+ sessions at the end of this test match. Cook did absolutely nothing wrong by not enforcing the follow on or deciding to give Root the chance for his double century this morning.

djimi

This Australia side would struggle to bat for a day, let alone 5 or 6 sessions. England could have batted until tea today and Id still bet the house on them winning comfortably. No complaints from me for giving Root the chance to make a double hundred at Lords. Id be more annoyed if they had denied him the opportunity, given the situation of the match.

mike65

Jasus get on with it.

donfers

Pattinson averaging near eighty in the ashes at the moment, not bad for a ten

booth70

England struggling to get thro 9,10 and jack again....the 8th wicket fell in over no 61....it's 89 overs now!

Puts the rest of the Australian batsmen to shame.....no positives at all for Australia from this match....5-0 beckons

C'mon England get it over with tonite

matthew8

Australia should entirely reverse the batting order.

mike65

England win by 347 runs

Valiant effort by the tail yet again but that won't win a match for them right now.

djimi

As much as I want England to win that was just pathetic from Australia; Id prefer to see an actual contest than to watch that nonsense. The only thing preventing a 5-0 in this series will be the weather.

For Paws

Poor from Australia. Their top order need to rein it in a bit, bat for 2 days (at whatever rate & in the face of massive criticism from their supporters) and put a decent total up for their bowlers. Shambles doesn't begin to describe this so far.

dirtyden

The Australian batting order makes no sense. What is Watson doing opening? Why is Clarke batting at 4 or 5? There a team that needs a start, they could do with batting for a day and a half in one of the tests. They seem to be the losing the first 3 or 4 wickets way too easily.

Highcontrast1

Poor umpiring , drs and dishonesty have ruined this ashes.

Royale with Cheese

There's nothing wrong with DRS, it's the umpires making bizarre decisions like to give Agar out today that are the problem. That and Watson reviewing every plumb LBW decision he gets and wasting one of Australia's reviews early in every innings.

The main thing ruining this series is that Australia are rubbish. How many of those batsmen would get into England's line up? Swap out Bairstow for Clarke and I think that's just about it. Actually when you add the bowlers into that you'd probably only get Siddle in for Finn/Bresnan.

Judgement Day

Poor advertisement for Test Cricket and it just served to remind me why I lost interest in the game after the raft of 80's international legends retired - even Geoff Boycott. They don't half give him some stick in the commentary box.

Anyway, it's a crap Aussie team and England can only play what's in front of them. I reckon excessive use of technology will ultimately ruin the game - it's already starting to spoil rugby union. It has its place but used sparingly.

djimi

Highcontrast1 wrote: »

Poor umpiring , drs and dishonesty have ruined this ashes.

No they havent. Even with perfect umpiring and perfect "honesty" Australia would still be a poor embarrassment at the moment. The fact that it has been a non-contest for all but a handful of sessions so far is what is ruining this Ashes.

djimi

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

The main thing ruining this series is that Australia are rubbish. How many of those batsmen would get into England's line up? Swap out Bairstow for Clarke and I think that's just about it. Actually when you add the bowlers into that you'd probably only get Siddle in for Finn/Bresnan.

I got to thinking this earlier today actually. Look at the Australia side that is playing in this test compared to the side from say ten years ago, and only Clarke would have a sniff of being anywhere near that team. The other ten probably wouldnt even be considered for the touring squad. Compare that to England where certainly Anderson and Swann, Cook, Bell and quite possibly one or two others would be either shoe ins or in very close contention for pretty much any test side I can remember England putting out. Thats the difference between them really at the moment.

djimi

Judgement Day wrote: »

I reckon excessive use of technology will ultimately ruin the game - it's already starting to spoil rugby union. It has its place but used sparingly.

I think the DRS system is a good balance at the moment, as it forces teams to use it strategically. What has annoyed me in this series though is the excessive use of the third umpire to confirm whether a wicket was off of a no ball or not. Do umpires not watch the front foot any more? Some of the ones questioned were laughable; if the umpires cant say with confidence when a bowler has hit foot three quarters behind the line then they really have no business standing in a test match.

Highcontrast1

I agree about the Aussie side being terrible. The fact that they have relied on the tail enders says a lot.

matthew8

djimi wrote: »

No they havent. Even with perfect umpiring and perfect "honesty" Australia would still be a poor embarrassment at the moment. The fact that it has been a non-contest for all but a handful of sessions so far is what is ruining this Ashes.

Perfect umpiring and honesty and it would be 1-1.

kryogen

This test was lost in the first innings, clearly, it is vital that steps are taken to ensure the batsmen just occupy the crease in the next test. Just that, the series is lost, lets be honest but to try to gain some sort of momentum or pride going into the next Ashes is vitally important. To be competitive, even in defeat is the only way they can do this.

Obviously if certain decisions had gone the other way (there would be outrage in the English media) the series may be level, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the wickets are being given away too easily. Credit to the English bowlers of course, but tbh it has been largely down to poor batting.

