# Test & International cricket, summer 2013. New Zealand, Champions Trophy and the Ashes



## JTG (Apr 24, 2013)

Thread starts here, because I wanted to post that Brad Haddin has been named vice captain of the Australian Ashes squad, thus throwing Matthew Wade's place into doubt and spelling out the word CHAOS in ever brighter neon letters over the land Down Under.

Anyway, English international summer. Go.


----------



## Santino (Apr 24, 2013)

Catchy thread title.


----------



## Santino (Apr 24, 2013)

Middlesex batsman Chris Rogers called up for Oz, as tipped by me.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 24, 2013)

No Mitchell.


----------



## gabi (Apr 24, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> No Mitchell.


 
Really? Hes been in great from in the IPL. Maybe hes ruled out himself out of international cricket?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> Really? Hes been in great from in the IPL. Maybe hes ruled out himself out of international cricket?


Nope. Just dropped for being shit in India.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 24, 2013)

They really are in poor shape. Bless


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2013)

Mind you, if being shit in India is the criterion for being dropped...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2013)

Here's a stat for the stattos. As the Australian team left the field at the end of the last test in India, every player in the team had a batting average of under 40.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Here's a stat for the stattos. As the Australian team left the field at the end of the last test in India, every player in the team had a batting average of under 40.


 
We we're hardly pulling up any trees against NZ tbf.  I worry about England at the moment.


----------



## Ted Striker (Apr 24, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> No Mitchell.


 
A lot of disappointed Barmy Army types today


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> We we're hardly pulling up any trees against NZ tbf. I worry about England at the moment.


Yeah, but I'm talking about career test averages! They have one star batsman and, um, hmmm, well, um, Chris Rogers knows English conditions...

Two dodgy first innings performances in NZ haven't made England a bad batting outfit, particularly when they recovered (just in the last match!) the situation in the second innings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2013)

Flippancy aside, I do expect Aus to improve. Warner will probably make runs at some point. Even Hughes may have a day in the sun.

But it's their fast bowling that gives them most hope. Harris is a very good bowler, but won't play the whole series. Siddle's a trier, but Eng should have enough to see him off. The others are young and keen, and could do well.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 24, 2013)

That squad is markedly less fearsome than the side England spanked down under last time round. I mean - _Phil Hughes??_ 
The only thing that can beat England is England's own brittleness and capacity for self-destruction


----------



## JTG (Apr 24, 2013)

Santino said:


> Catchy thread title.


Descriptive and inclusive. Means we're not all talking about the Ashes straight away. Except we are obviously


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 24, 2013)

I watched that news conference the Australians did - they really seemed to have no confidence or swagger, mostly it was just nervous laughter.


----------



## Santino (Apr 25, 2013)

Very telling that they've not been talking about winning, only about 'competing' or 'playing competitive cricket'. That's how England used to talk before flying off for a ritual public humiliation in Australia.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2013)

Poss an opp for Mcrath to make some money with his usual whitewash prediction.


----------



## JTG (Apr 29, 2013)

England Lions squad named for tour match against New Zealand:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/content/current/story/633001.html

Root to captain, Bairstow keeps wicket, Bopara and Carberry in the side and, as is usual with any side coached by Ashley Giles, three Warwickshire players


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 29, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> I watched that news conference the Australians did - they really seemed to have no confidence or swagger, mostly it was just nervous laughter.


 
I wouldn't have any confidence or swagger if I was Philip Hughes, because I was Philip Hughes I'd be terrible at cricket.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I wouldn't have any confidence or swagger if I was Philip Hughes, because I was Philip Hughes I'd be terrible at cricket.


There's talk of him completely having remodelled his batting stance, so he may yet surprise us. I'm not sweating though


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Just want to post this from Steve Waugh:



> We can beat any team in the world and we proved that, almost, last year when we nearly beat South Africa, who are the No 1 team.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> There's talk of him completely having remodelled his batting stance, so he may yet surprise us. I'm not sweating though


Again again?


----------



## gabi (Apr 30, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I wouldn't have any confidence or swagger if I was Philip Hughes, because I was Philip Hughes I'd be terrible at cricket.


 
Do you think Phil Hughes is a 'terrible cricketer'? Seriously? He plays professionally for Australia. I don't think you get to that position by being terrible at cricket. Idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Quite right. He's only terrible vs english test bowling.


----------



## gabi (Apr 30, 2013)

Time will tell 

He's an unconventional cricketer, but who knows. He may have sorted his shit out against swing bowling. To describe him as a terrible cricketer is pig ignorant in the extreme though.


----------



## JTG (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Just want to post this from Steve Waugh:


Magic stuff, applause.

Anyone want to talk about New Zealand then?


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Again again?


well, yes, precisely!


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

gabi said:


> To describe him as a terrible cricketer is pig ignorant in the extreme though.


OK, his record in tests and ODIs against England - and quite a few other teams - _is_ shit. And what else should one go by?


----------



## paulhackett (May 1, 2013)

It's not just Hughes who's a bit shit (he averages in the low 30s so would have been binned by India, South Africa and England by now). If you do one of those composite best XI thingy's before the series starts only Clarke plus Harris/Pattinson would get into the current England side? Even where England don't have established players (Compton, Root, Bairstow/Morgan - in the absence of KP) they seem to be better than what Australia has? You wouldn't pick Watson, Warner, Cowan, Rogers.. which isn't to say they won't do well this summer.


----------



## Teaboy (May 1, 2013)

gabi said:


> Time will tell
> 
> He's an unconventional cricketer, but who knows. He may have sorted his shit out against swing bowling. To describe him as a terrible cricketer is pig ignorant in the extreme though.


 
He's clearly a very raw talent, he has exceptional hand-eye coordination and a gifted timer of the ball.  Unfortunately in this era of coaching scrutiny a batsman's strengths and weaknesses are easily diagnosed and top quality batsman understand this and adapt their game, Hughes has not yet done so.

He also looks like a flat track bully to say the least, the top batsman make runs in all conditions, Hughes is yet to do so and had he been born 10 years earlier we would never have heard of him; its a sign of how far the aussies have dropped that he keeps getting chances.


----------



## JTG (May 1, 2013)

Batsman comes in > scores lots of runs initially > opposing bowlers come up with plans for him based on initial experiences > batsman starts finding it a bit harder

After that, either epic failure and disappearance from the scene or the batsman adapts and comes again. Ali Cook is an example of the latter. Hughes has rather taken his time with the adaptation phase


----------



## JTG (May 1, 2013)

So anyway, New Zealand have arrived in the country. Two warm up matches v Derbyshire and the Lions. Martin Guptill is back in the squad but NZ reckon they'll stick with Rutherford and Fulton to open (and why not eh). Doug Bracewell is wanting to return to the side, possibly at the expense of Bruce Martin, who may not have loads to do in England in May.


----------



## gabi (May 1, 2013)

Im sure Doug will be enjoying the pub culture in these parts. I wouldn't select him, on that basis. He's a boozehound, as am I, but I'm not pretending to be a professional cricketer.


----------



## JTG (May 2, 2013)

Root and Bairstow in good nick, huge scores for Yorkshire at Derby yesterday


----------



## Santino (May 2, 2013)

Australia will win _because they're so bad_: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/633477.html


----------



## JTG (May 2, 2013)

Santino said:


> Australia will win _because they're so bad_: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/633477.html


I stopped taking that seriously when I saw the words 'Mark Nicholas'


----------



## Streathamite (May 2, 2013)

JTG said:


> Root and Bairstow in good nick, huge scores for Yorkshire at Derby yesterday


just as importantly, Cook had a steady knock for 59 recently, and Swanny did a session without his arm falling off (or whatever)


----------



## paulhackett (May 2, 2013)

JTG said:


> So anyway, New Zealand have arrived in the country. Two warm up matches v Derbyshire and the Lions. Martin Guptill is back in the squad but NZ reckon they'll stick with Rutherford and Fulton to open (and why not eh). Doug Bracewell is wanting to return to the side, possibly at the expense of Bruce Martin, who may not have loads to do in England in May.


 
They were in the nets at Lord' this morning having a practise. Left before Tremlett started pinging it around in the afternoon. He looked in better shape and form than Finn did today.


----------



## paulhackett (May 3, 2013)

Champions Trophy and One Day Squad is Cook, Anderson, Bairstow, Bell, Bopara, Bresnan, Broad, Buttler, Finn, Morgan, Root, Swann, Tredwell, Trott, Woakes

Sounds about right to me?


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2013)

NZ stroll home against Derbyshire, declared twice and bowled Derbys out twice. Wickets for Bracewell, Wagner and Martin, runs for Williamson, Brownlie and Watling. Not loads you can read into these things but certainly they seem fairly well oiled and happy on the face of it. Next up, the Lions at Leicester. Should be good what with Root and Bairstow in the runs lately


----------



## gabi (May 7, 2013)

Good to hear. Was McCullum back from the IPL?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 7, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Champions Trophy and One Day Squad is Cook, Anderson, Bairstow, Bell, Bopara, Bresnan, Broad, Buttler, Finn, Morgan, Root, Swann, Tredwell, Trott, Woakes
> 
> Sounds about right to me?


 
I've not seen Buttler play. I'm intrigued.


----------



## paulhackett (May 7, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I've not seen Buttler play. I'm intrigued.


 
Butchers will have seen more? But this'll give you an idea of why he's been picked. It'll be interesting with the number of seamers in the squad, early-ish season competition and 2 white balls being used, to see how the batters (not just Buttler) get on. Somerset are giving him games as keeper to give him experience


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2013)

gabi said:


> Good to hear. Was McCullum back from the IPL?


Not yet, Williamson was in charge


----------



## Santino (May 9, 2013)

Yes! Waitrose to become official England cricket sponsor.


----------



## JTG (May 9, 2013)

Oh ffs


----------



## Teaboy (May 9, 2013)

Got to be better then Vodafone, at least Waitrose pay some tax and pretend to give a shit.  Was much better when it was Scrumpy Jack, those were the days.


----------



## JTG (May 9, 2013)

Anyway, Hamish Rutherford has a century in quick time against the Lions. Nobody else has anything much yet. Rain.


----------



## JTG (May 10, 2013)

Lions well on top against the New Zealanders - NZ 285 all out, only ones to support Rutherford were Taylor and Brownlie. McCullum only got 1. Wickets for Toby Roland-Jones and 2-46 for Onions. Now Carberry and Root have got the Lions to 113/1 in reply. Which is nice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2013)

Test squad announced. No real surprises - it's the team that played the last test in NZ, but with Swann back for Panesar, and I presume Bresnan will be 12th man. I'm a little disappointed Bresnan has got the nod ahead of Onions. Onions is leading wicket-taker in the CC - again, after last year's success.


----------



## JTG (May 12, 2013)

Fantastic innings for Joe Root against the New Zealanders, 179  Runs as well for Carberry and Bairstow against a strong NZ attack and the Lions still batting on day four, which means less time in the middle for the NZ batsmen and more toil for their bowlers. Good


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Fantastic innings for Joe Root against the New Zealanders, 179  Runs as well for Carberry and Bairstow against a strong NZ attack and the Lions still batting on day four, which means less time in the middle for the NZ batsmen and more toil for their bowlers. Good


 
Is this a five day game or one of those shortened ones they tend to play early in tours?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Is this a five day game or one of those shortened ones they tend to play early in tours?


Four days. Only the test matches themselves are ever five days. Other tour matches are counted as first class matches and played over 3 or 4 days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2013)

Off to lords tomorrow. 

McCullum is sounding quietly confident that his bowlers will do well. I think they could. Looking forward to this.


----------



## gabi (May 15, 2013)

im not in the country at the mo - hows the weather looking?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2013)

Cold. Forecast for tomorrow is a bit better. 15 degrees with the odd shower and some sun. It was about 10 yesterday.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2013)

Sloooow and steady so far. Sounds like NZ will be happier but still a lot of wickets left.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2013)

So this would be the ideal time for an experienced batsman who's had a little bit of time to play himself in to go and get a big score to help the team out of a slightly tricky situation. Someone like Ian Bell. Wonder what he'll do?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So this would be the ideal time for an experienced batsman who's had a little bit of time to play himself in to go and get a big score to help the team out of a slightly tricky situation. Someone like Ian Bell. Wonder what he'll do?


 
Nick a straight one from a medium-pacer just before the new ball is due. 

Enjoyed today, although the premature end with the new ball due was frustrating. It had stopped raining by 6. Rain was very light anyway, and it always looked like a passing shower. Annoying as I was looking forward to the new ball spell. And shit communication at the ground. Really poor show there - they should have come back out.

Anyway, impressed by Boult and Southee. They're good bowlers. Wagner is very ordinary, and Bell should not have got out to him. Compton also got out to a very bad shot. NZ were sharp in the field, but I can't help feeling that picking Wagner over Bracewell was a triumph of loyalty over sense.

A mix in the day. Just after lunch, NZ were right on top. Cook survived a stupidly close drs just before getting out to the same bowler, and there was a period when a wicket looked like it would fall at any moment. Other times, it looked like a wicket could only come from a mistake by the batsman, which Compton and Bell duly supplied. Trott was by far the pick of the batsmen.

Hope the weather holds out for a result. Still can't know who should be the happier with today yet, but at the moment, it feels like NZ should be the happier. For the most part, they bowled with discipline - hardly any short stuff, and they clearly had a plan that they stuck to, more or less.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nick a straight one from a medium-pacer just before the new ball is due.
> 
> .


 
It's so predictable isn't it. He's obviously not a bad player as such but whenever there's a bit of pressure on and England need a big innings you just know he's getting out for about 30.


----------



## JTG (May 16, 2013)

NZ can be happier with today for sure but England are far from in a disastrous position. It's so-so but could easily get stronger.

or worse


----------



## JTG (May 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's so predictable isn't it. He's obviously not a bad player as such but whenever there's a bit of pressure on and England need a big innings you just know he's getting out for about 30.


Except when he doesn't


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Except when he doesn't


 
OK something of an exaggeration. Fair to say he has a strong tendency to though isn't it?


----------



## JTG (May 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> OK something of an exaggeration. Fair to say he has a strong tendency to though isn't it?


It's been known to happen


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> NZ can be happier with today for sure but England are far from in a disastrous position. It's so-so but could easily get stronger.
> 
> or worse


It was a poor dismissal, though. The ball did nothing. It was coming at about 80mph or a little less and didn't deviate. And it was just before the new ball. Today, I can excuse Cook and Trott's dismissals, but Compton and Bell got themselves out.


----------



## JTG (May 16, 2013)

Not arguing on that score, didn't see a single ball bowled. I only ever get to see England play if I spend loads on going on holiday...


----------



## twentythreedom (May 16, 2013)

Kiwi bowlers were pretty impressive overall, disciplined, plugging away, kept the run rate down. First session tomorrow will be crucial.

Test cricket is fucking excellent


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Not arguing on that score, didn't see a single ball bowled. I only ever get to see England play if I spend loads on going on holiday...


 
I went to the pub on the way home to catch the last few overs, got there just in time to see Bell get out, then it started to rain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2013)

I _really_ hate to say this, but today, England looked like they missed Pietersen. Not sure now about Compton/Cook/Trott as the top three. A Trescothick-style player in that top three would be good.


----------



## JTG (May 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I went to the pub on the way home to catch the last few overs, got there just in time to see Bell get out, then it started to rain.


Cricket hates you and doesn't want to be your friend


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Kiwi bowlers were pretty impressive overall, disciplined, plugging away, kept the run rate down. First session tomorrow will be crucial.
> 
> Test cricket is fucking excellent


They bowled to their plans, for sure. Although Trott was dropped on nought, he was the one player who looked capable of finding the gaps when the opportunity arose. Big opportunity for Root and Bairstow tomorrow. Root looked good for the little time he was in, and he must be oozing confidence at the moment. New ball first up tomorrow - will be important, I think.

Trott's trench-digging amazes me every time I see it. He even does it between overs. He's immensely diligent about it.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 16, 2013)

He's an interesting character, that's for sure.


----------



## paulhackett (May 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I _really_ hate to say this, but today, England looked like they missed Pietersen. Not sure now about Compton/Cook/Trott as the top three. A Trescothick-style player in that top three would be good.


 
It doesn't augur too well for the Champions Trophy if 3 of this top 4 are in that team and can't apparently score (if only a little faster) if the pace is taken off the ball. Or it's going to be a low scoring tournament


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

Steady start this morning. Would be good to get to 240 before conceding another wicket. It must be awkward to bat on... Unless NZ come out and smash it round the park.


----------



## paulhackett (May 17, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Steady start this morning. Would be good to get to 240 before conceding another wicket. It must be awkward to bat on... Unless NZ come out and smash it round the park.


 
I hope these two bat on, if only because they're good to watch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> It doesn't augur too well for the Champions Trophy if 3 of this top 4 are in that team and can't apparently score (if only a little faster) if the pace is taken off the ball. Or it's going to be a low scoring tournament


More to the point, it doesn't augur well for this test series. Bell and Compton got themselves stuck yesterday, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they're the ones who ended up getting themselves out.


----------



## paulhackett (May 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> More to the point, it doesn't augur well for this test series. Bell and Compton got themselves stuck yesterday, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they're the ones who ended up getting themselves out.


 
Absolutely. You're right. It doesn't appear to work as a balanced top 4 (which may be where the Compton should be dropped theory comes from..).

ETA: Arses. Root out.


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2013)

Prior too?


----------



## paulhackett (May 17, 2013)

Mind the windows Matt on your way back


----------



## twentythreedom (May 17, 2013)

Shite


----------



## Streathamite (May 17, 2013)

dig in, bairstow and broad.


----------



## paulhackett (May 17, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> I hope these two bat on, if only because they're good to watch.


 
I'd like to withdraw this post as it was clearly a jinx


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

Whoops.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> dig in, bairstow and broad.


no, play some shots! Swann to come in swinging, I hope.


----------



## Streathamite (May 17, 2013)

This is dismal, considering how good they're meant to be.
@ LBJ; yeah they might as well go shit-or-bust now


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

I jinxed them a beaut. 

200 is up. Looks like we'll be bowling this afternoon.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

Swann gone. *does a collapso jig*


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

It's swinging... Jimmy and Finn could rattle through them.


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2013)

Unfortunately for England all my magic powers are being diverted to Taunton.


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2013)

crikey..... 

if the kiwis are smashing these guys so heavily god knows what the ockers will do to em... pray for rain guys...


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> crikey.....
> 
> if the kiwis are smashing these guys so heavily god knows what the ockers will do to em... pray for rain guys...


Tedious troll is tedious. "Smashing"? Really?


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2013)

Yes. Smashing. Run rate of 1.90. 8 wickets down. 200 runs on the board. Against the lowest ranked test playing nation.

You thick tedious idiot.


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2013)

Smashed


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

Smashing would be cleaning them up on day one for less than 150. Halfway through day two for 230ish is not "smashing" it's "ahead".


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2013)

christ. ok, england are slightly behind. in some universe.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2013)

Wait and see how they go. One down already.


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2013)

Anderson's 299th Test wicket.


----------



## paulhackett (May 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> christ. ok, england are slightly behind. in some universe.


 
That'll be the universe where this is a 5 day game so being ahead on day 2 doesn't count for much


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> christ. ok, england are slightly behind. in some universe.


Have you watched much test cricket? You don't seem to know how the game works.


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Have you watched much test cricket? You don't seem to know how the game works.


 
nope. not much.. please do explain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> christ. ok, england are slightly behind. in some universe.


All to play for. NZ haven't earned a lead yet!


----------



## JTG (May 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> Yes. Smashing. Run rate of 1.90. 8 wickets down. 200 runs on the board. Against the lowest ranked test playing nation.
> 
> You thick tedious idiot.


We're not playing Bangladesh


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2013)

7-2. What's better than being smashed?


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> nope. not much.. please do explain.


At lords you hope to get over 300 in the first innings. If you get out for 230 then you have underachieved, but can get back in the game by taking a couple of quick wickets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

26 more to avoid the follow-on.


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 7-2. What's better than being smashed?


 
Dunno.... but you should know butchers, if anyone does.

54/2. Admittedly not great against a pretty poor attack but I'm sure we can up the pace in the final session.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

Will be a fascinating final session. Taylor's the first batsman to have counter-attacked so far.


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

Looking forward to seeing Swann having his first stretch of the year.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Looking forward to seeing Swann having his first stretch of the year.


Reckon we'll be seeing him very soon.

51 runs in the last 10 overs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2013)

So, NZ are 79 behind with six wickets left. NZ's day, definitely, but they're still one good session away from starting to take control. If they can reach 300, they'll be in a good position.


----------



## JTG (May 17, 2013)

NZ still ahead but as with the close of play yesterday, could go either way. Interesting stuff.

That England 300 club in full:
Name/seasons/matches/wickets/best innings bowling/best match figures/average/5wi/10wm

IT Botham 1977-1992 102 *383* 8/34 13/106 28.40 27 4
RGD Willis 1971-1984 90 *325* 8/43 9/92 25.20 16 0
FS Trueman 1952-1965 67 *307* 8/31 12/119 21.57 17 3
JM Anderson 2003-2013 81* *301* 7/43 11/71 30.41 12 1

Well bowled Jimmy


----------



## Idaho (May 17, 2013)

They are a tough team this NZ. How have they dropped so low in the rankings?


----------



## twentythreedom (May 17, 2013)

Hopefully Swanny will get a couple at the start of his next spell. First session tomorrow will be crucial


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2013)

Idaho said:


> They are a tough team this NZ. How have they dropped so low in the rankings?


Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 18, 2013)

Smashing.


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2013)

gabi said:


> Yes. Smashing. Run rate of 1.90. 8 wickets down. 200 runs on the board. Against the lowest ranked test playing nation.
> 
> You thick tedious idiot.





gabi said:


> Smashed


Well indeed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2013)

As Geoffrey says, you can't tell till both teams have batted. Horrible forecast for monday though, so england need to be positive in their batting.