Rascasse

A lot of the talk about DRS and umpiring from the Australian's perspective is a bit of a red herring. Two of the most controversial decisions occurred in the first test and went against England. First was the Agar stumping on 6 when he went on to make 98 (this is not out, apparently) and second was the Trott LBW decision without the side view hotspot.

The decisions in this test where the umpires got it wrong and Australia didn't review or had run out of reviews are Australia's problem and for them to fix (i.e. no more ego reviews). The Smith 'catch' was the right call, as this view from a low camera proves. Agar's dismissal was also good as there was a noise and the umpire saw deviation (to me it was very, very slight). There was no hotspot but it was a very thin edge (and it looked like it was the seam that touched the bat perhaps that affected hotspot).

No chance that 100% perfect calls and Australia would have won a test as England are by far the better side (even without the top order firing) and have been for a while. Australia are a side going through a change after some of the greats retired and have now realised they haven't got the talent to replace them. No doubt in 5 or 10 years the roles will be reversed once again.

Anyway, Old Trafford. As usual spin is key up there. I'd imagine England won't change a winning formula with the exception of KP if required. I think the Aussies need to ditch Agar. One big score with the bat does not make a decent bowler. He has worse figures than part timer Smith while Lyon is doing well (or so I've read). I'm not sure if it's a useful comparison but Lyon's figures on the India tour were far better than Agar's in England. Warner rumoured to be on his way to England too, that'll be fun.

Lovely Bloke

matthew8 wrote: »

Perfect umpiring and honesty and it would be 1-1.

Are you Australian, or some kind of England hater?

That Australian side has no business calling itself an Australian Cricket team, they are an absolute shambles, especially compared to the great teams of the last 20 years or so.

You are talking about 2 or three wickets maximum - not enough to turn the current state of the series imo.

Grandpa Hassan

matthew8 wrote: »

Perfect umpiring and honesty and it would be 1-1.

er....no it wouldn't, seeing as Agar would have been out for 6 in the first test

Beefy78

djimi wrote: »

I think the DRS system is a good balance at the moment, as it forces teams to use it strategically. What has annoyed me in this series though is the excessive use of the third umpire to confirm whether a wicket was off of a no ball or not. Do umpires not watch the front foot any more? Some of the ones questioned were laughable; if the umpires cant say with confidence when a bowler has hit foot three quarters behind the line then they really have no business standing in a test match.

This is mandated on all dismissals now, isn't it?

matthew8 wrote: »

Perfect umpiring and honesty and it would be 1-1.

LOL

djimi

Beefy78 wrote: »

This is mandated on all dismissals now, isn't it?

Is it? I really hope that its not...

Grandpa Hassan

djimi wrote: »

Is it? I really hope that its not...

It is, yes. Can't recall who it was who was well on his way back to the pavilion when he was called back to the crease by the 3rd umpire who had checked for the no ball

djimi

Is it just being done quietly in the background for each dismissal? What annoyed me was when a wicket fell the batsman was actually waiting at the crease until the no ball was reviewed. This is completely unnecessary for most, and if the umpires were up to the job then there would be no need to check a front foot no ball with the third umpire.

Grandpa Hassan

djimi wrote: »

Is it just being done quietly in the background for each dismissal? What annoyed me was when a wicket fell the batsman was actually waiting at the crease until the no ball was reviewed. This is completely unnecessary for most, and if the umpires were up to the job then there would be no need to check a front foot no ball with the third umpire.

It was bairstow who was out on 21, but was recalled to the middle by the 3rd umpire, when he was already on his way to the pavilion. He went on to have a pretty good partnership with Bell.

I dont know whether there is a formal umpire review of all outs, or whether it is just Sky that take a look to see if it is a no ball. Obviously then if it is a no ball, they are going to show it, and it might be this that the umpire saw, and reversed the decision.

Either way, whether umpire review or Sky review (seen by the umpire), it amounts to a no-ball review of every wicket

Beefy78

There's a mandatory check for the no-ball by the third umpire. It's been mentioned by the commentary teams a few times. The batsmen shouldn't be hanging around waiting for that check though unless it is part of a review of the decision that they've called for. I've not seen any player hang around for that check. They'd just be called back if necessary like Bairstow was.

wicorthered

All this talk of umpire reviews is pointless. Even if Australia were given a third innings they still would have lost!!

The likes of Hughes, Smith, Cowen and Rogers would struggle to make the Irish side!

djimi

Beefy78 wrote: »

There's a mandatory check for the no-ball by the third umpire. It's been mentioned by the commentary teams a few times. The batsmen shouldn't be hanging around waiting for that check though unless it is part of a review of the decision that they've called for. I've not seen any player hang around for that check. They'd just be called back if necessary like Bairstow was.

Maybe Im overreacting on it a little. It just seemed to me that every wicket was being called for to the third umpire and a couple of players seemed to me to be waiting for the decision before walking off.

booth70

The DRS is great for the game but not in the way it is being used/abused now

The day the ICC give the third umpire the right to over-rule an on field umpiring howler ( eg: the Broad non-dismissal in the first test ) is the day that technology is being put to proper use

When the third umpire checks for no-balls and checks things like if the ball has crossed the boundary or was the fielder touching the rope I can't for the life of me understand why they can't over-rule a blunder like Broad's

Rascasse

It would remove the umpires authority and they'd be obliged to check every claimed edge and LBW which would ruin the game.