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2013)

I think we can safely call that England's session. Finn makes his figures look much better by picking up tailenders yet again - not a bad knack to have mind, you still have to get em out. Nicely done England


----------



## Idaho (May 18, 2013)

Botham was a specialist in knocking over the tail. It's a very much needed asset in a team and there is no shame in it.


----------



## Santino (May 18, 2013)

Drop Compton, obviously. butchersapron


----------



## Idaho (May 18, 2013)

It's all quite exciting. 192 ahead with 6 wickets left. We need another 130 runs I reckon.


----------



## Santino (May 18, 2013)

Does anyone know when/if Bell will bat?


----------



## paulhackett (May 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> Does anyone know when/if Bell will bat?


 
Hopefully during the next Test. For Warwickshire


----------



## Santino (May 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Hopefully during the next Test. For Warwickshire


Well done. He'll no doubt get a century tomorrow.


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2013)

Well, this is an interesting match hmm?


----------



## paulhackett (May 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> Well done. He'll no doubt get a century tomorrow.


 
Or throw up on the square. 

But yes. Not my greatest ever post. I'd been holding in all this Bell irritation and it just came out..


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Props to Tim Southee, good bowler right there. 239 to win, over to you Jimbob


----------



## gabi (May 19, 2013)

Southee's a fine bowler indeed. And its good to see a player play with a big grin on his face the whole time. He looks a decent sort.


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Likes to give the batsman a mouthful but enjoys his work. Good lad


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Historical context: If NZ are successful (and they are chasing the highest innings total of the match), it would be the third highest total to win a Test at Lord's in the fourth innings. Not straightforward in other words. They have the batsmen to do it and England are going to have to bowl and field well, but it's tight for both teams...


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

...and there goes the first one. Could be an interesting day again!


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Broad to take all 10. 16-3.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

There's 4...


----------



## Idaho (May 19, 2013)

Slow down England! I was looking forward to a whole days gardening while listening to the cricket.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Anderson ruins it, 5 down.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Slow down England! I was looking forward to a whole days gardening while listening to the cricket.


They might get this done before the 40 over games at 1.45 - you can listen to one of them instead.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Review...had to be out


----------



## Santino (May 19, 2013)

Smashing it.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 19, 2013)

5 for 22


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Ponyutd said:
			
		

> 5 for 22



Are you watching from the past? Edit: oh you mean broad, sorry.


----------



## Santino (May 19, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> 5 for 22


Keep up, 29-6


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Wow, Broad's on fire! I think we may just have the edge here. Don't want to jinx it though. Watling to win it for NZ


----------



## MrSki (May 19, 2013)

Shame. The afternoon commentary is always more entertaining after the liquid lunch that I suspect is consumed.


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Shades of Cape Town, which I thought NZ had recovered from. They've got to be thinking of that right now


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

6 for broad, 7 down. 41


----------



## JimW (May 19, 2013)

And again, after getting dropped just.


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Watling's very fond of that wafty air shot outside off stump


----------



## JimW (May 19, 2013)

Well, at least they passed that record low by India in the 70s the commentators kept mentioning.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

JimW said:


> Well, at least they passed that record low by India in the 70s the commentators kept mentioning.


David Loyd's debut - and he has no memory of it.


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Broad's conceded over two thirds of the runs. Too expensive really, time to give Onions another go


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Anyone know the last time the two opening bowlers were the only ones used in an innings?


----------



## paulhackett (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> David Loyd's debut - and he has no memory of it.


 
That's because he got hit in the nuts by Jeff Thomson the following winter. Can't remember anything before then.


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know the last time the two opening bowlers were the only ones used in an innings?


Can I open the bidding with Walsh & Ambrose v England at Port of Spain in 1994? 46 all out


----------



## JimW (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know the last time the two opening bowlers were the only ones used in an innings?


Dunno but one of the summarisers did make some crack about NZ playing on to at least force bowling change


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

JTG said:


> Can I open the bidding with Walsh & Ambrose v England at Port of Spain in 1994? 46 all out


First one i thought of as well.

7 for broad.


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

They should review that one


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

JTG said:


> They should review that one


I would love NZ forever if they did


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

I think that shambles sums it up nicely!


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

There was something fitting about that farcical end to a comical innings


----------



## JimW (May 19, 2013)

Comedy ending too!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know the last time the two opening bowlers were the only ones used in an innings?


 
For England, 1936.


----------



## JimW (May 19, 2013)

"Is that a bat or a slapstick, young man?"


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Great assist for the run out from long leg there whoever it was
Cricinfo:


> what on earth just happened!? Wahtever it was, New Zealand have been finished off in comical fashion


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

First time in 78 years for england openers to do the jon on their own - to answer part of my question above.

edit: as noted above already by TheHoodedClaw.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

Rather enjoyable test that.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 19, 2013)

From Andy Zaltzman on twitter

"NZ all out 68. Broad & Anderson the first opening pair to dismiss a team without anyone else bowling since McGrath & Gillespie v WI in 1999"


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rather enjoyable test that.


Yeah it was quite good really. You could almost describe it as smashing


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> From Andy Zaltzman on twitter
> 
> "NZ all out 68. Broad & Anderson the first opening pair to dismiss a team without anyone else bowling since McGrath & Gillespie v WI in 1999"


Ta!


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Hour's highlights on Channel 5 tonight, where they will be showing the New Zealand innings in full


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Anyway, that's it. Roll on Headingley


----------



## Idaho (May 19, 2013)

So if 232 was a smashing, what is 68? Liquidising?


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

Idaho said:


> So if 232 was a smashing, what is 64? Liquidising?


New Zealand


----------



## JTG (May 19, 2013)

> Stuart Broad is the Nicholas Cage of bowling. Cage will take risks, perform erratically, pick terrible films, choose the wrong way to perform a role, overact and then occasionally perform so brilliantly that he makes an entire film. While doing all this he also divides opinion.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/content/story/636844.html
26 years old, very close to 200 Test wickets, yet at 31 apiece. Infuriating at times but could easily follow Jimmy into the 300 club


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Compton/useless cunt 

Also completes the root for captain double.


----------



## Santino (May 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/content/story/636844.html
> 26 years old, very close to 200 Test wickets, yet at 31 apiece. Infuriating at times but could easily follow Jimmy into the 300 club


His last 100-odd wickets were got at around 26-27 runs each.


----------



## Streathamite (May 20, 2013)

well done Stuart Broad.Now, LBJ, what were you saying about him...?


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> His last 100-odd wickets were got at around 26-27 runs each.


Yeah, realised that earlier. In that sense similar to Jimmy in that an ordinary average has actually been coming down steadily for a while now


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> well done Stuart Broad.Now, LBJ, what were you saying about him...?


I'm always delighted when England players perform. This match is Broad's career in microcosm, really. A duck, then poor bowling in first innings (worst bowler on display for either team at that point), then a few runs and a brilliant bowling performance in the second innings (best bowling performance in a match full of good bowling performances).

I still think he's a petulant brat, but he did manage not to review an lbw decision against him, which I think might be a first. Maybe he is changing...


----------



## Ted Striker (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm always delighted when England players perform. This match is Broad's career in microcosm, really. A duck, then poor bowling in first innings (worst bowler on display for either team at that point), then a few runs and a brilliant bowling performance in the second innings (best bowling performance in a match full of good bowling performances).
> 
> I still think he's a petulant brat, but he did manage not to review an lbw decision against him, which I think might be a first. Maybe he is changing...


 
^Pretty accurate tbf.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm always delighted when England players perform. This match is Broad's career in microcosm, really. A duck, then poor bowling in first innings (worst bowler on display for either team at that point), then a few runs and a brilliant bowling performance in the second innings (best bowling performance in a match full of good bowling performances).
> 
> I still think he's a petulant brat, but he did manage not to review an lbw decision against him, which I think might be a first. Maybe he is changing...


Also a good team man. Auckland convinced me of that


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

And he still hasn't saved anyones life.

Just got a reminder that the test starts again in 15 minutes.


----------



## Streathamite (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm always delighted when England players perform. This match is Broad's career in microcosm, really. A duck, then poor bowling in first innings (worst bowler on display for either team at that point), then a few runs and a brilliant bowling performance in the second innings (best bowling performance in a match full of good bowling performances).
> 
> I still think he's a petulant brat, but he did manage not to review an lbw decision against him, which I think might be a first. Maybe he is changing...


absolutely fair comment, that.


----------



## paulhackett (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm always delighted when England players perform. This match is Broad's career in microcosm, really. A duck, then poor bowling in first innings (worst bowler on display for either team at that point), then a few runs and a brilliant bowling performance in the second innings (best bowling performance in a match full of good bowling performances).
> 
> I still think he's a petulant brat, but he did manage not to review an lbw decision against him, which I think might be a first. Maybe he is changing...


 
He's always been a bit 'white line fever' on the field and apparently very nice off it. Suffers from having a reddening face that screams petulance to anyone who sees it. 

A great watch yesterday, only sorry the Kiwis couldn't keep their form up over 4 innings


----------



## Santino (May 20, 2013)

The match was a perfect illustration of the importance of stamina and consistency in Test cricket. You can play well for three days and then throw the game away in half an hour.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2013)

Stats don't tell the whole story of course but apparently Stuart Broad is in the top five Test all-rounders if you limit the figures to achievements by the age of 26... Botham, Kapil Dev, Vettori, Pollock and Broad. What's more, by the end of the summer he could very well have joined the group of just 14 cricketers with 200 Test wickets and 2000 Test runs.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2013)

Bruce "Bruce" Martin has been ruled out of the rest of the tour. Vettori's coming over early but may not be fit and there's also Jeetan Patel currently at Warwickshire. NZ are hopeful about Watling for Headingley


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

Will they bring in Bracewell for Wagner? I would. Must be tempting not to bother with a spinner at all, although Patel's very experienced in English conditions now. Seems to perform a whole lot better for Warks than NZ, though.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2013)

Depends whether they can get Bracewell out of the hotel bar for long enough I suppose


----------



## Streathamite (May 20, 2013)

One final thought; I hope to god England don't get complacent after this (an English malady IMO). Broad apart, that wasn't a terribly distinguished performance


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> One final thought; I hope to god England don't get complacent after this (an English malady IMO). Broad apart, that wasn't a terribly distinguished performance


Anderson bowled brilliantly too. Swann was barely used. Finn did what he mostly seems to do - leaked runs but also got wickets. I don't think there's much wrong with the bowling.

Batting? Perhaps not great, but plenty good enough in the end. tbh I didn't fancy NZ at all once they failed to get a lead in the first innings. And we should give credit to their bowlers. Southee and Boult are good bowlers who are well suited to English conditions - they're entitled to some success. Encouraged by Root's performance too. He's in top form at the moment.


----------



## Streathamite (May 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anderson bowled brilliantly too. Swann was barely used. Finn did what he mostly seems to do - leaked runs but also got wickets. I don't think there's much wrong with the bowling.
> 
> Batting? Perhaps not great, but plenty good enough in the end. tbh I didn't fancy NZ at all once they failed to get a lead in the first innings. And we should give credit to their bowlers. Southee and Boult are good bowlers who are well suited to English conditions - they're entitled to some success. Encouraged by Root's performance too. He's in top form at the moment.


yeah fair comment


----------



## coley (May 21, 2013)

Just wish they would stop behaving like footballers when they score points, group hugs urggh.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> Stats don't tell the whole story of course but apparently Stuart Broad is in the top five Test all-rounders if you limit the figures to achievements by the age of 26... Botham, Kapil Dev, Vettori, Pollock and Broad.


By number of runs/wickets or by averages? I'm guessing the first, IMO Broad does need to be a bit more consistent but Anderson was very mercurial when he first came onto the scene and now very rarely turns in a bad performance.


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> By number of runs/wickets or by averages? I'm guessing the first, IMO Broad does need to be a bit more consistent but Anderson was very mercurial when he first came onto the scene and now very rarely turns in a bad performance.


Someone posted it in the Guardian comments and had got it off cricinfo statsguru. Will go and have a look in a minute actually to see how it works out - not sure how they calculate 'best' all rounders as there are so many different flavours of them. I raised my eyebrows a bit - not surprised Botham was so high at that age as the back half of his career he wasn't much more than a batting all rounder, his bowling post 1985 was nothing like the early years. If Broad improves as Anderson has (and his bowling average is coming down) then by 30 he'll be right up there


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2013)

OK, I think it may have been based on wickets taken - I've had a play with Statsguru and that's the only way I can make it come out with an all rounder top five at 26/27 of Dev, Botham, Vettori, Pollock and Broad. Many factors obv, is Broad (batting average 25) an all-rounder but Wasim (average 22) not? And how do you measure runs/wickets value for an all rounder? I know the ICC do all rounder rankings so obviously they have an idea...

Kapil Dev had 300 wickets at 27


----------



## paulhackett (May 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> OK, I think it may have been based on wickets taken - I've had a play with Statsguru and that's the only way I can make it come out with an all rounder top five at 26/27 of Dev, Botham, Vettori, Pollock and Broad. Many factors obv, is Broad (batting average 25) an all-rounder but Wasim (average 22) not? And how do you measure runs/wickets value for an all rounder? I know the ICC do all rounder rankings so obviously they have an idea...
> 
> Kapil Dev had 300 wickets at 27


 
Wasim could bat (and could have batted better) but his average was boosted by that one large double century so he was a bowler rather than an all-rounder? Back in the 70s/80s the question was always who is the best of Hadlee, Imran, Kapil and Botham. Kapil and Hadlee were like Wasim, Imran too and Botham, well that's another thread.. none of them match Miller, Sobers, Kallis. Are there more? Their scarcity is telling


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Wasim could bat (and could have batted better) but his average was boosted by that one large double century so he was a bowler rather than an all-rounder? Back in the 70s/80s the question was always who is the best of Hadlee, Imran, Kapil and Botham. Kapil and Hadlee were like Wasim, Imran too and Botham, well that's another thread.. none of them match Miller, Sobers, Kallis. Are there more? Their scarcity is telling


For sure. There's loads of cricketers around who could do both well but the demands of putting the work into both were too much... so Wasim didn't work so hard on his batting maybe or Steve Waugh for example let his bowling go a bit. Being great at both is very rare indeed and there's only Kallis in the last decade who really fits the bill. To go back further, Wally Hammond could definitely bowl but wasn't used too much, understandable when England could call on Larwood, Voce, Allen etc
To go back to Anderson, it irritates me to see people still bringing up his overall average when discussing how good he is. First 150 wickets at 35, the next 150 at 25 according to the Graun today and that, for me, says enough. Especially in an age when batting averages have been steadily rising.


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2013)

Raining


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Lucky NZ


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

Top temperature 8 degrees today. 

And windy.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

Good to see the ECB sticking to their tried, tested and failed policy of staging May tests in the North.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

tbf it's bloody horrible in London today too.

Prospects for any play today looking grim.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf it's bloody horrible in London today too.
> 
> Prospects for any play today looking grim.


 
Bright and dry in South West London, would certainly be able to play before lunch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

Just stopped raining in Clerkenwell.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

Just started again in Richmond.

Still, at least the rest of the weekend looks good.  I shouldn't have thought England will need 5 days to skittle the kiwis on a green top at Headingly in May.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2013)

seriously is it STILL fucking raining in england? wtf. its almost june.

nz need all 5 days to smash england on a green top at headingly in may. ffs.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> seriously is it STILL fucking raining in england? wtf. its almost june.
> 
> nz need all 5 days to smash england on a green top at headingly in may. ffs.


 
Still fucking cold as well, had the heating on again last night.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> seriously is it STILL fucking raining in england? wtf. its almost june.
> 
> nz need all 5 days to smash england on a green top at headingly in may. ffs.


All across Europe. Gira d'Italia stage was cancelled because of _snow_.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> seriously is it STILL fucking raining in england? wtf. its almost june.
> 
> nz need all 5 days to smash england on a green top at headingly in may. ffs.


yes, it bloody is, so stop rubbing it in.Then again, it's Yorkshire, not the south coast.
Ah well, we'll just have to make it a four day England win, with the aid of another kiwi batting collapse


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

It might be better for the match if play's abandoned today. Clear everyone's heads - four-day match with seven-hour days and a follow-on mark of 150.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

All the chat around the England team at the moment seems to be about Compton and Root, but what about Bairstow?  How many chances is he going to get?


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2013)

Well. Bopara received gazillions of chances before anyone realised he wasnt test quality so Bairstow's got years left.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> Well. Bopara received gazillions of chances before anyone realised he wasnt test quality so Bairstow's got years left.


 
I think Bopara was / is international quality he's just not got the mental part of the game right.  He'd walk into your team tbf.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2013)

Can't undersdtand why Shazad hasn't been given more chances, for that matter


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

1st day called off with a ball bowled then.  I hope the ground dries quickly so they can start on time tomorrow.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I think Bopara was / is international quality he's just not got the mental part of the game right. He'd walk into your team tbf.


 
Er, no.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

Bopara averages 31.94 in tests.  Not sure I can be bothered to check the NZ top 6 but I bet there are a couple lower then that.  Still not England quality as it stands though.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2013)

Bopara is not test quality. And he's never batted at 6 for England thats for damn sure.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> And he's never batted at 6 for England thats for damn sure.


 
Apparently you're wrong.  Bopara has played 6 tests where he batted at 6 (averaging a mighty 17.62) and 2 at number 7 where he did a bit better averaging 78.

He's not great but better then some.


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

It turns out that I didn't need to look up the stats for the NZ batsman, cricinfo has done it for me.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/636301.html

Flynn had 22 tests and averaged just 25.85, Williamson has played 23 at only 33.97.    

What the table in that article also shows is that McCullum should stick to keeping because his average is only ok if you accept that he is a keeper, Brownlie is well on his way to being a failure and what a rare talent Jesse Ryder was and a shame he was/is such a fucking mess.

There is no way Bopara wouldn't have had an extended run in the NZ team.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2013)

So we conclude that Bopara's a bit of a slogger from that then?


----------



## Teaboy (May 24, 2013)

How on earth did Daniel Flynn get to play 22 tests with that average?


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2013)

It was a poor period for NZ. Terrible management/selection. I think we're on the upturn now though.

I think McCullum is best as an outfield fielder btw. He's brilliant at point or mid off and can bollock his bowlers more effectively from there. And Watling is shaping up well behind the sticks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> How on earth did Daniel Flynn get to play 22 tests with that average?


Mark Ramprakash played 52 tests with an average only a little better!

Painful truth for NZ is that most of their batsmen tend to average somewhere around the 30 mark. They rarely have more than one or two players averaging over 40. It's been like that for a long time, and if you're averaging 33-34, you're in the team with NZ.


----------



## JimW (May 24, 2013)

gabi said:


> It was a poor period for NZ...


 
Last century and this?


----------



## Meltingpot (May 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Mark Ramprakash played 52 tests with an average only a little better!


 
That was in the 90s though whjen English cricket was at a low ebb; standards are a bit different now. BTW, I could never figure out why Ramps didn't do better; he was fiercely dedicated to the game and not short of ability.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Painful truth for NZ is that most of their batsmen tend to average somewhere around the 30 mark. They rarely have more than one or two players averaging over 40. It's been like that for a long time, and if you're averaging 33-34, you're in the team with NZ.


 
Yep.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 24, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> BTW, I could never figure out why Ramps didn't do better; he was fiercely dedicated to the game and not short of ability.


All in his head. Do you remember that he used to freeze up when he got to about 30 or 40. Just when most players would be relaxing, he'd get tense. It all started from his first series - as a young player tipped for the top, he played out a series against West Indies, when they were still great, and consistently got to 20-something and no further. He was praised for it, but it set the tone for the rest of his career. I think if just one thing had gone differently for him early on - maybe just a dropped catch allowing him to bat on - his whole career could have been totally different.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Can't undersdtand why Shazad hasn't been given more chances, for that matter


His bowling has been rubbish tbf the last couple of years.  

Re Bairstow, his record is perfectly fine for this stage in his career, he's not had the flying start that Root's had but he's not played terribly either.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

Is it raining in Yorkshire then?


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

I feel a 76 for Compton today.

Bairstow is doing fine - don't quite get people saying he's starting to be caught out. He doesn't have one ball that keeps getting him out and he usually has to come in in unsettled conditions.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

Fuck me, my mojo is on.


----------



## JimW (May 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck me, my mojo is on.


 
I turned on just to get him out


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

christ. just tuned in to crictime. the sun is out


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

wow. just heard botham refer to the aussies as 'the convicts'. i know its a lighthearted term amongst fans but er.... on national telly?

i guess he is a monarchist cunt. but. cmon. cunt.


----------



## JimW (May 25, 2013)

Oh dear, mini-crumble.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

17 to go


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

how the fuck is joe root getting a standing ovation? christ the booze must be flowing up there.


----------



## Santino (May 25, 2013)

gabi said:


> how the fuck is joe root getting a standing ovation? christ the booze must be flowing up there.


Because he's from there.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

Thats enough for a standing ovation up there? wow.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

Odd that. Someone popular on their home ground.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

gabi said:


> Thats enough for a standing ovation up there? wow.


First test at Headingley. Been in brilliant form this season for Yorks. Why not?


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

I'd let him prove himself before that kind of carry on.

He looks a decent prospect. A good leaver of the wide ball at least. But not sure he's quite worth a standing ovation quite yet.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

Yorkshire bastards, enjoying themselves on the weekend.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

If I wasn't so bored butchers I wouldnt even bother replying to you. But here you go. It is was it is.


----------



## agricola (May 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yorkshire bastards, enjoying themselves on the weekend.


 
Root the first Yorkshireman to get his maiden test century at Headingley.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

Yorkshire crowd 1
gabi                  0


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

Botham just coming in his pants over that. Filthy.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

Oh christ. Botham and LBJ coming in their pants...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

gabi said:


> Oh christ. Botham and LBJ coming in their pants...


They've cheered him all the way from 0 to 100. Great stuff.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

Lets hope the ginger one with the moobs doesnt make a century otherwise yorkshire will actually explode


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

Root's job to get his mate there now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

Fuck 

No need to play that


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

New ball: 1
LBJ: 0


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

14 to go. Smashing it.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2013)

Anyway. Nuff bullshit aside. How is KP gonna fit into this side? Compton doesnt really look the part so I guess lose him and rejig the order?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

Great last hour for England makes it definitely their day. 

Compton's probably got one innings to save himself, I would think. But Bairstow looked much better than Bell today. The commentators made the point that when Root and Bell were together, Root looked like the senior man. Tis ever thus with Bell, but his form seems to have gone at the moment too. When Root and Bairstow were both going well, it looked very good. Not seen that from England for a while, really.


----------



## paulhackett (May 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Great last hour for England makes it definitely their day.
> 
> Compton's probably got one innings to save himself, I would think. But Bairstow looked much better than Bell today. The commentators made the point that when Root and Bell were together, Root looked like the senior man. Tis ever thus with Bell, but his form seems to have gone at the moment too. When Root and Bairstow were both going well, it looked very good. Not seen that from England for a while, really.


 

Bell's form has been questionable since January 2012. He's averaging 33 in 33 innings, 1 100, 7 50s. They should hold him in reserve as they did with Butcher and Thorpe in 2005.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2013)

Worked out alright in the end, but dropping Thorpe in 2005 was a bizarre decision. Their averages might be very similar, but Thorpe and Bell are totally different players. I know which one I'd want.

Root just oozes class. Really looks like he will be a star. But I like the look of Bairstow too, when he gets in. At the moment, Bell isn't getting in. He's staying at the crease, but he isn't getting in.


----------



## gabi (May 26, 2013)

Mmmm.... draw?


----------



## gabi (May 26, 2013)

I agree about Root btw having watched his innings. He's going to be a long term player for England. I'd also draw comparisons with Kane Williamson. He looks the part too.


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2013)

gabi said:


> Mmmm.... draw?


You reckon?


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2013)

Great time for a wicket. Unlike those bad times...


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2013)

Might even get to enforce the follow-on if they keep this up.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 26, 2013)

But _should_ they... *ducks*


----------



## fen_boy (May 26, 2013)

Just started listening, why is the follow-on 150? Is it because of the lost day?


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2013)

This is hilarious.


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2013)

fen_boy said:


> Just started listening, why is the follow-on 150? Is it because of the lost day?


 
That's what the commentators have said.


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2013)

agricola said:


> This is hilarious.


 
Finding it funnier now it's over


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2013)

England bat again.  Why?


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2013)

agricola said:


> England bat again.  Why?


Stamp on their necks.

And allow their bowlers to create some more rough for Swann to use.


----------



## fen_boy (May 26, 2013)

Enforcing the follow on should be mandatory.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 26, 2013)

Bad weather forecast. Stupid decision, imo.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 26, 2013)

Cook currently has 77% of the runs in this innings - the record is 67% and has stood since 1877...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 26, 2013)

Pleasing to see cook making runs. Trott struggling a bit but not worried about him. Compton though? I don't see how he can play next game. 

Be a bit annoying if this game's a draw now


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...Compton though? I don't see how he can play next game...


 
Commentary consensus was that's him fucked for future selection.


----------



## agricola (May 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> Commentary consensus was that's him fucked for future selection.


 
He should be, if for no other reason than that pose he strikes every time a ball is bowled.


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2013)

agricola said:


> He should be, if for no other reason than that pose he strikes every time a ball is bowled.


 
I missed that bit on the radio!


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2013)

Cook gets his century.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2013)

Still no declaration. Very disappointed by England here.


----------



## gabi (May 27, 2013)

Crazy captaincy.. Do you think he just wants to give Root and Bairstow a bit more time in the middle? Tomorrows definitely rained off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2013)

This is simply ridiculous now. And in the end, it was a poor innings from Trott overall. Did much better today, but wtf was he playing at last night?


----------



## gabi (May 27, 2013)

I cant hear the commentary. Are there any thoughts on why hes not declared?


----------



## gabi (May 27, 2013)

that guptil full toss to root was possibly the worst ball ive ever seen in test cricket


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2013)

gabi said:


> I cant hear the commentary. Are there any thoughts on why hes not declared?


 
Some chat about getting to a point of mathematical impossibility for NZ to win, based on estimating three an over max score, but basically everyone thinks they should have declared.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2013)

gabi said:


> that guptil full toss to root was possibly the worst ball ive ever seen in test cricket


It's horrible to watch this, really. Totally absurd that they're batting.


----------



## gabi (May 27, 2013)

Does Ali Cook seriously think NZ are going to chase down 430 in two sessions? They couldnt chase it in 10 sessions.


----------



## paulhackett (May 27, 2013)

Why bat on? They're one up. NZ need to win to draw series. All the bowlers have taken wickets in the series. The batting line up (still) has question marks over it, especially if KP is out. (not sure Compton and Bell getting out answers questions but..). If the rain doesn't come they bat so there's a max of 4 plus sessions left (2 of those are extended sessions). 3 day Tests aren't a good thing. Yadda yadda yadda. NZ definitely being seen as a practice match..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2013)

This isn't even batting practice, though. It's an idiotic slogfest against Martin Guptil, ffs.


----------



## gabi (May 27, 2013)

Surely now...


----------



## gabi (May 27, 2013)

Cook's a brilliant batsman but serious question marks over his tactical nous


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2013)

And there we go. Young batsmen sacrificing their wickets for the sake of runs that don't matter after Jonathan Trott played like a twat last night...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2013)

finally


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Great decision - despite the people who thought there were two sessions to play. Stamp on every teams neck and make them remember it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2013)

It is not a great decision if england don' t win.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Thanks for that. If it doesn't work it's bad, I have a broken watch - is is any good?

I think it was perfectly timed to get some practice in and wrap them up in the first hour. Stop panicking ffs, it's not wwf.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Surely the goal of an international test match is to actually win the game?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks for that. If it doesn't work it's bad, I have a broken watch - is is any good?
> 
> I think it was perfectly timed to get some practice in and wrap them up in the first hour. Stop panicking ffs, it's not wwf.


Allowing a team to escape with a draw is not 'stamping on their necks'.

Whatever happens today, I'm disappointed by the way England have played the last four sessions. Mystifying at times - and, if it rains all day today _as forecast_, brainless.

The point about it not working is that this was eminently _predictable_.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

please, no rain in Leeds today


----------



## paulhackett (May 28, 2013)

gabi said:


> Surely the goal of an international test match is to actually win the game?


 

It isn't for NZ today. And given where NZ cricket is at the moment (like England a few years back) not losing is the primary aim, then not losing consistently, then maybe winning, then winning series.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

gabi said:


> Surely the goal of an international test match is to actually win the game?


 
Depends who you are playing and when. Against a smashingly inept team with two back to back ashes coming up i think a bit of practice might be a) more useful b) more humiliating and c) you forget that god is a yorkshireman


----------



## DrRingDing (May 28, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> please, no rain in Leeds today


 
BBC says it's gunna piss down all day


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> BBC says it's gunna piss down all day


 
England running about on  the pitch in the non-rain to show the umpires that it's fine.


----------



## paulhackett (May 28, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> BBC says it's gunna piss down all day


 

Covers off, England out and warming up


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Kiwi coach not happy. Let's at least hope Southee smashes a quick fire century.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 28, 2013)

Anybody got a link to a decent stream of this?


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

http://www.crictime.com/live_cricket_streaming_free_2.htm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2013)

crictime is reliable.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

why the hell hasnt cook got 9 men around the bat here?


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Capt gone. Great c&b from broad. Now is the time to PANIC!!!!!!


----------



## Teaboy (May 28, 2013)

gabi said:


> why the hell hasnt cook got 9 men around the bat here?


 
Well for starters I don't think Southee is going to get out on a bat pad.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

Yaay! Southee gone.


----------



## JimW (May 28, 2013)

Commentary said that was a record 8th wicket partnership for NZif I heard him right - not sure if just at this ground or whatever, fifty odd doesn't seem that amazing.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Nah we've had much higher than that in the swinging 80s. No idea what theyre on about there.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

bugger! Bad light.


----------



## JimW (May 28, 2013)

gabi said:


> Nah we've had much higher than that in the swinging 80s. No idea what theyre on about there.


 
Reckon I must have misheard some other condition - vs England, at Headingley or whatever.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Rain, not bad light. As forecast days ago. Something which seemed to not arrive in Cook's inbox.


----------



## paulhackett (May 28, 2013)

gabi said:


> Rain, not bad light. As forecast days ago. Something which seemed to not arrive in Cook's inbox.


 

if you played to the weather forecast they wouldn't have played yet today


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

I'm so glad that the weather has never ever changed in this country.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm so glad that the weather has never ever changed in this country.



on a serious note, _please_ let the rain stop....


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

So, no more play today then?


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Superb captaincy


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> on a serious note, _please_ let the rain stop....


 
Back out half hour, 45 minutes i reckon. Nor raining in adjacent areas.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Spot on butchers - 3 pm start


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Spot on butchers - 3 pm start


excellent! Just give em the tim e to wrap this one up.....


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Review...nah, not bat on that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Great catch by bell  - 9 down.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

jesus, how did Finn NOT get a wicket with that over?


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

these two are stubborn buggers


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Finn needs to learn where the stumps are. And aim at them. I suspect Swann will finish it this over.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2013)

Fucking hell. I guess he won't


----------



## Santino (May 28, 2013)

Alastair Cook, tactical genius.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2013)

Great win. A little fortunate today, and questionable tactics, but very well played, and great to see Swann back to his best.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2013)

Smashing captaincy. He could maybe have PANICKED!!! a bit more and for longer though.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2013)

YAAYY! Bring on the Aussies


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2013)

Fantastic play.


----------



## fen_boy (May 28, 2013)

Smashing


----------



## Ted Striker (May 28, 2013)

It was bloody rubbish. Cook ruined it as a spectacle and NZ put up zero challenge.


----------



## Teaboy (May 28, 2013)

A decent result in the end but I can't help feeling we're going to have to get use to very cautious captaincy by Cook, Strauss was careful to say the least and Cook could be more defensive. I'm still a bit worried about our batting but things are looking good for the ashes.

I'm pretty disappointed with NZ, they looked OK over the winter and were well in with a shout at Lords until the 4th innings, since then they have just rolled over.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I'm pretty disappointed with NZ, they looked OK over the winter and were well in with a shout at Lords until the 4th innings, since then they have just rolled over.


 
Two very good bowlers, but their top order wasn't up to the task in the end. Fulton was a walking wicket. Brownlie and McCullum not much better. A lot of their batsmen seem to have technical issues.


----------



## Idaho (May 28, 2013)

I am all in favour of the flamboyant play to win style, but there is something more daunting and demoralising for opponents to play a team who don't give you any chance. Don't forget that we won a test match by over 200 runs in 3.5 days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I am all in favour of the flamboyant play to win style, but there is something more daunting and demoralising for opponents to play a team who don't give you any chance. Don't forget that we won a test match by over 200 runs in 3.5 days.


I would have enforced the follow-on, but I didn't mind them not doing it. There was a series to sew up, after all. I was disappointed by Trott on Sunday evening though, given the circumstances, by the batting on after lunch and also by some of the negative fields yesterday afternoon. As the commentators said at the time, they were quite fortunate that the ball went to hand off Brownlie with only two catchers in there. On another day against better opposition, their caution would have cost them the win.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 28, 2013)

^Exactly how I feel tbh. Less impressed also by the Cook not (as far as I'm aware, though I haven't looked with too much earnest) coming out and commenting on the question that everyone wants answered. Trott's comment on chasing 150 on day 5 was as close as we've got.


----------



## Idaho (May 28, 2013)

Yeah I don't know why we didn't just set them a target 100 more than they were able to get (380-400).


----------



## Teaboy (May 28, 2013)

Given England won I don't want to be to critical and I didn't mind not enforcing follow on, the logic was sound.  I just thought we declared late (not the first captain to do that) and were far to defensive in the field.    But you have to say that England were by far and away the better team.


----------



## JimW (May 28, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Yeah I don't know why we didn't just set them a target 100 more than they were able to get (380-400).


 
One of the commentators said something along the lines of up to this latest innings NZ were around 460-odd (don't recall exactly) for 30 from previous  outings so it was really over-cautious to hold off the declaration that long. Above my pay grade and just glad we won it, but see his point.


----------



## paulhackett (May 28, 2013)

Apparently Alex Hales tweeted this photo to Swann saying "great to see you celebrating the series win in a lovely new blouse"


----------



## Santino (May 31, 2013)

Some kind of one-day match going on.


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2013)

Yes apparently this is 12th consecutive match between NZ and England.  It should serve us well that will be the non-stop England v Oz diet to be served over the next 8-9 months.  Who wants variety anyway?


----------



## Idaho (May 31, 2013)

A child picking fixtures at random would do a better job than the er... Whoever does it now. ICC? ECC?


----------



## Santino (May 31, 2013)

NZ 1-2 in the first over.


----------



## Santino (May 31, 2013)

Still, not to worry New Zealand, here's Jade Dernbach to even things up for you.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 31, 2013)

Quite why Dernbach is getting a game i do not know. 30 wickets at 39 a piece and at 6.30 an over is not very good. #mustbebecausehesasaffer


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2013)

Because he invented slow bouncers and all that.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 31, 2013)

He's fucking shite.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2013)

I'm not saying he should be in there, just explaining the sort of memory based reason that might explain why he is in there. Trego is better than him.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 31, 2013)

From CricInfo:



> "Dernbach has got the highest economy rate of any bowler in history with at least 22 wickets to his name. Atrocious."


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not saying he should be in there, just explaining the sort of memory based reason that might explain why he is in there. Trego is better than him.


 
I know you're not, just venting my spleen  Trego is a useful cricketer, falls into the bracket of a few players who for some unknown reason have been overlooked.

Richard Pyrah for Yorkshire in the one day format is another.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/content/player/19127.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 31, 2013)

Feck me, he just bowled a maiden. haha CricInfo celebrate by flashing that piece of information on screen


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2013)

Trego's main reason for being overlooked was playing for Somerset. Pryah got time for, not quite in the same league though.


----------



## Santino (May 31, 2013)

Quite liked seeing Guptill getting his century and winning the match in the same shot.


----------



## gabi (Jun 1, 2013)

Damn the time difference down here. totally missed that this was smashing was even happening. whens the next one?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2013)

gabi said:


> Damn the time difference down here. totally missed that this was smashing was even happening. whens the next one?


 
You didnt miss much, it was a pretty simple win.  The match just confirmed what we already knew in that:

50 over cricket is very dull and should be ditched
NZ are a better limited overs team then they are test team
England are a better test team then they are limited overs
Jade Dernbach isnt very good
 
The next match is on Sunday starting at 10.30am gmt.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 1, 2013)

Point of pedantry: 10.30 BST.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 1, 2013)

50 overs cricket seems to be a springboard to launch mediocre players onto the international scene.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

Such as?


----------



## Idaho (Jun 1, 2013)

Pretty much every "one day specialist" ever? 

In the current crop; Dernbach, Woakes, Wright.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

People who are internationals. They've gone past the springboard, County limited overs is the springboard.


----------



## gabi (Jun 1, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> You didnt miss much, it was a pretty simple win. The match just confirmed what we already knew in that:
> 
> 50 over cricket is very dull and should be ditched
> NZ are a better limited overs team then they are test team
> ...


 
Good. I'm in.

I agree NZ are a decent limited overs team. Which pisses me off as a purist.

I grew up and played to a decent level in the kiwi cricket system. We focused on the 4 day game at rep level. Clearly something has gone totally fucking wrong. Test cricket is dead. Much as I hate to say it......


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

You sound like a proper purist with your appreciation of the 5 day game. It has to be said.


----------



## gabi (Jun 1, 2013)

Butchers. You know sweet fuck all about the game. Your presence on these threads does amuse me though. Surely you should be over on p&p bitching about your benefits being cut or some shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2013)

Punter (for real):



> “There’s a lot of negativity about the Australian Test team in particular right now, on the back of the 4-0 loss in India, but I think most teams who would have played that Indian team in the conditions our boys played in would have found it pretty difficult to win a Test match as well.”


----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2013)

gabi said:


> Butchers. You know sweet fuck all about the game. Your presence on these threads does amuse me though. Surely you should be over on p&p bitching about your benefits being cut or some shit?


Keep your weird personal attacks off this thread.


----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Punter (for real):


Presumably the "conditions our boys
played in" include the condition of being shit at cricket.


----------



## gabi (Jun 2, 2013)

Smashed


----------



## gabi (Jun 2, 2013)

Santino said:


> Keep your weird personal attacks off this thread.


 
Fuck off


----------



## Libertad (Jun 2, 2013)

gabi said:


> Fuck off


 
Channelling Henry Blofeld there?


----------



## Idaho (Jun 2, 2013)

Another drubbing. England batting "uninspiring" at best.

I don't understand these "one day" specialist bowlers. It seems to be shorthand for a medium pacer with a few tricks who isn't going to get into the Test side.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2013)

well done New Zealand, but England were piss poor


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 3, 2013)

For anyone who missed it the ECB have posted up the highlights of Trott's 100


----------



## agricola (Jun 4, 2013)

Australia had about half an hour of decent cricket in the warmup game vs India (getting them to 55-5), and have got comprehensively booted all over the place for the rest of it (India finished 308-6, Aus currently six down for 37 runs). Great fun.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 5, 2013)

That was quite good from jos there. 47 off 16. Was two yards away from the fastest ever ODI 50.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 5, 2013)

England scored:
6 runs in the first 6 overs
76 runs in the last 4.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> England scored:
> 6 runs in the first 6 overs
> 76 runs in the last 4.


AAARGHH!
Still, promising knocks by Buttlers and Morgan


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> England scored:
> 6 runs in the first 6 overs
> 76 runs in the last 4.


Butlers was a very exciting knock,you could not ask more from him


----------



## Idaho (Jun 7, 2013)

Are there any terrestrial highlights to the Champions trophy?


----------



## Idaho (Jun 7, 2013)

Pakistan fighting back after getting out cheaply. Well poised game.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

Aus need 270 to win. Not a great total but of all the teams we could defend it against it has to be aus - esp with Clarke out.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 8, 2013)

Was all a bit scrappy. Aus bowled well. We should have picked 2 spinners.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

Root does aus a fav.

Australia 94/3 (25.4 ov)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

Not convinced that carried.


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2013)

10-nil


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

That was fairly easy.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 8, 2013)

We made it look harder than it was.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 9, 2013)

The T20 and ODI wins in 2005 against Australia were pulsating. It's been a long time since England had such a low key, ho hum first blood win over Australia. Still think they somehow need to move a hitter further up the order. I understand the 2 white ball caution in the batting but the new fielding restrictions surely mean up and over the field rather than always trying to go through? India with Yadav are looking good..


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 10, 2013)

Job done, but not overly entertaining.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Job done, but not overly entertaining.


 
We're not there to entertain!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 10, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Job done, but not overly entertaining.


 
That's Australia's fault for not being competitive enough.

Actually I know people always complain about England not hitting 300+ runs every innings (as if all the other teams do) but the most entertaining games so far have been the low scoring ones.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 10, 2013)

I see that bent bastard Kamran Akmal is still getting a game for Pakistan.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 11, 2013)

Oval is turning big and not swinging. Will England play two spinners? Of course not...


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 12, 2013)

Oh dear, David Warner. Cue twitter row with Malcolm Conn? He's had a fight/altercation with.. Joe Root?!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

He was after Joe's dinner money.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 12, 2013)

Bidoom tish (or his homework..)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 12, 2013)

He's like a proper Aussie cricketer from before they got all ruthless and professional and ruled the world isn't he - stupid, drunk and not that good.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2013)

Sent home, paving the way for Ponting's return in the Ashes?

Shame if he goes. He's nowhere near as good as he thinks he is.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 12, 2013)

39.46 isn't such a bad test record, a few years ago he'd have been amongst our best batsman.  Sounds like a twat though.

It'd be the worst thing for the aussies if they recalled Ponting, no matter how bad things are they have to look forward, the ghosts of that great team have already fucked up the present, they need to build for the future.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2013)

tbh I think the one thing they won't do is recall Ricky. Warner's average is decent. His suspect technique was badly exposed in India, though. Strangely mediocre record in odis.

Bit early in his career to be looking at averages, though. He's made a promising start to his test career so far, that's all.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 12, 2013)

Anyway talking of not very good aussie batsman I see Phil Hughes is playing today, I'll give him 15 minutes.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 12, 2013)

It looks like Warner chinned Root in the Walkabout bar in Birmingham.  lol.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 12, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Anyway talking of not very good aussie batsman I see Phil Hughes is playing today, I'll give him 15 minutes.


 
Ok, make that 5 minutes....................


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> It looks like Warner chinned Root in the Walkabout bar in Birmingham. lol.


 
He's lucky he's not had the police called.

Where have you heard this btw? linky link


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Ok, make that 5 minutes....................


 
lol


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> He's lucky he's not had the police called.
> 
> Where have you heard this btw? linky link


 
All over the place.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Oh dear, David Warner. Cue twitter row with Malcolm Conn? He's had a fight/altercation with.. Joe Root?!


 
haha




> Warner took exception after his photograph was used alongside an article by Craddock which described the Indian Premier League as a ‘smouldering cesspit’ and ‘the sunniest of places for the shadiest people; before questioning the integrity of the competition in the wake of the latest spot-fixing scandal.
> 
> Warner referred to Craddock as a ‘p***k’ on the social networking site and said both writers ‘talk s***’.
> 
> He later apologised for his language and discussed the issue in person with Conn, who had tweeted: ‘You lose 4-0 in India, don’t make a run, and you want to be tickled on the tummy? Win the Ashes and get back to me.’


 
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/12/austr...l-altercation-with-englands-joe-root-3837689/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All over the place.


 
Yeah i read that earlier but obviously not properly 

Walkabout? They should both be fined match fees for being in there!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Got to make the most of their discount card.