DRS is fine as it is, it's just poor captaincy that causes the problems.

Edit: Just seen that James Pattinson is out for the remainder of the Ashes with a stress fracture of the lower back. Just when the Aussies thought it couldn't get any worse...

Gordon Gecko

Edit: Just seen that James Pattinson is out for the remainder of the Ashes with a stress fracture of the lower back. Just when the Aussies thought it couldn't get any worse...[/QUOTE]

Even though Lehman has already ruled out bringing in new players I'd be inclined to bring in Simon Katich as er "bowling" cover...

Beefy78

Tbh they should bring back Ponting. Top scorer by a mile in Australia last season and clearly in good form for Surrey before he retired last month.

booth70

This should be the Australian team for Old Trafford - in batting order

Cowan - gets another chance bcos Rogers has been rubbish
Hughes - his best innings for Australia have been as an opener
Khawaja
Watson - prefers opening but might fare better against an older ball
Clarke - should bat no lower than 4 but will not budge from 5
Smith - because there is nobody else
Haddin - way past his prime as a keeper , but the likes of Wade even worse
Agar - one more chance as a bowler but Australia need him more for his batting
Siddle
Starc - selects himself as a replacement for Pattinson
Harris

bilston

Beefy78 wrote: »

Tbh they should bring back Ponting. Top scorer by a mile in Australia last season and clearly in good form for Surrey before he retired last month.

He might not want to be associated with such a poor side though. I have a feeling that one or two of the recent great Aussie side retired a year or two earlier than they needed to because they saw the writing on the wall.

HonalD

bilston wrote: »

He might not want to be associated with such a poor side though. I have a feeling that one or two of the recent great Aussie side retired a year or two earlier than they needed to because they saw the writing on the wall.

I think they were in the team for one or two years too many. Little young blood was brought in. Picking Haddin defies all logic. Pick a young keeper, give him the 10 matches to play in and you have a chance of making a man of him. What good is Haddin now?

bilston

HonalD wrote: »

I think they were in the team for one or two years too many. Little young blood was brought in. Picking Haddin defies all logic. Pick a young keeper, give him the 10 matches to play in and you have a chance of making a man of him. What good is Haddin now?

Thats another way of looking at it but then that only works if the talent is there. Ive no idea about the young talent in Australia, is there a young up and coming keeper that would do a better job or at least as good a job as Haddin?

Beefy78

If Haddin is the best wicket keeper in Australia then Haddin should play. If he isn't then he shouldn't.

djimi

HonalD wrote: »

I think they were in the team for one or two years too many. Little young blood was brought in.

I think that is part of the problem to be honest. There was a time when a young player coming into the Australia side came into a dressing room full of some of the best players in the world, and indeed of all time. Hardened experienced cricketers that you had to prove yourself alongside, but who also had a world of experience to learn from.

Then in the space of a couple of years they all retired, so now a young player coming into the dressing room is surrounded by inexperience and players who are, for the most part, nowhere near the level of the guys who came before them.

Im not saying necessarily that the old guard should have been shifted on earlier; I dont think that would have been productive either. I think it was just an unfortunate case of bad timing that they had a great side who all finished their careers at pretty much the same time.

Judgement Day

I take it you're talking about the Denis Lillee era back in the early 1980's.

HonalD

Beefy78 wrote: »

If Haddin is the best wicket keeper in Australia then Haddin should play. If he isn't then he shouldn't.

I'd say that if Haddin is the best wicketkeeper in Australia, they are in more trouble than I thought.

Ireland has 2 wicketkeepers with both playing in UK.

We are losing Trent at the end of the year but have blooded in some young guys already pre-ementing the problem.

Bring Ponting back as a coach now and they have some chance, otherwise 5-0 is on the cards.

djimi

Its going to take more than Ponting coming back as coach to save this from being a whitewash!

Despite what I said after the test match the other day, I do think they probably will win at least one test this summer. They could have won the first one in fairness.

Gordon Gecko

HonalD wrote: »

I'd say that if Haddin is the best wicketkeeper in Australia, they are in more trouble than I thought.

Ireland has 2 wicketkeepers with both playing in UK.

We are losing Trent at the end of the year but have blooded in some young guys already pre-ementing the problem.

Bring Ponting back as a coach now and they have some chance, otherwise 5-0 is on the cards.

To be honest I think their policy of almost exclusively picking coaching staff from former players is damaging them somewhat. There was a great article about it on cricinfo there earlier.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/654523.html?CMP=chrome

HonalD

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

To be honest I think their policy of almost exclusively picking coaching staff from former players is damaging them somewhat. There was a great article about it on cricinfo there earlier.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/654523.html?CMP=chrome

That's a great read. My point is that there is no leadership been shown amongst the Aussies, they look like they're going to lose......and they do.