Rattling along at 2.20 an over now.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

They're a very average team whose best players are either injured, punching people and/or not playing well.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 12, 2013)

Bailey showing some fight.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2013)

Ah, the jokes are rolling in.

Lucky Warner didn't start on Dernbach. He'd have smashed him all over the place...


----------



## Idaho (Jun 12, 2013)

Do you think he would have a range of deceptive slow punches?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Why was Root wearing a wig and false beard?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 12, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Do you think he would have a range of deceptive slow punches?


 
Trott would have hit him every time, but like his strike rate, over a very long period of time


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2013)

nice to see australia's tour disintegrating on and off the pitch already


----------



## Santino (Jun 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why was Root wearing a wig and false beard?


More to the point, why _wasn't_ everyone else?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2013)

I reckon NZ have got to be confident of hitting that target


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 13, 2013)

Pragmatic response to Warner's bust-up - ban until the start of the Ashes. Shows how weak they are at the moment, imo - in years gone by, he'd have been sent home, but with this team they can scarcely afford to.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 13, 2013)

In years gone by he would have been called Keith Miller. Or Ian Chappell. Or Dougie Walters. Or David Boon. Well, he would have been if he had the talent and the brains


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 13, 2013)

David Boon got pissed. He didn't punch members of the opposition, though, to my knowledge.

Anyway, England handled it superbly, simply highlighting their own togetherness, and telling Aus that Warner was their problem.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> In years gone by he would have been called Keith Miller. Or Ian Chappell. Or Dougie Walters. Or David Boon. Well, he would have been if he had the talent and the brains


 
There is no way that Warner should be mentioned in the same breath as Boon.  I bet Warner couldn't even do 20 cans on a flight let alone 50 odd.

Personally I think they should have sent him home, punching (albeit missing) a random in a bar is bad enough, but an opposition player is really not on.  Just shows how desperately short of batting talent they are.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 13, 2013)

Boon was a great batsman. We would work for hours to get one of the opening pair out. Then with the score at 120-1 Boon would stroll out looking like he had every intention of dominating our fragile bowling and not giving us a sniff.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 13, 2013)

Yes. Sorry. Poorly phrased post. I wasn't trying to compare him either as a player or as a person to Miller, Chappell, Walters etc. by listing their names I meant to say he was nothing like them..

Miller would go out and be able to play. Walters would go out and be able to play (or as an Aussie told me the other day, play cards in the dressing room and if he had a good hand, come back from the wicket quite quickly..), Boon could drink without making a fuss and of those there was the Chappell Botham (two sides to every story) bust up.

Players get into fights, situations but there's a time and a place and a reason. Pissed up on jager bombs in a Walkabout in B'ham - someone should have had a word with him before.

Dirk Nannes was criticising Michael Clarke yesterday for being at a charity game an hour away from the ODI vs England at the weekend. Shows the lack of leadership, especially in the absence of Hussey, Ponting, Haddin, Siddle.

ETA: Ben Stokes was sent home from Oz in the winter for going out. Just for going out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 13, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> of those there was the Chappell Botham (two sides to every story) bust up.


Which they relive every decade or so. They'll be feuding into their dotage, long after they've forgotten why they are feuding.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2013)

Given the weather conditions and the forecast that looks a good toss for Sri Lanka to have won.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 13, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Dirk Nannes was criticising Michael Clarke yesterday for being at a charity game an hour away from the ODI vs England at the weekend. Shows the lack of leadership, especially in the absence of Hussey, Ponting, Haddin, Siddle.


 
That does seem a weird thing to do. Very weird. This, and the homework affair, show a bit of a lack of judgement from Clarke. Simon Katich hates his guts, and perhaps he has good reason to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 13, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Given the weather conditions and the forecast that looks a good toss for Sri Lanka to have won.


On paper, they have a strong batting lineup, but they folded a bit limply against NZ. Mahela owes them some runs, I think. Sorry to say, I think the end is nigh for him. Beautiful batsman to watch in full flow.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 13, 2013)

The odds on the ashes series final score are pointing towards a 3-1 or 2-1 to England. You can get a handsome 150-1 on a glen mcgrath 5-0 to Australia. 

I saw 450-1 on a 0-0 which isn't a bad wildcard punt if we get a total wash out of a summer.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2013)

Oh gawd, Bell out cheaply AGAIN!
such a talented cricketer, but so inconsistent


----------



## Idaho (Jun 13, 2013)

He's pretty consistent in getting out with a random unforced error.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2013)

I reckon if you had tickets for an England game and you knew they were batting first you wouldn't need to show up until the 38th over.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 13, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I reckon if you had tickets for an England game and you knew they were batting first you wouldn't need to show up until the 38th over.


 
I don't know about that, England's tactics seem to be much the same as everyone else's in this tournament tbh. Even just maintaining the rate in this innings they're set for a decent score compared to most games so far.


----------



## Santino (Jun 13, 2013)

Ravi!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2013)

Great non-panicky last couple of overs from ravi there.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 13, 2013)

That's a hell of a fiftieth over!


----------



## Idaho (Jun 13, 2013)

It's a pressure thing with Ravi. He's either too stressed or two relaxed. Those last few overs were just right for him.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2013)

Its a slow pitch and long boundaries, that looks a decent score.  Funny innings really because it looked odds on for 300+ but then after the wickets I didn't think we'd get 270.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2013)

kabbes said:


> That's a hell of a fiftieth over!


It bloody was and all! Before those last 2 overs, I was worried about this one. Now I'm not. I can't see Sri Lanka getting 294


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2013)

Idaho said:


> He's pretty consistent in getting out with a random unforced error.


yeah al right Cap'n Pedantic!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2013)

Watson turns on Warner and the ACB.

Listen to this drivel:



> "David Warner's penalty is not lesser than what happened in Mohali,"


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 15, 2013)

England ball tampering (according to Willis) with our specialist ODI ball tamperer, which is why the ball was changed. I'll try and find out what type of sweets they're sucking this year..


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2013)

Watson is a liar says aus. 

Come on tabloids, you should be making hay with this. And essex lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2013)

More



> Australian coach Mickey Arthur has admitted there remains a divide in trust between Shane Watson and the leadership of the team heading into the Ashes.
> But Arthur said the tensions between Watson, captain Michael Clarke and himself were ''fixable''.
> 
> Former vice-captain Watson was stood down from the third Test in March's tour of India, along with three other players, for not submitting homework.
> ...


 
"massive view" - shambles. A festival of sham.

And the most astonishing bit:



> However, he conceded Watson still had not regained complete trust in the way the team was being run.


 
It's up to the management to regain Watson's trust.


----------



## philx (Jun 16, 2013)

Yes,but whos the ball tamperer ?


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2013)

Dirk Nannes was complaining about sweets being brought out to Ravi Bopara.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 16, 2013)

Santino said:


> Dirk Nannes was complaining about sweets being brought out to Ravi Bopara.


 

(Although the ball hardly went to him during the game). Willis is a curmudgeon who played in an era where with lack of cameras it was far easier to work the ball unnoticed.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2013)

philx said:


> Yes,but whos the ball tamperer ?


 
Bopara, I think (not 100% sure though)

So we've got a 24 over game v NZ happening.... Some good comedy dropped catches so far.

Eng 141-4


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2013)

Not sure we've put enough runs on the board really - 166-7 with 8 balls left


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2013)

Seems to be enough at the moment. Required run rate almost 10.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2013)

Time wasting seems to be kiwis only hope. With 5 balls left to make it a match and a bit of rain. 12.82


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Time wasting seems to be kiwis only hope. With 5 balls left to make it a match and a bit of rain. 12.82


 
Good of Hussain and Atherton to point out this is much the same as what England did in the Panesar game.


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

That third umpire decision that saw Williamson get given out off a no-ball has ruined this game.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2013)

agricola said:


> That third umpire decision that saw Williamson get given out off a no-ball has ruined this game.


 
I paused it and put a ruler on the screen, in the first frame where you could see the heel start to compress there was a pixel or two behind the line - but yeah, it was as close a call as you'll ever get


----------



## Idaho (Jun 16, 2013)

Oh well. If you can't be good, be lucky. And you can't win a tournament without getting the rub of the green.


----------



## gabi (Jun 17, 2013)

Yeh, didnt see the match but it seems to have been a dodgy call judging from media reports. regardless... hope nz goes through if the ockers beat SL. never rooted for australia before but they have my full support


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 17, 2013)

Interesting game developing at the oval here.  Sri Lanka look a few runs short at the moment but there is still 5 overs to go.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 17, 2013)

Australia need to win in 29.1 overs to go through apparently. Will they actually give it a proper go or just aim for a consolation win in 50?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

This should be good - aus have to chase 254 within 30 overs to qualify. About 8 and bit an over?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 17, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Australia need to win in 29.1 overs to go through apparently. Will they actually give it a proper go or just aim for a consolation win in 50?


 
They've got to go for it surely? If they just try and win the match not only will they be out the competition but they may have helped NZ through in the process, a lose-lose situation for the crims I would have thought.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

If only they had a quick scoring top order batsman available to play to hurry things along...


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

Malinga must be licking his chops and rubbing his hands with glee, right now


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 17, 2013)

Hughes is opening this should be funny.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 17, 2013)

Australia, lol


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2013)

What a catch!

Sri Lanka a little fortunate today. Australia's circumstances helped them. 250 wasn't a tough target in 50, but was too much in 29.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

My god, are we ever going to stop play NZ? There's two 20/20 games next week. Make it stop.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My god, are we ever going to stop play NZ? There's two 20/20 games next week. Make it stop.


 
2020 isn't cricket though, so that's OK.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 19, 2013)

Good piece on ball tampering by Simon Hughes today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...-tamper-with-the-ball...-but-it-is-legal.html


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Steyn not playing today.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2013)

Great start. Amla out for one (and some other bloke as well).


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2013)

Are they Australia in disguise?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

I have to be out the door at three, think i might make it now. _Everyone_ on fire today.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

SMASH


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Every wicket has fallen while I've been away from my desk so I'm going out now.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 19, 2013)

All gone for 175


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Sorted.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

Santino said:


> Sorted.


 
Now you mustn't leave your desk.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

We'll know if you do.


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

We don't know if my powers are team-neutral.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

Best not risk it though. Just in case.


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

I didn't move.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2013)

Bell out in the 20s again.

This situation is made for Trott though. No need for anything flash or a fast scoring rate. Just stay in and kepp it ticking over.


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> This situation is made for Trott though. No need for anything flash or a fast scoring rate. Just stay in and kepp it ticking over.


 Second highest run-rate of the match so far though.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2013)

Santino said:


> Second highest run-rate of the match so far though.


 
His run rate isn't as bad as people make out really. He just doesn't (won't) vary it much.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 19, 2013)

so then. a final eh.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 19, 2013)

Will they even squeeze out a match tomorrow in Cardiff?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 19, 2013)

England can win this, but they have to do something they usually fail to in odi's and that's put all parts of their best game together.


----------



## JTG (Jun 19, 2013)

https://twitter.com/KP24/statuses/347303196483538944

Naughty KP


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Will they even squeeze out a match tomorrow in Cardiff?


Hope not, then India would go through and we have a way better record against them in England in recent years than against Sri Lanka


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

Christ, SA just rolled over in that game. Shocking. And I don't know why everyone thinks Trott is so boring - that wasn't!


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Christ, SA just rolled over in that game. Shocking. And I don't know why everyone thinks Trott is so boring - that wasn't!


Even Selvey in the Graun fell into that trap, talking about Trott being able to "take the time he needed" and Root scoring a "nerveless ebullient" 48 - Trott scored at 97 runs per hundred balls and Root at something like 67!

Take into account his "stumping" from slip (such a shame Tredwell couldn't take a bowler's credit for it) and I'm definitely giving him a large share of the blame for England being in a 50 over final for only the second time since the 1992 World Cup. Trott's fault


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> share of the blame for England being in a 50 over final for only the second time since the 1992 World Cup. Trott's fault



honestly - the bastard!


----------



## fen_boy (Jun 20, 2013)

Australia have the best bowling attack in the world


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 20, 2013)

Bad start for SL. Dilshan hobbles off. You'd think that either Sangakkara or Jayawardene needs to go big to give them a chance.


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

fen_boy said:


> Australia have the best bowling attack in the world


That's straight from the Mitchell Johnson "I'm targeting Ali Cook" school of pre-Ashes mind games. Note to Mickey: they only work if you have something to back the claim up with


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2013)

Last 5 overs RR 1.60


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 20, 2013)

fen_boy said:


> Australia have the best bowling attack in the world


 
hilarious


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 20, 2013)

Have they got Glenn McGrath out for his prediction yet?

TBF last time he made it pretty clear it was tongue in cheek. Maybe he'll refuse this time.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 20, 2013)

fen_boy said:


> Australia have the best bowling attack in the world


The Mcgrath moment of the series.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

Sri Lanka 180-8 off their 50. I would be very, very surprised to see them in the final.


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Sri Lanka 180-8 off their 50. I would be very, very surprised to see them in the final.


Hope not, we have a better chance against India anyway... if India struggle to chase this then it surely bodes well for England should the final be played in similar conditions


----------



## Dan U (Jun 20, 2013)

bloody hell



Sri Lankan fans kick off with each other outside the Oval 

Tamil protesters got attacked by the looks of it.

should think those coppers were a bit wtf, this is the cricket ffs.


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

Surely not that unexpected, there have been plenty of Tamil demos in central London at at SL games in the UK for some time now...


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> That's straight from the Mitchell Johnson "I'm targeting Ali Cook" school of pre-Ashes mind games. Note to Mickey: they only work if you have something to back the claim up with


tbf, they (Australia) are awfully excited about Pattinson, Starc and Bird, who indeed do seem promising


----------



## Dan U (Jun 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> Surely not that unexpected, there have been plenty of Tamil demos in central London at at SL games in the UK for some time now...


 

yeah maybe you are right. i've certainly seen the demos in London, just not used to seeing it kicking off at the cricket outside of Bay 13


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 20, 2013)

India walking this.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> India walking this.


yep, totally. Totally one-sided


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

Walking straight into our trap...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> Walking straight into our trap...




I like the optimism. Don't get it, but I like it. I think Sri Lanka would have been much easier opposition. That said, it was a good toss to win today, as it was yesterday.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

I think of India as more likely to have a batting collapse than Sri Lanka.


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

I think of India as having a much worse recent record in England against England than Sri Lanka


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

Weather forecast for Birmingham on Sunday: a balmy 14C with showers or longer spells of rain. Beautiful.


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> Weather forecast for Birmingham on Sunday: a balmy 14C with showers or longer spells of rain. Beautiful.


Jimmy Anderson likes this


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> Jimmy Anderson likes this


So does Bhuvneshwar Kumar.


----------



## JTG (Jun 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So does Bhuvneshwar Kumar.


My face isn't bothered


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

piss easy that was for India


----------



## Idaho (Jun 20, 2013)

India's fielding improvement has made a big difference to their overall strength. It's all down to the batting (or weather) on Sunday.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 21, 2013)

fen_boy said:


> Australia have the best bowling attack in the world


 
This is ringing a bell about the last time the aussies were over here for the ashes.  I'm pretty sure Michael Clark is on record as saying that the spinner they brought along (Hauritz was it?) was as good as Warne or something like that.  You could probably draw some sort of graph to map how the more shit they spout increases as their team ability falls.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> This is ringing a bell about the last time the aussies were over here for the ashes. I'm pretty sure Michael Clark is on record as saying that the spinner they brought along (Hauritz was it?) was as good as Warne or something like that. You could probably draw some sort of graph to map how the more shit they spout increases as their team ability falls.


IMO Hauritz was/is a better spinner than Lyon, but their Seam attack is pretty promising, if raw.


----------



## JTG (Jun 22, 2013)

Hauritz was a decent spinner, though no great shakes. Should have played at the Oval

Phil Hughes out for 11, Australia A 24/4 at Bristol


----------



## JTG (Jun 22, 2013)

Strange day at Bristol - Australia A declared yesterday on 331/4 and bowled Glos out for 122. Australia A are now 95/8


----------



## JTG (Jun 22, 2013)

106/9...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 22, 2013)

What ball they using?


----------



## JTG (Jun 22, 2013)

Both divisions are using Dukes this year so I assume that one.

111 all out, Glos need 321 to win, four sessions left


----------



## JTG (Jun 22, 2013)

Glos going at 6 an over - looks like we're going for it


----------



## JTG (Jun 22, 2013)

162/3 at stumps, Fawad Ahmad 0/62 off 14. Figers crossed for an Ashes place for him then. Half way there, worth keeping an eye on tomorrow


----------



## JTG (Jun 23, 2013)

Read it and weep Australia: a side full of Baggy Green owners or hopefuls being brought down to earth and threatened with defeat by a Gloucestershire XI missing several first choices

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/644357.html

Come on Glaws!


----------



## JTG (Jun 23, 2013)

At the risk of Canucking the thread, here's Jarrod Kimber on the Champions Trophy, the expansion (or not) of global cricket, the ICC and so forth. Worth a read:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/644299.html

He's right really isn't he? NZ, WI, SL, Pakistan and even SA are being ever more sidelined, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have Test status but are basically ignored and countries where there is real developing enthusiasm for cricket such as Ireland, PNG and Nepal are given no way into the feast. Do we actually want cricket to be a genuine global game? Nepal have been sending sides to the under 19 World Cup for years but have no way in. Is the way forward for the game really endless bloody Ashes series and the Champions League?


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2013)

We're bowling.


----------



## JTG (Jun 23, 2013)

Glos fell short by 24 runs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> At the risk of Canucking the thread, here's Jarrod Kimber on the Champions Trophy, the expansion (or not) of global cricket, the ICC and so forth. Worth a read:
> 
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/644299.html
> 
> He's right really isn't he? NZ, WI, SL, Pakistan and even SA are being ever more sidelined, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have Test status but are basically ignored and countries where there is real developing enthusiasm for cricket such as Ireland, PNG and Nepal are given no way into the feast. Do we actually want cricket to be a genuine global game? Nepal have been sending sides to the under 19 World Cup for years but have no way in. Is the way forward for the game really endless bloody Ashes series and the Champions League?


 
Yes, I think he is right. Some kind of pre-qualifying is needed - perhaps one round, holders and hosts qualify straight through, then you have six seeded teams against six others in a knock-out round. Commercial interests wouldn't allow even the chance of India, say, not being there, though. And yes, that does stink.

Doesn't matter now given that the tournament is being scrapped, but I totally agree with the article - there needs to be a way in to the tournament for other teams, even if they don't make it.

The unbalanced test schedule is also a worry. The premature promotion of Bangladesh has unbalanced things, I think. You get the feeling that everyone regrets it and wishes they didn't have to play them. The so-called Test world championship was supposed to mean that each team played each other home and away in series of at least two tests every five years, but it seems to be being ignored.

I'd go as far as to say that the Ashes should be played over a cycle of every five years, rather than every four - 2 1/2 years between each series seems right to me. Obviously this year's schedule is idiotic, but even when it's working properly, there's just 18 months between the England Ashes and the Australia Ashes, and that's too short a gap.


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2013)

Meanwhile, Pietersen's just taken 17 runs off a Rashid over.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jun 23, 2013)

and we're off!


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 23, 2013)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

India collapsing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 23, 2013)

Double wicket maiden from ravi - including dhoni!


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 23, 2013)

Bopara having a good game.It's a total england should manage ,but any thing can happen in a game of cricket


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 23, 2013)

Wonder if they'll fiddle with the batting order.


----------



## The Octagon (Jun 23, 2013)

Ck


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 23, 2013)

fucksticks


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 23, 2013)

Hmmm - broad payback?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

This just got interesting.


----------



## agricola (Jun 23, 2013)

That decision that Bell got was a disgrace.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

Cracker of a game....


----------



## Libertad (Jun 23, 2013)

Waited all day for this, well worth it. Mighty Six


----------



## Libertad (Jun 23, 2013)

Shit.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

What an insane over.....


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

This is nuts.  Come on Buttler and Bresnan!

19 from 12, batting powerplay.   2 good spinners to put it mildly.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

Englands to loose.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

Fucks sake


----------



## JimW (Jun 23, 2013)

Ooh dear.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

Come on Stuart Broad!


----------



## Idaho (Jun 23, 2013)

Heh. Entertaining.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

Loonies.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

Self destruct button pressed.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 23, 2013)

Madness


----------



## JimW (Jun 23, 2013)

It's all gone to shit, Ma


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

16 from 7...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

From coasting to collapsing.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

15 from an over.  Thrown away!!!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

Ooooooh.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

OOOOOOOOOoffffffff


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

Well done Broad, 11 from 4


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

10 from 3...


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

8 from 2...


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

6 from 1 ball!!!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

six of the last ball.................


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 23, 2013)

What a match.  T20 should always be played to 50 over rules, apparently it works.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 23, 2013)

We'll still win the Ashes, that's for sure...


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2013)

cuntybollocks


----------



## Libertad (Jun 23, 2013)

Santino said:


> cuntybollocks


 
My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 23, 2013)

It's no big deal. Was a pretty good competition overall and India were worthy winners.


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2013)

Idaho said:


> It's no big deal. Was a pretty good competition overall and India were worthy winners.


But, on the other hand, shitbags.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 23, 2013)

I feel no emotional connection to limited overs cricket. It's just a bit of fun.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 23, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I feel no emotional connection to limited overs cricket. It's just a bit of fun.


Indeed. Instantly forgettable, whatever the result.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 23, 2013)

Whereas if the Aussies win a test match it puts me in a bad mood for days.


----------



## gabi (Jun 24, 2013)

Bollocks, missed this. When's the next India-England test series then? This current Indian crop looks the business. The tide has turned.


----------



## gabi (Jun 24, 2013)

this is disappointing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/24/mickey-arthur-sacked-australia-ashes

i think this series was already going to be a whitewash but thats surely the final straw. just a waste of time.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 24, 2013)

What a shambles .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 24, 2013)

Hmmm. Much as I'd love to gloat, I think this might be a good move from Aus. Lehmann's might be a much better option. I always thought Arthur was a dick, and evidently so did half the Aus team. They'll respect Lehmann.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Much as I'd love to gloat, I think this might be a good move from Aus. Lehmann's might be a much better option. I always thought Arthur was a dick, and evidently so did half the Aus team. They'll respect Lehmann.


 
Yeah I agree, I think this could be a wise call.  Its quite clear that the squad relationships had totally broken down and not even close to fixable, the Warner thing was probably the last straw.  Get rid of the coach, start a new slate and try and get some enthusiasm into the squad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 24, 2013)

Lehmann was a bit of a naughty boy as a player, too, so will probably relate better with the spoilt brats in the team.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 24, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I feel no emotional connection to limited overs cricket. It's just a bit of fun.


agreed absolutely


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lehmann was a bit of a naughty boy as a player, too, so will probably relate better with the spoilt brats in the team.


 
He is also a zombie.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 24, 2013)

...and a foul-mouthed racist, IIRC


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

Off you fuck Nicky Compton. Why pick him at if you are just looking to drop him? Back to back centuries against a very good NZ attack in home conditions that others failed in etc etc Idiots.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

Compton was told go to back to county and score - so he immediately scored 166 against a full strength durham attack, possibly the best in the league. Topd scored in the match we won today on a very difficult pitch. Well done derek pringle, bob willis and the telegraph etc. What a way to insipire kids into test cricket rather then t20. _Only big county players who are young have a chance so you can all fuck off and try and make some quick money._


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 25, 2013)

I have a lot of sympathy for him. And yes, he did very well against a very good NZ attack in NZ, albeit on good wickets. Southee/Boult are underappreciated by many in England, I think - they're highly skillful bowlers and getting runs against them is impressive. But in England, in four innings, he was awful. He was dreadful at Lords - got bogged down then played a brainless shot to the spinner. And then his mind seemed wrong at Headingley. If you're asking me Compton or Bairstow, which is the choice effectively, I'm loathe to go against Bairstow, who looked very good against NZ. The only other one who could make way would be Bell, but he seems to still have too much credit in the bank - for how long, I don't know.

That said, I can see the case for giving Compton the first two Ashes tests to prove himself. And saying the same to Bell - you're in for the first two, but after that, well there are others waiting in the wings. It's not just Compton who might think himself a tad unlucky. I think Carberry is a bit unlucky not to have had more of a go. He's a brilliant fielder too, which counts for something in marginal calls - as is Bairstow. That's something Compton doesn't bring with him.

But it appears to have been decided already, and you're right, Compton couldn't have done much more after the last test. As a neutral, it is a good dilemma for England to have - a surfeit of in-form batsmen clamouring for places.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Part of the reason he got bogged down was the 6 month campaign by willis, pringle, the telegraph and other media to  shout compton out as soon as he didn't score a century. He was asked to go away an score runs. he had four innings and av 67 - one against durham. He has been treated disgracefully and i hope internally the team has been backing him, cook seems to like him.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Off you fuck Nicky Compton. Why pick him at if you are just looking to drop him? Back to back centuries against a very good NZ attack in home conditions that others failed in etc etc Idiots.


Yeah, I don't like the way he's been treated


----------



## kabbes (Jun 25, 2013)

This is all too common, though, isn't it?  Not just in cricket either.  Players get told that they have to do something to prove themselves, then they do it and don't get picked anyway.  It's terrible man management.  Don't give people false hope, ffs.  Just be honest with them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 25, 2013)

I hadn't quite thought of it like that. They said go away and prove yourself, but they were _hoping that he wouldn't_. Hmmm, yes, butchers you're right, it's very shoddy.


----------



## Santino (Jun 25, 2013)

As I've said before, the best way to get an England place is to have a name that lends itself to punning headlines.

England Swann to victory

Three wins on the Trott

Root digs deep

Cook-ing up a storm

Ding Dong!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Is anyone else having serious problems with the new ESPN cricinfo app on android?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Looking forward to Jamie Overton having a crack at Clarke at Taunton tmw or thurdsay.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Looking forward to Jamie Overton having a crack at Clarke at Taunton tmw or thurdsay.



Are you going? I went to the tour match at Canterbury last time they were here. Was a good day out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Are you going? I went to the tour match at Canterbury last time they were here. Was a good day out.


 
Shall be going down for either tmw or thursday i think. Wish they did the toss right now, as that it's clarke/overton (and kirby but not so much) that i want to see and need to plan.


----------



## souljacker (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is anyone else having serious problems with the new ESPN cricinfo app on android?


 

Seems a bit slower than the old version, but its working for me.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Shall be going down for either tmw or thursday i think. Wish they did the toss right now, as that it's clarke/overton (and kirby but not so much) that i want to see and need to plan.



Great stuff. Hope you get it worked out ok. 

Get some good sledging in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm ready to shout _'you're into the tail now lads'_ as soon as Clarke is gone


----------



## Dan U (Jun 25, 2013)

At Canterbury Brett Lee had a bowl towards the end of the day and took dogs abuse from a section of the fans when he was fielding near the boundary. 

To be fair he gave a fair bit back and took it well but the joys of close boundaries and no massed ranks of hi vis jackets


----------



## liquidlunch (Jun 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lehmann was a bit of a naughty boy as a player, too, so will probably relate better with the spoilt brats in the team.


 
he likes a drink,is that naughty?,the only brat is Clarke,pity he is so fucking good.Lehmann is a master at uniting players,he will mould this outfit to a force to be reckoned with.The rotation policy is dead and buried,Clarke has resigned from the team selection commitee and things are looking up.Do yourselves a favour and have a few quid on the Aussies to win the Ashes.Up yours,sincerly L.L. xx


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 25, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> the only brat is Clarke


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 25, 2013)

That photo must have been taken a long time ago, Warner seems to be celebrating scoring some runs.


Good to see that despite increasing evidence of aussie sporting mental fragility their supporters are still as confident as ever.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 25, 2013)

England v NZ 20/20 just starting.  What an odd time to stage these games.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Perfect time I think, time to get home, or leave work bit early or get some grub then down pub or club


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 25, 2013)

Yeah, sorry.  I meant more sandwiching these games between the Champions trophy and the ashes.  The series against NZ seems like a yesterday's news.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2013)

Bumble on about "Uptown" Boyd Rankin


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> he likes a drink,is that naughty?,


You're overlookiing some charming words he used to describe Sri Lankan players, aren't you?


> the only brat is Clarke,pity he is so fucking good


More relevantly, he's the only one you've got who'd make the current England side 



> Lehmann is a master at uniting players,he will mould this outfit to a force to be reckoned with.


provided he's a master of polishinhg turds




> The rotation policy is dead and buried,Clarke has resigned from the team selection commitee and things are looking up.Do yourselves a favour and have a few quid on the Aussies to win the Ashes.Up yours,sincerly L.L. xx


basically, blind optimism is what you're running on, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Bumble on about "Uptown" Boyd Rankin


 
Seems to have worked - looking well nippy


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2013)

Fucksake, getting smashed all over


----------



## Santino (Jun 25, 2013)

NZ's Anderson and Butler should get together with England's Anderson and Buttler and Brett Anderson and Bernard Butler from Suede and do... I dunno, SOMETHING.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2013)

Come on Ravi, it's all on you now


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

Anyone know how Compton's looking?


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

Compton left hanging on 49* at lunch.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2013)

Commentary has him looking very comfortable against the best bowling attack in the word. 49 not out off 80, SR around 60.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Commentary has him looking very comfortable against the best bowling attack in the word. 49 not out off 80, SR around 60.


 

Happy 30th Birthday Nick Compton - this'll mean he'll score a 100 today.

There's no doubting he can score heavily, it's a question of whether he can do that under pressure? He's known to be a little bit intense in a Ramprakash way about his batting?

Don't think it was between Root or him but between Bell or him once KP proved himself fit. He scored a 100 and a 50 in his 4 first class innings but looked terrible in the one dayers he played.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 26, 2013)

Between him and Bairstow, surely. With Root, it was only a question of where he bats. But Bell's had a poor year or so, and with so many others lining up behind him, surely he has to produce very soon.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 26, 2013)

Could be.. I think Bairstow is playing confidently and it would have been between players who seem less confident?

Poor Mickey Arthur. His mum died today. And the Aussies are wearing black armbands on the field down at Taunton


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 26, 2013)

I like Bairstow, and my patience is wearing thin with Bell. But I don't think Bell's fallen behind Bairstow yet in the pecking order.

Rotten week for Mickey A. Good article about him by Ed Smith on cricinfo. Yes, his results were good with SA, but he inherited a very good team with strong senior players. How much their success was anything to do with him is questionable.


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

180-1. If this is the best attack in the world, I'd hate to see etc etc.


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

Failed again, Compton.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2013)

Prediction: as young chris jones did well today compton doing well was down to a 'typical taunton wicket' and undercooked aussie bowlers.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 26, 2013)

Oh dear, its looks like the crims are really going around the park at Taunton, they're going to have a few runs to chase.  Remind me again does Australia have the best batting in the world as well or just the bowling?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 26, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Oh dear, its looks like the crims are really going around the park at Taunton, they're going to have a few runs to chase. Remind me again does Australia have the best batting in the world as well or just the bowling?


 
No Somerset do. How else would they be giving the world's best bowling attack a pasting?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 26, 2013)

Seems like they've got bored and started hitting sixes now.


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

Last eight wickets went for fuck all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2013)

I think we were playing the traditional warm-ups role and having a mad swing late in the day in order to make it interesting. Though, given our current propensity to collapse at a harsh stare from the bowler, it may be hard to tell.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 26, 2013)

Compton in for Worcs vs. Aus next week


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

Let the Ozzies have a good look at him then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 26, 2013)

That's quite bizarre. It's not like he's short of recent practice. Smacks of really very bad handling - they fucked up, they know they fucked up, so now they're fucking up again in an attempt to put right the first fuck-up.

I had no particular problem with dropping Compton before this. Now I hope he scores big and they have to pick him.

It's supposed to be the _Australians_ who fuck up. Haven't they been following this?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2013)

Well one smart decision by Lehmann, Watson back opening.


----------



## paulhackett (Jun 27, 2013)

For statistics fans it appears England have broken up their most successful opening partnership this century.. Cook/Compton 57.94, Strauss/Trescothick 52.4, Trescothick/Vaughan 48.8, Cook/Vaughan 44, Atherton/Trescothick 43.23, Cook/Strauss 40.97


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Its become quite clear that for some reason the selectors don't fancy Compton, whether its his age, his personality or they see a technical default I don't know but its clear his face doesn't fit.  People like Ian Bell have made a long England career out of dropping in and out of form like a yo yo.


----------



## gabi (Jun 27, 2013)

Compton scored a couple of centuries against NZ, the lowest ranked side in the world. A good effort against a decent attack but I understand why there would be question marks against him after averaging less than 10 in the return series.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

The questions marks were being _whispered_ about _as_ he was scoring those centuries and as he and cook lay down the platforms for the series win in India.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2013)

gabi said:


> Compton scored a couple of centuries against NZ, the lowest ranked side in the world. A good effort against a decent attack but I understand why there would be question marks against him after averaging less than 10 in the return series.


I guess the comparison is 2 metre peter. Also scored two centuries in that series, but looked awful in England. Thing is, for me, Fulton always looked like a limited player who was having his day in the sun. As butchers points out, Compton has a bit more to him than that, as he showed in India - he may not have scored big, but the comparison between his determination and the Aussie openers who followed England to India demonstrates his value to that series win.

Also, you're downplaying your own team's strengths here. NZ are struggling because of their woeful batting. Their opening bowlers are their two best players.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

Aus 4-1, Cowan gone 6th ball of the day.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 27, 2013)

damn, they recovered a bit after that....180-3. Good to see Watson missing a ton YET AGAIN!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

Meschede gets Clarke for 45. He wasn't exactly rattling along after lunch. 213-4


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 27, 2013)

Finally done playing New Zealand then. Now we can move on to playing Australia twice a week for a year instead.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 27, 2013)

T20 can be shortened to a 5 over match in iffy weather, really?  That's got to be farcical, 1 over per bowler, 1 over powerplays?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 27, 2013)

Why not just make it a single ball each and be done with it?


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2013)

I hope Tredwell remains the only player to have captained England for just two balls' worth of cricket. Jimmy Two-Balls they can call him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

Overton gets Haddin first ball of the day. 270-5


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2013)

Compton failing to protect his fellow top order batsmen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

Santino said:


> Compton failing to protect his fellow top order batsmen.


 
I don't know what's worse, that, or his moral cowardice in failing to have a bowl at the aussies in their first innings.

Anyone hear the anti-Compton Pringle on the commentary btw? It's almost like he was trying to do a parody a private school oxbridge type just getting fatter and fatter and ore pompous by the column.

(I like the idea of the anti-compton)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

trigs having some fun


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 1, 2013)

Thank goodness Hamish Rutherford is playing for Essex.


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2013)

Compton could open and Root could play as a specialist bowler.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2013)

Tymal Mills -  knock off overton.


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tymal Mills - knock off overton.


Did he steal the idea of bowling the ball quickly?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2013)

Accurately. As in getting batsmen out rather then taking their heads off.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 3, 2013)

I watched a bit of the Essex v England match yesterday afternoon on Sky, what a pub match that turned into.  I reckon Compton was well shot of this match.


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2013)

Re: Compton - anyone knows how hard it is for players from western counties to be taken seriously by establishment England types (selectors, coaches, journalists etc). Only the truly exceptional make it, otherwise you're better off playing for Surrey or Yorkshire.

'Minor Counties (West)' wasn't it Mr Gooch?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

Somerset have had one or two over the years. Botham and Tresco. Vic Marks had a twirl for England too. Not so many, but then not too many Northants players make it to England either. People like Swann and Panesar feel the need to move. Last Derby or Leicester player to play for England? Only Leicester player of note I can think of is Gower. Derby England players? Bob Taylor?

Gloucester? Hmmm. Jon Lewis wasn't quite good enough imo. Jack Russell. Sid Lawrence could have been a pretty big star if he hadn't gone crock. I remember Broad snr moving away from Gloucs saying he wanted to play for England, and thinking 'yeah, right', but then it worked. But how much of that was prejudice, and how much just the fact that playing in a better team makes you look better?

I know what you're saying, but it's not just western counties. It's also smaller midlands counties. And when was the last time a Kent player did well? Rob Key for a bit, but who before that? Kent are a bit of a forgotten county, I think.


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

Broad (Jr.) was at Leicestershire before moving to Notts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

Santino said:


> Broad was at Leicestershire before moving to Notts.


No he wasn't.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 3, 2013)

McGrath has gone for 'closer than people think.'

Also Lehmann seems to be rapidly turning into the greatest coach ever to have not actually done anything, from most of the newspaper reports.


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No he wasn't.


Stuart


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> McGrath has gone for 'closer than people think.'


9-0 (one rain-affected draw) instead of 10-0


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

Santino said:


> Stuart


Ok, Junior. Leicester are a team players move away from to get on. James Taylor's another to make that move.


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

But Stuart was playing for England while still at Leicestershire.

Glamorgan haven't had anyone since Simon Jones, have they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

I think the more professional ECB structure over the last couple of decades has helped players at the smaller teams wit international pretensions. The 70s and 80s still saw players for the big counties with their links to the right people having a big advantage. Vic Marks for example should have had far more tests than the handful he did get given who else he was competing with.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

Santino said:


> But Stuart was playing for England while still at Leicestershire.


Right. So that's most likely a money thing too. Better players move away to richer clubs. One of the bitternesses of Botham in the Crowe debacle was that he felt he'd shown loyalty to Somerset by not moving away to a bigger contract.


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2013)

Yeah other smaller counties suffer too. The perception (and reality imho) is that if you're a middling player who may or may not make it at the top, you're more likely to be given a break if you play for a Test ground county. Surrey are absolute gash but their players still get talked about more...

Jack Russell was treated abysmally and it hurt. Mark Alleyne was given limited chances in limited overs. The county cleaned up in limited overs cricket when England couldn't buy a win at it, but we were tarred with the 'team with no stars' brush and that was what we became. Never mind the individual performances that won us actual trophies against teams of supposedly better players.

It's better now but the attitude still shows occasionally. "Who are these bumpkins and why are they in the England team?"


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the more professional ECB structure over the last couple of decades has helped players at the smaller teams wit international pretensions. The 70s and 80s still saw players for the big counties with their links to the right people having a big advantage. Vic Marks for example should have had far more tests than the handful he did get given who else he was competing with.


is right


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

Agree with you about Alleyne. Should have made him one-day captain. Jack Russell was treated abysmally, but I put that down to an obsession with finding a batsman-wicketkeeper plus an unfair perception that Russell couldn't bat (he clearly could).


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree with you about Alleyne. Should have made him one-day captain. Jack Russell was treated abysmally, but I put that down to an obsession with finding a batsman-wicketkeeper plus an unfair perception that Russell couldn't bat (he clearly could).


And the stats showed that Stewart's performance as wicketkeeper-batsman was barely better than Russell's and he was a far worse keeper (so was everyone else).

But at least Stewart was all neat and tidy eh


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

JTG said:


> And the stats showed that Stewart's performance as wicketkeeper-batsman was barely better than Russell's and he was a far worse keeper (so was everyone else).
> 
> But at least Stewart was all neat and tidy eh


Yep. It was long a bugbear of mine. Stewart averaged 47 without the gloves, about 35 with them - it also mucked up his career.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

Shall we put together an alternative england team from the discarded or ignored?


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

1. Me


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

Actually, scratch that, I wouldn't open the batting.


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Shall we put together an alternative england team from the discarded or ignored?


Mike Smith's opening the bowling. Russell keeps. We win.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

A Gloucester trundlers' eleven? Smith and Lewis opening with Alleyne first change? Russell standing up to all three.


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2013)

*puts lbj on ignore*

Dropped after one Test when he wasn't given a fair go anyway. Atherton can fuck off for that btw.


----------



## gabi (Jul 3, 2013)

Sounds like a bit of a debacle this match. Did they seriously field a 15yo kid?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 3, 2013)

gabi said:


> Sounds like a bit of a debacle this match. Did they seriously field a 15yo kid?


 
About midway through yesterday the whole thing fell apart.  Tbh I reckon anyone who had their spikes with them could of probably had a bowl.   The only good part was the Sky team having the humiliation of having to try and talk about the mess which was unfolding.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

Been stripped of 1st class status. Bet Bresnan's miffed his century's been struck off the record.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

Imagine what certain people would be saying if Compton scored 41 and 26 (Root) or 23 and 28 (Bairstow) in that match.


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

Compton's faced two balls without scoring.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

What a bastard.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 3, 2013)

If Compton gets runs today he'll be in the 1st test.  Its worked out well for him that he's had two competitive (apart from Worcs depleted bowling attack) matches and the game in Essex has descended into farce.

That being said you get the feeling that Compton will only ever be one match away from getting dropped.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

It shouldn't be like that though. He might just get a good ball early on, or a rough decision. Should be on the basis of form over the season, surely.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

Well with their lack of support they've gone some way to obstructing him playing as well as he can - at least as far as they can anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

50 up for Compo as others fall around him.


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2013)

Gone for a pathetic 79.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

Is there some way we can expunge his first class record? Why was he even born?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 3, 2013)

No three figures. 

I was really willing him on today. Still, that's nearly 200 runs in three innings against the Australian attack. Stupidly, if he'd just scored those runs differently - 150 plus two lower scores - he'd get more headlines.

Runs under pressure, too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 4, 2013)

Listening to the radio last night, it appears Compton has zero chance of playing in the first test. They were discussing Bairstow's worrying lack of cricket but didn't even entertain the possibility that he wouldn't be playing next week.


----------



## JTG (Jul 4, 2013)

So, do we suppose that the Australians are glad not to be facing Compton in the first Test? On the evidence of his last three innings against them, the answer is surely 'yes'. Bad call.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2013)

As  David Hopps put in his excellent piece last night:



> He has seen off three new balls and worn down every Australian fast bowler in turn. He has responded to the pressure England have put him under with conviction. He could not have done much more. But England are determinedly looking elsewhere.


----------



## JTG (Jul 4, 2013)

I'm not worried about Root btw, he'll be fine. I'm worried about Bairstow


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 4, 2013)

I agree. I've changed my mind a bit on this. I think both Compton and Bell should have been selected for the first two tests but being on notice that they were not guaranteed anything beyond that. It's about time there was real pressure on the places of everyone in the team, imo. It worked for Aus when they were strong - the fact that the likes of Lehmann were queuing up behind them kept those in possession on their game.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 4, 2013)

JTG said:


> I'm not worried about Root btw, he'll be fine. I'm worried about Bairstow


tbh I'm not that worried about Bairstow. I do rate him. I just think this is a completely avoidable mess, and it wouldn't have hurt Bairstow to have gone back to 'first cab off the rank' for a little bit.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2013)

JTG said:


> I'm not worried about Root btw, he'll be fine. I'm worried about Bairstow


I worry that Root has been pushed too far, too soon. Hell of a baptism Aas Test opener


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 5, 2013)

Day 3 lower edrich stand returns may still be available (£40) also same price also restricted view on day 4. Day 4 lower grandstand at £80 on day 4 from ticket office..


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2013)

Couldn't even force a win against Worcestershire....


----------



## Balbi (Jul 6, 2013)

Anderson, Bairstow, Bell, Bresnan, Broad, Cook, Finn, Onions (!), Pietersen, Prior, Root, Swann, Trott.

That's the team.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2013)

Playing 13 is a bit underhand.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 6, 2013)

Bah. Meant squad. Little bit squiffy after some Lions based drinking "Drink every time they cut to BOD"


----------



## JTG (Jul 7, 2013)

Notts CCC do their bit to sabotage any vocal support for the England team. England players not happy:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/648287.html


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


>


 
point taken lol


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2013)

Merry Ashes Eve, everyone!


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2013)

Did anyone watch that thing about Kerry Packer on BBC4 yesterday?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

Has this ever happened in recent history. England being favourites by this much even Australians saying they expect England to be impossible to beat?


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Has this ever happened in recent history. England being favourites by this much even Australians saying they expect England to be impossible to beat?


1989?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2013)

I think it's going to be a lot closer than many expect. Australia have a good battery of pace bowlers, and although their batting looks deeply unimpressive, they have players who could come good.

Anyway, predictions: If the weather holds, 3-2 to England, with a nailbiting decider at the Oval.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2013)

Sacking Arthur was a good idea, given them a better chance. Root's only issue is that he likes to play the ball late, and a bit of movement with the new ball might give him problems. Would be better getting on the front foot a little more. Other than that his temperament is spot on and he I can't see the occasion getting to him. 

First session as usual will be massive. I'd bat first.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2013)

Prediction 3-1 England but closer games than we might have thought a couple of months ago.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

What's the profile of people who have bought tickets for a Test Match at say Trent Bridge?

Was £40 for a ticket for England-New Zealand for just one day?




> The cheapest ticket price at Headingley is £40


 
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-as-weather-fails-the-first-test-8631888.html


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

I hope they play onions rather than bresnan. He really deserves a proper chance.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 10, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I hope they play onions rather than bresnan. He really deserves a proper chance.


 
He's got no chance really has he? They're not going to move him ahead of Bresnan and Finn. Seems a bit pointless having him in the squad tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I hope they play onions rather than bresnan. He really deserves a proper chance.


Who's injured? Surely neither plays.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Meanwhile, Aus blood yet another rookie spinner. Ashton Agar. 1st Class debut six months ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2013)

We're batting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Fuck me, Smith is playing. And no Harris.


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2013)

The goal for England has to be a day of not losing many wickets. Would settle for 220-3.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

... or 400 all out. The day in 2005 when Trescothick took it to them was a pivotal day.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

Finn on a flat slow pitch? Hmm.. He tends to lose the plot on these.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Finn on a flat slow pitch? Hmm.. He tends to lose the plot on these.


He gets bashed around, but he takes wickets. s/r of 47 at the moment.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Finn on a flat slow pitch? Hmm.. He tends to lose the plot on these.


 

It won't be flat by the 4th innings if not well before then, it's supposed to crack, maybe break up and have variable bounce so Finn is meant to have an advantage over Onions and Bresnan? I think that's the argument anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

He's just a better bowler than Bresnan, imo. Whatever the conditions. And he's faster than Broad, which should allow Broad not to feel the need to 'enforce'.

As I've said before, Onions is faster than most give him credit for - he can touch 90 mph on a good day.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

Onions is fast, accurate and can swing it. He's a proven wicket taker. Poor batsman though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Shame it's a slow pitch. Pacy wickets are better for everyone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Bah!


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 10, 2013)

Bah! indeed.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 10, 2013)

hello Pommy bastards haha,im baaack.Good start,need Sids to knock a few over,cmon Aussie


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> hello Pommy bastards haha,im baaack.Good start,need Sids to knock a few over,cmon Aussie


 
well thats one at least


----------



## Pingu (Jul 10, 2013)

C'mon england (I can get a free steak at my local pub if England win a test)


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2013)

Boycott comes in and immediately slams the Aussie bowling  

at 94 for 2 England are probably edging it me. Aussie bowlers have been expensive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

98/2 at lunch.

Will settle for that, shame to lose Root, though.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 10, 2013)

pieterson gone yessssssssssssssssssss


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Boycott comes in and immediately slams the Aussie bowling
> 
> at 94 for 2 England are probably edging it me. Aussie bowlers have been expensive.



They're goin for about 3.5 aren't they? Not too expensive. Aussies just edging it. Looking like an intriguing match.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Hmmm. Careless to lose three wickets to such wayward bowling.


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2013)

The early bit I saw, cook and root were lucky to survive as long as they did.. Some cracking deliveries from starc and er, the other one


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 10, 2013)

.Good start,need Sids to knock a few over,cmon Aussie,cough cough


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 10, 2013)

oh,didnt i just say that


----------



## Dan U (Jul 10, 2013)

fucks sake


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Pish. Alright rearguard fightback. Led by Bell... hmmm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

gabi said:


> The early bit I saw, cook and root were lucky to survive as long as they did.. Some cracking deliveries from starc and er, the other one


Maybe so, but the wickets have come to bad shots from the looks of it. You survive the odd play and miss to the new ball, then cash in.


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2013)

Siddle seems to have been to the crossroads. brilliant bowling.


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2013)

Siddle has one really good day per series. Enjoy it.


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2013)

Gracious as always


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2013)

Bairstow looks a comedy choice though. Possum in the spotlights.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

Not convinced about Bairstow at test level. 

I think 230-240 will be a defendable score. If there is movement tomorrow we will skittle them cheap.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

Anything under 300 is poor. Far too many have got into double figures only to get out to poor shots.


----------



## Cerberus (Jul 10, 2013)

This ^^^

I think the decision to bat smacks somewhat of hubris given the leaden skies and the cloudless forecast for the next two days. Clarke double ton on its way?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2013)

I didn't mind the decision to bat too much. They got through the new ball with just one down. They've just batted badly.


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2013)

Pretty standard start for an Ashes series.


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2013)

Hopefully this ends quickly and Anderson et al can get a couple before the close of play.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

We always bat badly.

Fortunately Australia have an even shitter batting line up.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 10, 2013)

Oh dear.


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2013)

what a daft review


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

Oh yes. Come on, four more tonight. We want to be batting by tomorrow lunch.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

Yes!

Who's next? Hughes? (snigger)


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2013)

Business as usual then.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 10, 2013)

'Your not singing anymore'


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 10, 2013)

Into the tail.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 10, 2013)

Boom!


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 10, 2013)

Timber!


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2013)

Not a huge cricket fan, but just saw the score.  Blimey!


----------



## MrSki (Jul 10, 2013)

Cerberus said:


> This ^^^
> 
> I think the decision to bat smacks somewhat of hubris given the leaden skies and the cloudless forecast for the next two days. Clarke double ton on its way?


 
Clarke double ton?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 10, 2013)

anyone got a stream?


----------



## Cerberus (Jul 10, 2013)

MrSki said:


> Clarke double ton?


 

Yeah fair one - always prefer a bit of negative thinking. makes it all the sweeter when you see the bails fly.....


----------



## MrSki (Jul 10, 2013)

Could do with another one before stumps.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2013)

Like that?


----------



## Idaho (Jul 10, 2013)

Hughes... Honestly.


----------



## Athos (Jul 10, 2013)

What's the score now?


----------



## MrSki (Jul 10, 2013)

Does anyone know why Aussies say wickets first '4 for 53' while in the UK it has traditionally been'53 for 4'?

Is it something to do with the way water goes down the plughole?


----------



## MrSki (Jul 10, 2013)

53 for 4


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 10, 2013)

Eh? Speed gun/Hawkeye/Snickometer I can get my head around, but wtf is the revs-ometer for the spinners?! It can't be that accurate?!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 10, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> Eh? Speed gun/Hawkeye/Snickometer I can get my head around, but wtf is the revs-ometer for the spinners?! It can't be that accurate?!


swann=2300 rpm apparently 

that's 38 per second


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2013)

Any news on Broad's condition?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 10, 2013)

Santino said:


> Any news on Broad's condition?


 
stroppy but it's not life-threatening


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2013)

I was expecting lbj to be the first with that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 10, 2013)

What was that from Prior?


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 10, 2013)

Santino said:


> Any news on Broad's condition?


A fracture or strain could keep him out but it's probably bruising,lets hope he can bowl at least in the second innings


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 10, 2013)

Santino said:


> I was expecting lbj to be the first with that.


 
ouch


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2013)

Poor batting from both sides, the pitch has done a little but it's nowhere near as difficult as the 14 wickets suggest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Poor batting from both sides, the pitch has done a little but it's nowhere near as difficult as the 14 wickets suggest.


Spot on. A poor, nervous performance with the bat from two teams that looked decidedly average, to be brutally honest. If it had been Bangladeshis getting out to those shots, we'd be saying how substandard they were. Hoping for better today from England when they bat, but I still fancy Aus to get close to England's first innings score.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

Smith gone

big wicket


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

Needed that wicket, aussie's were starting to look comfortable.



littlebabyjesus said:


> . Hoping for better today from England when they bat, but I still fancy Aus to get close to England's first innings score.


I think they'll get a lead, the better batting weather, Broad not fully fit.

Or maybe not


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

Swann, Swann will tear you apart, again..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Wow, what a ball from Swann as i walk in the front door!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

I may have to go out and come back in again in a while.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Two quick wickets


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I may have to go out and come back in again in a while.


Come on butchers do your bit.

Also does anybody think that Harmison is any good on TMS? The bloke's a fucking moron (and was always massively overrated when he was playing) why in the world are they asking him anything. Ed Smith on the other hand I rather like.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I may have to go out and come back in again in a while.


It wasn't you, it was me and my boss turning off TMS for a few minutes in the office.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Jimmy again! Good take as well.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Nice work butchers


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

Did you go out again BA?


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

I had TMS turned down!


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

keep it up butchers


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Did you go out again BA?


 
I didn't, but i do have to go get an onion later, but i'm holding that in reserve.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

And almost another!


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

Smashing em. I'd be pissed off if I had 5th day tickets.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> Smashing em. I'd be pissed off if I had 4th day tickets.


 

fixed


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

Five for Anderson, a 70+ lead here would be very very nice for England.

Be interesting to see if the Aussie bowlers can get any reverse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

...and another for jimmy


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Marvellous  Out for a duck too. 

Should have this wrapped up by midday


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Batting before lunch then. Review...


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

Just got in. Has broad bowled yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Worst review ever


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

About time, not had a wicket for ages


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

Will it be yet another case of England scoring more in the second innings than the first?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Just got in. Has broad bowled yet?


 
Nope


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Adverts are relentless  if I wasn't streaming it I would be more pissed off about this.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

Three bowlers is enough.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

Anderson's average has dropped below 30.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

as much as i enjoy TMS, I wish i'd nicked my mums spare sky log in before my brother did


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

We need to be ruthless now. Too many times we've conceded unnecessary runs from the last few wickets.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Santino said:


> Three bowlers is enough.


 
Compton for Broad?


----------



## cantsin (Jul 11, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Poor batting from both sides, the pitch has done a little but it's nowhere near as difficult as the 14 wickets suggest.


 

dont want to be a miserable sod, but it's hard to see the Aussies at 124-9 in reply on the 2nd morning at the start of an Ashes summer, knowing this is basically it, the best they have - too many memories of their many giants/geniuses/monsters of the past to fully enjoy this shower getting the drawn out drubbing they look like they're going to get.

Though did get 10-11 on England for the win, which was giving it away.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Adverts are relentless  if I wasn't streaming it I would be more pissed off about this.


 
Where are you streaming it from?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> Where are you streaming it from?



Vipbox


----------



## kabbes (Jul 11, 2013)

Amazing morning.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Right, i'm off to get that onion.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2013)

kin ell, how have they let him off that clear stumping? Well out.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Where are you streaming it from?


 

if you know anyone who is a Sky subscriber, ask them if they have a spare device log in. you can register two devices  (ipad, laptop, desktop etc) to a sky account using a log in they give the subscriber and then watch online.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Right, i'm off to get that onion.



Something needs to be done to finish this off.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

I've turned TMS back on and will turn it off in a minute.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

Never mind Agar being the new spinner, he can be their new batsmen


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Never mind Agar being the new spinner, he can be their new batsmen


He certainly aware of his responsibility for protecting hughes.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

This has happened a number of times now...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

come on finish this kid off


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Idaho said:
			
		

> We need to be ruthless now. Too many times we've conceded unnecessary runs from the last few wickets.



Thanks for this ^


----------



## kabbes (Jul 11, 2013)

1st innings deficit?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 1st innings deficit?


 

ffs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Well I thought Aus would get close... Highest partnership in the whole match now.

How often has a number 11 top-scored, I wonder.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Watching with wifey means lots of questions like 

'Why is he doing that?' 
'Why are they shouting?'
'Does the bowler try to hit the bat?'

:d


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

Get Root on for a bowl.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

I think they need trott to throw some dobbers and get a wicket.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2013)

Frustrating as it may be, well done that man.

Now, fuck off, would you?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2013)

50 for Agar  (who was blatantly out stumped 50 minutes ago, only to have the 3rd umpire bottle the decision)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Looks like Australia have found an opener.


Well played young man. The only ever batsman to score a 50 on debut batting 11. Fair dinkum.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well I thought Aus would get close... Highest partnership in the whole match now.
> 
> How often has a number 11 top-scored, I wonder.


 
I wonder if a number 11 has even been the first player on either team to score a 50 in both of their first innings?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> I wonder if a number 11 has even been the first player on either team to score a 50 in both of their first innings?


Smith got 50 here, but Agar's clearly heading for top-scorer now. tbf, commentators were saying before the match that he can bat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

_Agar's ashes._


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

And there's the lead. 

Safe to say that Agar won't get a second chance at breaking no.11 records.

England losing it now. Only one slip


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

Ffs... We keep doing this. Right. We need 350 at least in our second innings.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

He might as well open their next innings.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2013)

110 from 109 balls.

Quelle le fuqe?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Usually like Vaughan, but i had to laugh when he was telling punters yesterday that the game wouldnt go beyond Friday.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 11, 2013)

What a game


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

This Agar kid is annoyingly good


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't just mean this game, I mean test cricket in general as well. Nothing quite like it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I don't just mean this game, I mean test cricket in general as well. Nothing quite like it.


Baseball's quite like it.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 11, 2013)

Baseball is fun to go to, but it is *nothing* like test cricket.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2013)

I dunno; bats, balls, silly hats and not much going on for extended periods.

It is fun to go to though, the crowd is never forgotten and there's a lot to do around the sport itself. Probably because the sport itself is quite boring.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> I dunno; bats, balls, silly hats and not much going on for extended periods.
> 
> It is fun to go to though, the crowd is never forgotten and there's a lot to do around the sport itself. Probably because the sport itself is quite boring.


 
How much is the beer?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 11, 2013)

That's your argument? Thought you might have more to it than that.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How much is the beer?


No idea, went as a kid. Got a free hat though! 


kabbes said:


> That's your argument? Thought you might have more to it than that.


My heart isn't in it


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

I went to a Yankee's game. Found the sport really dull especially since there isn't much hitting of the baseball going on. The crowd were much like test cricket though, always something going off.


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

Don't normally. But lol.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

I got into baseball in Cuba. Like cricket, there's far more to it than first meets the eye to the uninitiated. It's more subtle than 2020 cricket.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

I got into wang chung in china.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2013)

how is this lad a number 11?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Was it Tino Best with the highest test score batting 11?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Was it Tino Best with the highest test score batting 11?


Yep. 95. Against England. Nobody's ever got 100.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

I think that's about to change


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

It's a record that will most likely stand for all time should he do it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

I think we should get one of them out.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Another record gone - highest 11th wicket partnership of all time.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think we should get one of them out.


 would be a great move by England

just looked at BBC sport - 88 in 87 balls for a number fucking eleven  massive partnership for the last wicket , is that a record yet?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm trying to imagine Monty scoring a ton


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

This, of course, covers up long-term senior players failings. Can only be good for us.


----------



## JimW (Jul 11, 2013)

TMS lot going on about how he's got a couple of brothers quite handy too


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This, of course, covers up long-term senior players failings. Can only be good for us.


 if Agar top scores in this test - we're going to have to replace the entire England team with gung ho nerveless teenage players

don't panic Mr Mannering


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I'm trying to imagine Monty scoring a ton


 
Cardiff was a century, in moral terms at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Hah! They should have listened to me earlier.


----------



## JimW (Jul 11, 2013)

Fucking hell, I wish he'd done it, then gone.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2013)

unlucky


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Fantastic innings. Brilliant. Lad's got some bottle.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Shame, i really wanted him to do that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

You're just not _allowed_ a century at 11. 

Fuck me, game on now.


----------



## JimW (Jul 11, 2013)

Anderson's going to top the new record by just the one in this innings.If the rest of the match is anything to go by.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

Never thought I'd see the day. Phil Hughes making a 50 in an Ashes Test!


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2013)

Santino said:


> Never thought I'd see the day. Phil Hughes making a 50 in an Ashes Test!


 
Indeed, though he was probably just biding his time before getting Agar run out on 99.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

As suspected, once the ball stopped swinging it's a good track albeit a little slow. No reason why England cant post a big score and still leave Australia a tough task to survive batting last.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Give him a bowl.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 11, 2013)

As somebody on the BBC ticker just pointed out, 2 runs is what separated us and the aussies at Edgbaston in 2005.

So sod his plucky nearly-hundred


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Would Compton be chasing that ball?  Would he fuck. We ground them over there. Now we have to win at a pace do we?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Oh dear!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Trott reckons he hit it. Have they blundered with Hot Spot again? It shows evidence of edges, but absence of evidence from Hot Spot doesn't prove absence of edge.


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

Jesus. That was plumb lbj. And go to specsavers if you think he hit that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> Jesus. That was plumb lbj. And go to specsavers if you think he hit that.


I'm not watching, just going on cricinfo. And I've seen howlers with Hot Spot in the past.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2013)

11-2?! Are you fucking _serious_?!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:
			
		

> 11-2?! Are you fucking serious?!





Fair play to Agar there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

It was only plumb if he didn't get an edge. There was a huge deviation after it passed the bat. There wasn't room for the ball to swing in such a way from the bowling. Cricinfo say some of the snickometers weren't working, but the head on one was.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Snicko may clear this up. Edges have been caught by Snicko but missed by Hot Spot in the past. If there was visual evidence of suspicious deviation, benefit should have gone with batsman as it was Australia reviewing. Umpire's call. Sounds like they've fucked up again to me.


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

Botham. Nuts. Claims to have seen a deflection. Nuts. Oh. And a fascist cunt, but that's slightly beside the point. Nuts.


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

Snicko saw nothing


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> Botham. Nuts. Claims to have seen a deflection. Nuts. Oh. And a fascist cunt, but that's slightly beside the point. Nuts.


 
Are you watching the game? Did you see the ball?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

I'll repeat, if there was any evidence at all that there might have been an edge, it should have remained Umpire's Call. Benefit of doubt should go to batsmen - hence Agar scored 98 and Aus are in the lead.

(But I haven't seen it yet. Just going on internet.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll repeat, if there was any evidence at all that there might have been an edge, it should have remained Umpire's Call. Benefit of doubt should go to batsmen - hence Agar scored 98 and Aus are in the lead.


 
There was deviation. If the umpire gave not out it was because a) not hitting stumps b) he edged it. Why was it overturned?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Wouldn't be the first third umpire not to understand what Hot Spot is and what its limitations are.


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you watching the game? Did you see the ball?



Yep.. And it's just been confirmed by snicko on sky there was no bat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> Yep.. And it's just been confirmed by snicko on sky there was no bat.


 
And you saw no deviation?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

This from cricinfo



> So we didn't have side-on Hot Spot for Trott because it was prepared to show the catch behind for the Root dismissal and you can't play and record Hot Spot at the same time...


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

It's called swing butchers. yes it deviated. In the air. The saffa was out. End of.


----------



## gabi (Jul 11, 2013)

Lets see how the next saffa does anyway...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> It's called swing butchers. yes it deviated. In the air. The saffa was out. End of.


 
It deviated quite violently in the gap between trott's bat and his pad? In about 5cm? And 0.001 of second? That's some swing isn't it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> It's called swing butchers. yes it deviated. In the air. The saffa was out. End of.


Ah, the reason Michael Holding doesn't like Hawkeye - the predictive bit. If it had started swinging that violently just before hitting him, who knows how much more it would have swung on its way to the stumps? If it really was violent swing, that's reasonable doubt, no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It deviated quite violently in the gap between trott's bat and his pad? In about 5cm? That's some swing isn't it.


And if it did swing that much in such a short space of time, there has to be doubt that it would have hit the stumps.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

and this first day and a half is why i love this game like no other,the highs and lows,incredible bowling and batting,nerves on edge for both cricketers and tragics,what a match,alls well down here,hope the English fans enjoy this as much as we do,ASHES,cant beat it


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2013)

Badgers said:
			
		

> Watching with wifey means lots of questions like
> 
> 'Why is he doing that?'
> 'Why are they shouting?'
> ...



Latest update... 

Wifey 'so he got 98 points?' 
Me 'runs not points' 
Wifey 'they are the same thing' 
Me 'no'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Latest update...
> 
> Wifey 'so he got 98 points?'
> Me 'runs not points'
> ...


She's still watching.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> and this first day and a half is why i love this game like no other,the highs and lows,incredible bowling and batting,nerves on edge for both cricketers and tragics,what a match,alls well down here,hope the English fans enjoy this as much as we do,ASHES,cant beat it


 
What time over there mate?


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

12.48am


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

doze off a few times between here and 5.30am,day off tomorrow


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Good lad, hope you didn't miss your boy earlier - astonishing stuff. More to come one way  or the other tonight i think.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

i've had banter with my brother in law and father in law in Melbourne today via text and facebook. i am thankful they are both asleep right now.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

oh yeah,astounding stuff,didnt miss much,only getting beer or pissing haha


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

ring them Dan U,im sure they would appreciate it now


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> ring them Dan U,im sure they would appreciate it now


 

 i reckon they might


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

hope Clarke give the ball to Agars


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

where are you liquidlunch? Adelaide?


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

just east,in the Barossa Valley,about 50 miles from Adelaide


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Dan U said:


> where are you liquidlunch? Adelaide?


The funny time zone gives it away?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Fuck him up kp


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

i dare say that you will be in the same boat as i am now next ashes series,awake all night,watching every ball,i reckon its fantastic


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

KP is Agars bunny


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> i dare say that you will be in the same boat as i am now next ashes series,awake all night,watching every ball,i reckon its fantastic


Yep. Your turn first. Better that than being stuck at work, though!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 11, 2013)

Fair play to the aussies so far but I have to say England have been on the wrong end of a couple of very odd 3rd umpire decisions.  Firstly Agar was clearly stumped early in his innings but was given the benefit of doubt when there wasn't any, then Trott was given no benefit of doubt when there was doubt.  Given the on-field umpire had said not out that decision should have remained because there did look like a deflection.

I'm a fan of the extra technology but you do need someone competent to use it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

How disciplined is kp going to be?


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

Siddle will be on a good length from the outset,look out now


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

however when KP is on song he is very hard to beat


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The funny time zone gives it away?


 

yes, basically. I had to google it, i had no idea places in the world split the difference.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> i dare say that you will be in the same boat as i am now next ashes series,awake all night,watching every ball,i reckon its fantastic


 

i'm gonna be over for the 1st Test, but not at the cricket sadly but can at least watch in real time.

Outside chance i might get to a tour match in Sydney or Hobart as I want to be in both those places at some point, got to swing it with the Mrs though.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How disciplined is kp going to be?


 

very, hopefully.

wonder how Compton is feeling today.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

Dan U said:


> i'm gonna be over for the 1st Test, but not at the cricket sadly but can at least watch in real time.
> 
> Outside chance i might get to a tour match in Sydney or Hobart as I want to be in both those places at some point, got to swing it with the Mrs though.


 
Ply her with scents and myhrr,plus a few bottles of good aussie wine


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 11, 2013)

i can see a yorker coming


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

Lovely boring cricket


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Agar's day, brilliant stuff from him - love it when people do that. Let's make it a one off eh?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 11, 2013)

Taken from elsewhere....

Agarophobia - Fear of batting 11's.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 11, 2013)

Well poised.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Just a bit of clarity.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2013)

Just realised that my mental picture of Steven Smith was actually Audrey Roberts' long lost son from Canada.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> just east,in the Barossa Valley,about 50 miles from Adelaide


 

Have a bottle of red on me


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Cook and Pietersen.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

Brilliant stuff from Agar, shame he couldn't get his 100.

As for DRS, a joke. I fucking hate it with a passion. Just go back to the umpire's call and leave it at that - warts and all.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> As for DRS, a joke. I fucking hate it with a passion. Just go back to the umpire's call and leave it at that - warts and all.


 
Absolutely!

Was just catching up with the days play after work, & Gower was talking about the Trott incident. Was it to be concluded that due to technology, Trott shouldn't have gone? The gesture from the umpire when the third gave him out was of bewilderment.
Surely this shit will only serve to undermine the umpire who's on the field of play? Either you have an umpire or you don't?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

It's incompetence from the third umpire. Not for the first time. I'm afraid Mr Erasmus is now on the list alongside Daryl Harper as an idiot who should not be trusted with machinery of any kind.

I'm all in favour of drs in principle, and it's served to highlight that some umpires are really quite a lot better than others (Dar is one of the best). But they haven't got it right yet. My guess is that Erasmus simply didn't properly understand that absence of evidence of a nick from HotSpot is not evidence that there wasn't a nick, merely evidence that any nick was too small to cause a temperature rise in the bat that could be picked up by hotspot. It's provably imperfect. Going the other way, Joe Root says he heard a nick but hotspot showed nothing. If he'd reviewed, he'd have been given not out.

I think I would favour as a minimum a change that formalises hotspot's limitations: no decision to be overruled on the basis of absence of a hot spot - for it only to be used for overrules where there is a hot spot.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2013)

What was the guff about the "hot spot" protocol/software not being up to scratch? Sounds like a massive clusterfuck to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What was the guff about the "hot spot" protocol/software not being up to scratch? Sounds like a massive clusterfuck to me.


Well the side-on one wasn't turned on for Trott's delivery. But that's not the only problem with it. It's not very sensitive and misses things.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2013)

So why the fucking fuck is it being used by a third umpire in a test match? 

Fuck the tech shite off. Bring back Dickie Bird!


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So why the fucking fuck is it being used by a third umpire in a test match?
> 
> Fuck the tech shite off. Bring back Dickie Bird!


 
No need for Dickie Bird, Aleem Dar got the decision correct.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

Fuck, great stuff from Agar and he while he's not a number 11 it does underline how badly the batsmen on both teams batted.

The problem with the TV stuff, is that too often there's a conflict between the TV company showing the best views and umpiring duties. Agnew is right here if the ICC want's this technology it should fund it properly


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2013)

agricola said:


> No need for Dickie Bird, Aleem Dar got the decision correct.


 

Meant to say 'the age' of Dickie, before this tech shite came to being. Been a long day at the crease!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2013)

If DRS can't make the correct decision without human involvement then what's the point? The whole idea of it was to remove human error,  yet it's shown that it's not doing what is said on the tin. So now people say "oh it's the 3rd umpires fault". Might as well have not bothered with an increased chain of error and stuck to the original decision. 

That's before you even get involved in whether its predictions regarding ball swing and height are accurate, which they are most probably not in an unknown number of instances. Even its designer said that it was not designed as a fool proof method, and but only as a TV visual aid. 

I'd rather have an umpire get it wrong than an embarrassment of fudges.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 11, 2013)

As controversy is on the agenda did anyone else see Rashid Latif suggesting a team (not Pakistan) fixed a match in the Champions Trophy?


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> If DRS can't make the correct decision without human involvement then what's the point? The whole idea of it was to remove human error, yet it's shown that it's not doing what is said on the tin. So now people say "oh it's the 3rd umpires fault". Might as well have not bothered with an increased chain of error and stuck to the original decision.
> 
> That's before you even get involved in whether its predictions regarding ball swing and height are accurate, which they are most probably not in an unknown number of instances. Even its designer said that it was not designed as a fool proof method, and but only as a TV visual aid.
> 
> I'd rather have an umpire get it wrong than an embarrassment of fudges.


 
Its not DRS's fault, its the fault of the third umpire for doing something with it that he shouldnt have.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2013)

Maybe some computer geek should be in charge of DRS, & not a silver surfer.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2013)

TBH I've never understood why the 3rd umpire is somebody who's training is as a on field umpire. Some overlap of course but two jobs require a different set of skills.

I mean who was it in the Windies that didn't realise they could turn the sound up that time?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Daryl Harper. He's on the list already.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2013)

Just seen the highlight of the Trott dismissal. Aleem Dar showing dissent towards the third umpire following the decision. Never seen that before. He was clearly convinced there was an edge.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 12, 2013)

ICC Chief Exec Dave Richardson and the inventor of Hotspot have both apologised for what happened #trottsfault


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

agricola said:


> Its not DRS's fault, its the fault of the third umpire for doing something with it that he shouldnt have.


 
If DRS wasn't there the 3rd umpire wouldn't be using it. If DRS cant categorically say that a player is out or not then a HUMAN has to make a decision. Human's make mistakes - and you're right back where you were before DRS came in!

I make no apologies for approaching this as a traditionalist. I dont care about right or wrong results or decisions - i care about the spirit of the game and this for me has ruined it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> ICC Chief Exec Dave Richardson and the inventor of Hotspot have both apologised for what happened #trottsfault


 
What a joke. All that money and technology and they cant use a replay because it's cued up for tv. TV and technology rules cricket. What a sad mess.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

The "doubtful" Agar stumping, btw.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Crucial bit's in shadow. If that's the best image, not out's the right decision as you can't see exactly where his boot ends.

I've no problem with the Agar decision. The Trott decision, otoh, was a total disgrace.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Well that's still debatable. Firstly the shadow hides where the bottom part of his shoe is, although i could accept the argument that it's still not over the line. However what the frame doesn't clearly show is that the stump bail has clearly left the wicket stump. Is one end still touching in that shot?

Looks like there's probably some doubt. And a miss is as good as a mile. Im sure the real umpire would have given him not out and the benefit of the doubt.

edit: bail changed for stump and wicket for stump. You'd have thought after 25 years of playing id know their names by now


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Although it should be noted the umpire does have some nice high def images to go off, it just shows you're still struggling to get the right decision.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Well that's still debatable. Firstly the shadow hides where the bottom part of his shoe is, although i could accept the argument that it's still not over the line. However what the frame doesn't clearly show is that the stump has clearly left the wicket. Is one end still touching in that shot?
> 
> Looks like there's probably some doubt. And a miss is as good as a mile. Im sure the real umpire would have given him not out and the benefit of the doubt.


 
The stump doesn't have to leave the ground - the bails have to be off. That's why that frame has been picked.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

It's the right frame. And it's inconclusive, imo. This is a little different from the Trott decision as it wasn't drs. It was the umpire himself who called for it. Benefit of doubt still goes with batsman, though, as per laws of the game. 'Right desicion, lucky boy' would be my take on that one.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2013)

Looking forward to this


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The stump doesn't have to leave the ground - the bails have to be off. That's why that frame has been picked.


 
Sorry, typo. Corrected:

"However what the frame doesn't clearly show is that the bail has clearly left the stump. Is one end still touching in that shot?"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd say it's fully up in the air.

(You took me back to playing the park and my mate Darren refusing to be given out as the stump was still in the ground)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd say it's fully up in the air.
> 
> (You took me back to playing the park and my mate Darren refusing to be given out as the stump was still in the ground)


 
hah! It might be up in the air, but i couldn't say for sure. Umpire supposedly has excellent high def pictures that we dont. Meh.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

Ooh, The Duckworth Lewis Method are on at lunch


----------



## trampie (Jul 12, 2013)

The English didn't want home umpires, then they didn't want neutral umpires, now they want English only umpires for England games home and away.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

Just ignore him folks. Threads too good to ruin on him.


----------



## trampie (Jul 12, 2013)

The truth hurts does it.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2013)

Is KP gonna get a big score? He seems to be settling in nicely


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2013)

The Botham breakfast gag amused me


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

KP!!


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> KP!!


 

this. first opportunity to check the score today and that happened.

might not bother again for a few hours. i am a reverse onion.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Is KP gonna get a big score? He seems to be settling in nicely


No. JUST NO.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 12, 2013)

The boy wonder is getting wickets now.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2013)

In real trouble here.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Crucial bit's in shadow. If that's the best image, not out's the right decision as you can't see exactly where his boot ends.
> 
> I've no problem with the Agar decision. The Trott decision, otoh, was a total disgrace.


eh? It's his big toe touching the line, unless he's got some freak growth on the bottom of his foot there's nothing touching in that shadow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Aaaah. Big trouble. We're still 200 runs short.


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2013)

I think Cook was my fault, just tuned in


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

ALASTAIR!!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 12, 2013)

Needs a big innings from Bell here. I'd like to have a bit more confidence that he'll do it tbh.

He should get into the 20s anyway.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Needs a big innings from Bell here. I'd like to have a bit more confidence that he'll do it tbh.
> 
> He should get into the 20s anyway.


Yeah, I'm not too confident. My impression is that this is the kind of situation he tends to fail in ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2013)

Get into 20s and then get out.

If there wasn't already two youngsters in the team I think questions would start to be asked about his place.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

what do we reckon is a defendable lead? It genuinely isn't that scary a pitch, and it's only day 3...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Anything under 250, I put Aus as favourites. But there's no reason they couldn't score 300-350 on this, imo. England nowhere near a good position.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2013)

It's so hard to say, while it has something the pitch isn't deadly but the pressure, the fragility of the batsmen mean that I think 300 would be a tough chase, less than 250, I agree with lbj, they should get it.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anything under 250, I put Aus as favourites. But there's no reason they couldn't score 300-350 on this, imo. England nowhere near a good position.


My feeling too. Only wildcard is how fragile the Australian batting (freak innings aside) looks.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2013)

Badgers said:
			
		

> Is KP gonna get a big score? He seems to be settling in nicely


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Badgers said:


>




I'm blaming you for that one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Dodgy session, but hanging in there. I'd put Australia a full session ahead now - England need a wicketless afternoon to catch up.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

Ah no, did I miss DLM?!   Apparently Blofeld was rapping?!


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2013)

He was talking while someone played  music.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

I'll take that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2013)

284 the highest fourth innings winning total at Trent Bridge.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

Lot more batting to do to get close to that.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Get into 20s and then get out.
> 
> If there wasn't already two youngsters in the team I think questions would start to be asked about his place.


 
Averaging just 21 in his last 36 innings.

The previous 11 innings before that he averaged nearly 84 with 671 runs including 4 centuries a double hundred and a fifty.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> 284 the highest fourth innings winning total at Trent Bridge.


Out of a relatively tiny sample.

Of all the records in cricket, these are among the most breakable.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> 284 the highest fourth innings winning total at Trent Bridge.


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2013)

DRS!


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2013)

Technology's a marvellous thing


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Time is an issue too with so many wickets falling early. At the current rate they'd be 200 in front by the close of play today.  =


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2013)

Don't suppose there's any circuitry can save us from that one tho.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2013)

Fuck, Bairstow gone and the new ball due.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Bairstow gone.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2013)

Iceberg, right ahead!

Think that might be a bit of a late call...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Id not fancy Swanny on this wicket with an oldish ball. New ball might be a blessing in some ways.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

A quickish 50 from Prior would be nice here. I hope his plays hie own game and doesn't get caught up in prodding about too much.

Some singles would be nice, keep the scoreboard moving and keep the pressure on the Aussie bowlers. Come on boys look lively


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


>


That needs more context. For instance, what does the list of successfully defended totals look like. Nothing bigger than 284 has been defended unsuccessfully, but for instance, how many times has 200 been defended?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> A quickish 50 from Prior would be nice here. I hope his plays hie own game and doesn't get caught up in prodding about too much.


Quickish not too important here, the longer they're out there, the more damaged the pitch gets ... (although rhythm/momentum is still important)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Can't help feeling that they got stuck against Watson. Two runs from nine overs. Ok, they didn't get out, but it didn't help.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Quickish not too important here, the longer they're out there, the more damaged the pitch gets ... (although rhythm/momentum is still important)


 
yeah but i worry Prior is better getting some runs and putting pressure on. I hope he proves me wrong, but it's not his game to fuddle about for hours on end and end up with not very many.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

Agar is going to score the winning run as well at this rate


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> yeah but i worry Prior is better getting some runs and putting pressure on. I hope he proves me wrong, but it's not his game to fuddle about for hours on end and end up with not very many.


It's ok. It's what he's doing. 

Bairstow was the problem. He got stuck then got out.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Good to see, although i spent the last 10 mins faffing with formatting on here and missing the action


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Highest 4th innings totals to earn a draw:

England: 290-4 vs Australia (1972)
Australia: 202-6 vs. England (1993)
SA: 166-1 vs. England (1947)
England 156-2 vs. West Indies  (1976)


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

If Agar's two brothers are as good as him, we could have a Chappell situation in a few years -

hopefully there isn't a Trevor Agar


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's ok. It's what he's doing.
> 
> Bairstow was the problem. He got stuck then got out.


 
Yeah, not his natural game either. 

Just keep rotating the strike, the singles will add up and the boundaries take care of themselves. I hope


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howzat!_Kerry_Packer's_War

btw, talking of the Chappells - has anyone seen this? Howzat! Kerry Packer's War - it is on BBC4 atm - quite enjoying it - despite having to reply on the characters calling eachother by their names to work out who they are - most of the time I am only sure on Tony Greig and Greg Chappell - Packer is easy to work out.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Balls.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Balls.


 what are you worried about , we lead by 153, we had them at 117-9 last innings



oh....


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

marty21 said:


> what are you worried about , we lead by 153, we had them at 117-9 last innings
> 
> 
> 
> oh....


 
heh. as the saying goes - bowlers win games, not batsmen. But that said i'd still like a few more than 153 for them to defend.


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2013)

6,000 test runs for Bell apparently.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> heh. as the saying goes - bowlers win games, not batsmen. But that said i'd still like a few more than 153 for them to defend.


 250+ would be good but if Broad goes, can't see us having a lead of over 200


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

marty21 said:


> 250+ would be good but if Broad goes, can't see us having a lead of over 200


 
Yeah a partnership of 30-40 would be most useful here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

Another even session. England need a good final session now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

marty21 said:


> 250+ would be good but if Broad goes, can't see us having a lead of over 200


Don't forget Swanny.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't forget Swanny.


 How could I forget


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Good stuff. 35 in 11 overs.


----------



## Athos (Jul 12, 2013)

Isn't test cricket bloody great?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> Isn't test cricket bloody great?


 
I've been loving this game and I've scarcely seen any of it! Just following it on Cricinfo at work.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2013)

Life would be all the poorer without the existence of TMS.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 12, 2013)

Broad really racking up the leg byes.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2013)

Stuart you lucky, lucky bastard  That hung up there so long.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 12, 2013)

England could be in danger of batting too long and letting the draw result become an option. If these 2 survive the evening and England aren't out by lunch tomorrow... All 3 results are on

As it is... Either team winning is only option at the mo.. Cook has form for batting too long so I predict a nervous Sunday evening session with England seeking wickets


----------



## D'wards (Jul 12, 2013)

Can anyone point me in the direction of a stream? firstrowsports does not seem to have it, though they have a bleedin handball section


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

What is broad playing at? That was out.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2013)

No appeals left. Broad now becomes the Aussie's #1 target.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

call me old fashioned, but Broad should've walked.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 12, 2013)

Yeah.. I agree


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2013)

Trott yesterday, Broad today. And yes, he should have walked.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 12, 2013)

Full of adds but

http://www.viplivesports.eu/cricket...shes-first-test-day-3-live-stream-online.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Revenge of Dar!

"You wont question me again! MUW HAHAAAAAAAHHH!"


----------



## D'wards (Jul 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Full of adds but
> 
> http://www.viplivesports.eu/cricket...shes-first-test-day-3-live-stream-online.html


 
Good man thanks


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2013)

Missed about 4 hours play. Looking a lot better now


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Ironic that the very sort of decision drs was brought in for couldn't be used because the Aussies had used all their appeals up. Shouldn't have wasted that one before lunch on Bell when it was clearly miles down leg.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2013)

Mumbles274 said:


> England could be in danger of batting too long and letting the draw result become an option. If these 2 survive the evening and England aren't out by lunch tomorrow... All 3 results are on
> 
> As it is... Either team winning is only option at the mo.. Cook has form for batting too long so I predict a nervous Sunday evening session with England seeking wickets


 
(a) I think there's only a small chance of England reaching lunch tomorrow (b) at the rate England are scoring they'd only have a lead of about 350-370 (ie. if Australia bat 5 sessions, they'll surely have knocked the runs off)


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 12, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> (a) I think there's only a small chance of England reaching lunch tomorrow (b) at the rate England are scoring they'd only have a lead of about 350-370 (ie. if Australia bat 5 sessions, they'll surely have knocked the runs off)


I agree with both points... Wouldn't surprise me for cook to try to bat aus out the game though and actually bat then into beig able to get a draw


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 12, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Have a bottle of red on me


 
have been known to imbibe sufficient quantity on occasions such as this


----------



## kabbes (Jul 12, 2013)

In your faces, Bell haters.  In.  Your.  Faces.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 12, 2013)

And given the Aus' run of luck with decisions, I have no problem with Broad staying where he is on this occasion.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

Other thing was that hot spot didn't pick up on the edge from Broad. If it can't pick up on that then....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

And there I was praising Aleem Dar. What an awful decision that was. I can only think he thought it had come off the keeper's gloves.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 12, 2013)

If it wasn't on hot spot then it wouldn't be given out on review anyway!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> If it wasn't on hot spot then it wouldn't be given out on review anyway!



It could and probably would as it was such a bad one. That can happen.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And there I was praising Aleem Dar. What an awful decision that was. I can only think he thought it had come off the keeper's gloves.



Yeah, most likely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> In your faces, Bell haters. In. Your. Faces.


Credit where it's due. An innings of character and substance.


----------



## Cloaks66 (Jul 12, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Trott yesterday, Broad today. And yes, he should have walked.


 
The Aussie's wouldn't have walked....why should he?


----------



## Cloaks66 (Jul 12, 2013)

Just realised I have signed in on old account


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

Cloaks66 said:


> The Aussie's wouldn't have walked....why should he?


 
Because he was out.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 12, 2013)

Pffft


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

He should have walked. I'm embarrassed for him, frankly. And he's made Dar look like a total fool.

I don't feel sorry for the Australians. Gilchrist aside, they've long not been walkers, so tough shit on them. Don't waste reviews in future. But that doesn't mean he was right not to walk. He wasn't.

I do feel sorry for Aleem Dar. He's a good umpire normally and a decent man.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2013)

Yeah, he should have walked. Terrible game for the umpires.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 12, 2013)

I thought he should have walked...then I watched Boycott and Michael Slater say he shouldn't. The Aussie batsman wouldn't have walked....why should the English side do it.
Seemed a fair point to me.


----------



## trampie (Jul 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What is broad playing at? That was out.


 
Same old England.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2013)

trampie said:


> Same old England.


And Wales, remember. It's England and Wales. 

I blame the Welsh, personally. It's our fault.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 13, 2013)

fuck walking,your only out when the ump says your out,thats what makes a game,the human aspect


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2013)

I didn't see this. But I also disagree with the notion of walking.. This is top level sport. Huge stakes. Why the hell should you not take every advantage you can, including refereeing incompetency


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2013)

I believe the modern way is not to walk and then apologise on twitter later. Cf. Michael Clarke, Adelaide, 2010.


----------



## Athos (Jul 13, 2013)

gabi said:
			
		

> I didn't see this. But I also disagree with the notion of walking.. This is top level sport. Huge stakes. Why the hell should you not take every advantage you can, including refereeing incompetency



The key word there being 'sport.'


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2013)

I'd have been embarrassed not to have been given out and would have walked, but he's entitled not to. There's always been walkers and non walkers. Listening to some experts you'd have thought Broad was the first person never to do so.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> fuck walking,your only out when the ump says your out,thats what makes a game,the human aspect


 

I'd say what makes a 'game' (and not a business) is the gentlemenly spirit that dictates things like walking and admitting you've crocked one.

He should have walked IMO - If only because he's cost us a generation of our savoured holier-than-thou sporting moral position and removed any ablity to whinge in the future. Not to mention the fact we'll win this one by a canter.

The ire should really be with the umpire though. It was a shocker.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> I'd say what makes a 'game' (and not a business) is the gentlemenly spirit that dictates things like walking and admitting you've crocked one.
> 
> He should have walked IMO - If only because he's cost us a generation of our savoured holier-than-thou sporting moral position and removed any ablity to whinge in the future. Not to mention the fact we'll win this one by a canter.
> 
> The ire should really be with the umpire though. It was a shocker.


 
That spirit is long gone tbh. Is anyone actually surprised he didn't walk? I wouldn't have been expecting anyone to be walking in this series and there'll be plenty of other players not doing, Broad is just getting the flack because this one was particularly obvious, which doesn't make it any worse in my eyes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

It's not quite like Haddin knocking the bails off with his gloves against NZ and then appealing for the batsman being bowled - and then not backing down after the umpire gave the batsman out. Then again, those saying that it is down to the umpire for being wrong _could_ make the same case there couldn't they? Will they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That spirit is long gone tbh. Is anyone actually surprised he didn't walk? I wouldn't have been expecting anyone to be walking in this series and there'll be plenty of other players not doing, Broad is just getting the flack because this one was particularly obvious, which doesn't make it any worse in my eyes.


 
Well of course it being obvious makes it worse as he didn't even have the excuse of saying he genuinely didn't think he'd nicked it - plenty of borderline cases where you can make a strong argument for not walking - but not here.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That spirit is long gone tbh. Is anyone actually surprised he didn't walk? I wouldn't have been expecting anyone to be walking in this series and there'll be plenty of other players not doing, Broad is just getting the flack because this one was particularly obvious, which doesn't make it any worse in my eyes.



WG Grace never walked. Spirit of cricket never existed when it comes to this issue.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well of course it being obvious makes it worse as he didn't even have the excuse of saying he genuinely didn't think he'd nicked it - plenty of borderline cases where you can make a strong argument for not walking - but not here.


 

That's just using plausible deniability to cover doing exactly the same thing IMO. Easier to get away with without getting slated but the same principle. Maybe for the lightest feather they genuinely don't know but anything more than that they're just chancing it the same as Broad was.

The broader  point is that the culture now is that players don't walk. Maybe they should but they won't and I don't see Broad has done anything anyone else on the pitch wouldn't have. If not walking is such a bad thing the question is why that is, not that Broad has a terrible person (although he does seem like a bit of a dick tbh).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> WG Grace never walked. Spirit of cricket never existed when it comes to this issue.


 
So because a noted cheat and rule-breaker cheated it means that most people do - no, it means that most people _should_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That's just using plausible deniability to cover doing exactly the same thing IMO. Easier to get away with without getting slated but the same principle. Maybe for the lightest feather they genuinely don't know but anything more than that they're just chancing it the same as Broad was.
> 
> The broader oops point is that the culture now is that players don't walk. Maybe they should but they won't and I don't see Broad has done anything anyone else on the pitch wouldn't have. If not walking is such a bad thing the question is why that is, not that Broad has a terrible person (although he does seem like a bit of a dick tbh).


 
Not if you don't know if you've edged it or not.

Some players walk - some players don't. Some will always walk and i will always think they are right to do so regardless of what others do or think.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not if you don't know if you've edged it or not.
> 
> Some players walk - some players don't. Some will always walk and i will always think they are right to do so regardless of what others do or think.


 

Fair enough. Personally I would have applauded him if he had done. I wouldn't expect him to though and I'm not going to condemn him for not doing.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2013)

I think the only time a batsman isn't sure if he's hit it is when bat hits pad and maybe the ball at the same time, or hits bottom of bat on the ground. I've never personally not been sure whether I hit a clear edge or not.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So because a noted cheat and rule-breaker cheated it means that most people do - no, it means that most people _should_?



No, I'm just saying some people wear rose tinted glasses when it comes to players walking and sportsmanship in cricket. Hence the WG Grace example. 

 It's not cheating though. No rule in cricket says he has to walk.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

That just means that you can cheat without breaking the rules of the game. It doesn't mean that it's not cheating.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2013)

No, the umpire is the final judge of an appeal. He gave Broad not out so Broad stood his ground. No rule broken, no cheating going on. If players want to walk then that's their choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> No, the umpire is the final judge of an appeal. He gave Broad not out so Broad stood his ground. No rule broken, no cheating going on. If players want to walk then that's their choice.


 
Of course it's up the player to walk or not. That doesn't mean that it's not cheating - even if it hasn't broken the rules of the game. Cheating is not tied _only_ to rules of the game - for instance rules can be thought up with gaps that allow cheating due to the rule makers not thinking chaps would be prepared to be so beastly - this is one example of that. So it's no use saying to me that it's _within the rules_ again.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 13, 2013)

It's Stuart Broad, of course he's not going to walk, Slytherins don't walk.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

His dad used to refuse to walk _when given out. _That and help prop up the cultural legitimacy of apartheid anyway. Poor kid never stood a chance.


----------



## Athos (Jul 13, 2013)

I remember walking, and telling the umpire that the ball hadn't carried to me at slip, on separate occasions,  in crucial matches. Both times it cost us the match; both times teammates were pissed off. But I don't regret it. What would it have meant to have 'won' like that,  anyway? I love the sport, not winning at all costs.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 13, 2013)

One of the things about the issue of walking is there are times when you're out so blatantly that you walk off, pieterson often just walks off if he gets caught behind... he doesn't stand there looking at the umpire he, tucks his bat under his arm and walks off. Lots of players do that... 

See here for example, 20 secs in. 


So with the broad non dismissal, broad looks at the umpire, and is given not out... so he 'stands'... having seen the video now and not just going on audio I've changed my mind and think he was right not to walk. The umpire got it wrong. The moment for broad to walk has already passed, he can't then walk when he has seen the umpires decision

anyway, here's to a great day's play... broad for 100!!!


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jul 13, 2013)

I would expected an English man to have walked but not an Australian. In terms of the later then being annoyed with them for unsporting behaviour is like being cross with a dog for shitting in the street just because you use a loo. But an English man should be held to higher standards and really should have been bought up to know better.


----------



## Athos (Jul 13, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:
			
		

> I would expected an English man to have walked but not an Australian. In terms of the later then being annoyed with them for unsporting behaviour is like being cross with a dog for shitting in the street just because you use a loo. But an English man should be held to higher standards and really should have been bought up to know better.



That's bollocks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2013)

Ed Smith makes a good point. Players get banned for claiming catches when they know it's bounced. This is no different really. It's rather odd how players not walking when they know they are out isn't treated in the same way as claiming a catch when you know you've not caught it.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 13, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> I would expected an English man to have walked but not an Australian. In terms of the later then being annoyed with them for unsporting behaviour is like being cross with a dog for shitting in the street just because you use a loo. But an English man should be held to higher standards and really should have been bought up to know better.


 
are you kidding me,out and out rubbish,im sure in the time of W.C.Grace,honour was paramount but all that shit flew out the window when betting on matches arrived,people of all sides rarely walk these days


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2013)

WG Grace was a massive cheat!

There have always been walkers. Brian Lara comes to mind. But there have always been those who don't walk. And WG Grace was notorious for his win at all costs attitude. You can bet your arse that Grace would not have walked.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 13, 2013)

Broad gets the world's spawniest 50, Bell the hardest earned 100.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ed Smith makes a good point. Players get banned for claiming catches when they know it's bounced. This is no different really. It's rather odd how players not walking when they know they are out isn't treated in the same way as claiming a catch when you know you've not caught it.


 
I don't think it is the same. A player who claims a catch when they knows it has bounced is making a positive claim which they know is false. I don't think that by not walking the player is claiming they didn't nick it, they are not making a statement either way. Players shouldn't lie or try to mislead the umpires but they are under no obligation to help them.

And with Broad there seems to be the implication that because he had a thick edge he is somehow more obliged to walk then if he knew he made a thin one. Batsman routinely don't walk when slightly nick the ball even though they know they must have done it.  This is particularly true when the umpire has to decide whether it has hit the glove which is often difficult for the umpire but easy for the batsman . But for some reason an obvious edge seems to be held to a different standard.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2013)

Oh dear. Aus are all over the place this morning.

Well done Ian Bell. This is exactly the kind of innings whose absence some of us have criticised. May it be the first of many more crucial Ashes knocks.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2013)

Not watching today


----------



## Combustible (Jul 13, 2013)

Mumbles274 said:


> So with the broad non dismissal, broad looks at the umpire, and is given not out... so he 'stands'... having seen the video now and not just going on audio I've changed my mind and think he was right not to walk. The umpire got it wrong. The moment for broad to walk has already passed, he can't then walk when he has seen the umpires decision


 
I don't think that's true. In the famous Gilchrist walking incident in the WC he walks straight after the umpire has clearly given him not out


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2013)

Anyone got a stream? Crictime's down.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Anyone got a stream? Crictime's down.



Vipbox was fine yesterday


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 13, 2013)

Combustible said:


> I don't think that's true. In the famous Gilchrist walking incident in the WC he walks straight after the umpire has clearly given him not out




Fair point, but gilchrist wouldn't have been wrong to stand his ground


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Vipbox was fine yesterday


Ta. It's working.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyone got a stream? Crictime's down.


 

Nutjob.eu is pretty reliable.


ETA: Er, if you need another one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Combustible said:


> I don't think it is the same. A player who claims a catch when they knows it has bounced is making a positive claim which they know is false. I don't think that by not walking the player is claiming they didn't nick it, they are not making a statement either way. Players shouldn't lie or try to mislead the umpires but they are under no obligation to help them.
> 
> And with Broad there seems to be the implication that because he had a thick edge he is somehow more obliged to walk then if he knew he made a thin one. Batsman routinely don't walk when slightly nick the ball even though they know they must have done it. This is particularly true when the umpire has to decide whether it has hit the glove which is often difficult for the umpire but easy for the batsman . But for some reason an obvious edge seems to be held to a different standard.


 

No one has made that argument though. No one. If you know that you have edged it - thick or thin - then you should walk. That's the only argument that's been made about type of edge.


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

He just needed another chance to show he can do the right thing.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 13, 2013)

these days i cant see any player walking,especially in an Ashes match.And there is no rule that says you must.His runs(Broad)might well win the first test for England or Agars knock after he was out on 6 then piled on 92 might win it for us.swings and roundabouts


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

Right then Jimmy, set about Agar's record.
ETA: he was threatening it for literally seconds there.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 13, 2013)

150 overs to chase it down,i reckon we can do that


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

Nicely poised - big ask if that list of other winning chases is right but certainly feasible. England must be favourites though.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 13, 2013)

What is the rule on not appealing? If you know the ball has touched the ground as you catch it or if you know you stepped over the boundary when you caught it. Isn't the right thing to quieten down your teammates appeals and say it's not out.

Likewise if you feel your bat connect and it's out you should say I'm out.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2013)

butchersapron go and get an onion ffs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What is the rule on not appealing? If you know the ball has touched the ground as you catch it or if you know you stepped over the boundary when you caught it. Isn't the right thing to quieten down your teammates appeals and say it's not out.
> 
> Likewise if you feel your bat connect and it's out you should say I'm out.


Dinesh Ramdin was banned for a game after claiming a catch where it hadn't carried. Certainly in club cricket, it is the fielder's responsibility to signal 4/6 if he knows it's gone to the boundary.

But then again, teams appeal for catches/lbws all the time when they know full-well that it isn't out. The situation is rather inconsistent.

At all levels of the game, there have always been arguments about these things. Some players are scrupulously honest. Others are not. At all levels.


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

Onion soup for butchers tonight.


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

You need to find a closer greengrocer's mind.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2013)

First wicket and a wasted appeal


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

Iiinteresting. Pendulum swings back our way with that (I hope).


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2013)

Feather edge. Cheerio Mike.


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

Crucial. Proper test stuff this.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2013)

And Swanny strikes as well


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

Dam's burst!


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2013)

You've had your magic moment Agar, so do the decent thing and chuck it away now.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 13, 2013)

Six wickets down and everything looks different now.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2013)

Belatedly on the Broad thing, I could _almost_ excuse him because of how blatant it was. Could imagine a scenario where the batsman takes a couple of steps away from the wicket after so obviously hitting it, doesn't see anything from the umpire, looks from side to side in confusion... and the moment has gone.  Of course he didn't do any of that and was never going to walk.

Suppose the lack of walking nowadays at least highlights the behaviour of those like Gilchrist.   Bit like a forward in football putting the ball out when they see the keepers down injured - nice to see some simple decency, all the more because it's unexpected.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 13, 2013)

Related to very little at all, but yesterday evening I walked past Andrew Flintoff outside Euston station.

True story.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

On the Broad thing it's interesting to see the England team putting out a very different message to what they said when India (wrongly IMO) recalled their appeal against Bell's run out a couple of years ago.  

There they were talking about the 'spirit of cricket' should overcome the rules.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it's up the player to walk or not. That doesn't mean that it's not cheating - even if it hasn't broken the rules of the game. Cheating is not tied _only_ to rules of the game - for instance rules can be thought up with gaps that allow cheating due to the rule makers not thinking chaps would be prepared to be so beastly - this is one example of that. So it's no use saying to me that it's _within the rules_ again.



You're failing to grasp that the umpire is the decision maker, not the batsman. You're applying the word 'cheating' to a process that doesn't involve the batsman turning himself into an umpire. The umpires role is to adjudicate a decision. Is the bowler cheating if he appeals for an lbw that he thinks the batsman inside edged? Of course not. He's asking the umpire his opinion and appealing. It's the umpires job to make the decision. It was ever thus, until recently when undermining the crucial role of an umpire seems to be the ongoing issue. 

Clarke and company berating the umpire for not giving him out were the real issue. That was questioning his decision, the ultimate no-no in a game of cricket.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> You're failing to grasp that the umpire is the decision maker, not the batsman. You're applying the word 'cheating' to a process that doesn't involve the batsman turning himself into an umpire. The umpires role is to adjudicate a decision. Is the bowler cheating if he appeals for an lbw that he knows the batsman inside edged? Of course not. He's asking the umpire his opinion and appealing. It's the umpires job to make the decision. It was ever thus, until recently when undermining the crucial role of an umpire seems to be the ongoing issue.
> 
> Clarke and company berating the umpire for not giving him out were the real issue. That was questioning his decision, the ultimate no-no in a game of cricket.


And you are choosing to ignore that broad also made a decision here, not just the umpire. And he decided not to walk despite knowing that he had edged the ball and it was then caught. And no amount of sand thrown or bringing in other issues can dislodge that fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

I suppose you think the real issue with the hand of God was shilton's dangerous play?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Combustible said:


> I don't think it is the same. A player who claims a catch when they knows it has bounced is making a positive claim which they know is false. I don't think that by not walking the player is claiming they didn't nick it, they are not making a statement either way. Players shouldn't lie or try to mislead the umpires but they are under no obligation to help them.
> 
> And with Broad there seems to be the implication that because he had a thick edge he is somehow more obliged to walk then if he knew he made a thin one. Batsman routinely don't walk when slightly nick the ball even though they know they must have done it.  This is particularly true when the umpire has to decide whether it has hit the glove which is often difficult for the umpire but easy for the batsman . But for some reason an obvious edge seems to be held to a different standard.



Spot on.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> You're failing to grasp that the umpire is the decision maker, not the batsman. You're applying the word 'cheating' to a process that doesn't involve the batsman turning himself into an umpire. The umpires role is to adjudicate a decision. Is the bowler cheating if he appeals for an lbw that he knows the batsman inside edged? Of course not. He's asking the umpire his opinion and appealing. It's the umpires job to make the decision. It was ever thus, until recently when undermining the crucial role of an umpire seems to be the ongoing issue.
> 
> Clarke and company berating the umpire for not giving him out were the real issue. That was questioning his decision, the ultimate no-no in a game of cricket.


 

Which makes it a question of what you can get away with, rather than what happened.  How's that bolstering the role of the umpire, or bettering the game of cricket?  If you know you're out, then you walk.  Anything less is cheating - clearly outside the spirit, if not the black letter of the law.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And you are choosing to ignore that broad also made a decision here, not just the umpire. And he decided not to walk despite knowing that he had edged the ball and it was then caught. And no amount of sand thrown or bringing in other issues can dislodge that fact.



What part of "it's the umpires decision" don't you grasp? If they wanted to decide this was cheating, they'd have simply altered the rules to say that a batsman being caught or run out should walk if they knew this to be true.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

The fact that it's the umpire's decision doesn't mean it isn't cheating, otherwise any sportsman, in any sport, wouldn't be cheating if the official didn't see it 

If you hit the ball with the bat and are then caught, you're out. Those are the rules. If you choose to ignore those rules, the umpire missing the fact you're ignoring those rules doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring, and thus breaking, the rules.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> Which makes it a question of what you can get away with, rather than what happened.  How's that bolstering the role of the umpire, or bettering the game of cricket?  If you know you're out, then you walk.  Anything less is cheating - clearly outside the spirit, if not the black letter of the law.



Why have an umpire then?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> Which makes it a question of what you can get away with, rather than what happened. How's that bolstering the role of the umpire, or bettering the game of cricket? If you know you're out, then you walk. Anything less is cheating - clearly outside the spirit, if not the black letter of the law.


 

The Spirit of Cricket is (an MCC not an ICC policy) about 'playing hard and playing fair', put forward precisely because whilst players were playing hard they weren't playing fair. When the MCC World Cricket Committee meets tomorrow it is in an advisory capacity (unlike the ICC).

Why was there a need for a Spirit of Cricket? A county side in the 90s were known for making a clicking sound in the slips when the ball passed the bat and then appealing. That's what the Spirit of Cricket is supposed to cover and that is an example of the sort of cheating that isn't acceptable.

Players have never played fair, which is why the laws were written in the first place. The MCC version of the laws goes back to 1788. The idea of 'it's not cricket' was introduced by the Rev. Pyecroft in 1851. In other words far, far before Grace.

Friendly Village Sunday cricket is when you walk (unless you're an uber competitive twat and want to ruin the match). League cricket, some may walk, but most wait for the finger. If it's your team mate umpiring he takes the abuse rather than you. When I had an appeal turned down for a catch at 3rd slip and the batsman winked at me I was the one who got a letter from the League for my response.

Professional cricket where your livelihood (think 'You're messing with my career' Ramprakash) depends on it, and potentially your team mates/colleagues/ support staff, you don't walk when there is an appeal where you're waiting for the umpire..

I'm not a fan of Broad (too much white line fever when he plays) but he was absolutely correct to stand his ground and wait for the umpire


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Why have an umpire then?


 
For foot faults on no balls, lbw decisions, run outs etc.  Plenty of decisions where the players themselves aren't best placed to judge.  But, where the players can tell better than the umpire, they should walk.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> For foot faults on no balls, lbw decisions, run outs etc.  Plenty of decisions where the players themselves aren't best placed to judge.  But, where the players can tell better than the umpire, they should walk.



TV replays can do all that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> What part of "it's the umpires decision" don't you grasp? If they wanted to decide this was cheating, they'd have simply altered the rules to say that a batsman being caught or run out should walk if they knew this to be true.


 
What part of it have you decided that i haven't grasped? What part of Broad having a choice regardless of the umpires decision are you having particular difficulty with? Are you denying that he did have such a choice - and that all batsmen do? That only the umpires decision counts? Maybe you better tell that to all the other batsmen who have used the same choice that broad possessed and walked when they thought they were out.

You've passed beyond even recognising that this choice exists - that broad had a technical right to stand his ground and not to walk - to arguing that not walking was the _only_ right thing to do, that this is what all batsmen _must_ do in similar circumstances - so you're slurring all those who have made the choice to walk in the past and limiting the possibility of them even being able to do so in the future.

I'll tell you know as well to save you the time and effort - if you go down the semantic route that cheating occurs exclusively and expressly when formal rules are broken you are onto a loser.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Professional cricket where your livelihood (think 'You're messing with my career' Ramprakash) depends on it, and potentially your team mates/colleagues/ support staff, you don't walk when there is an appeal where you're waiting for the umpire..


 
Hmmm... how far do you take the idea that it's ok to deceive if it's to make money?  Everyone has a different view, but you won't convince me that it's right not to walk when you know you've edged a ball, I'm afraid.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> TV replays can do all that.


 
Maybe so.  But what's your point?  There are some decisions that need a third party; there are others (such as edges and catches that don't carry) where the players ought to police themselves.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> Hmmm... how far do you take the idea that it's ok to deceive if it's to make money? Everyone has a different view, but you won't convince me that it's right not to walk when you know you've edged a ball, I'm afraid.


 
I thought the county side clicking fingers was poor and clearly cheating but if an instance isn't clear cut (ie you need snicko, hotspot etc.) then there 

is an element of doubt. And if there's an element of doubt, you go with the batsman (I know I know.. )..

Has anyone mentioned Finn reviewing his nick and being given out? Or the appeal for the bat pad off Smith yesterday that ballooned up? It's engrained and dare I say it, natural to appeal or as a batter to want to stay in (running out your partner anyone Boycs) or for fielders to warm the umpire up with appealing and also build up pressure on the batter. And sometimes that means a batter is given out when he isn't.. so a batter needs to stand his ground.

I don't want to convince anyone (quoted you simply because you were the most recent post!), just putting an angle across from my experience/ conversations.

The Broad issue would only suggest that umpires need more assistance, there should be more reviews (although if Australia hadn't used theirs up on top order batsmen..) but I can't see a way of effectively policing appeals. Players don't always know for sure which is why reviews are referred to tv and get turned down?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What part of it have you decided that i haven't grasped? What part of Broad having a choice regardless of the umpires decision are you having particular difficulty with? Are you denying that he did have such a choice - and that all batsmen do? That only the umpires decision counts? Maybe you better tell that to all the other batsmen who have used the same choice that broad possessed and walked when they thought they were out.
> 
> You've passed beyond even recognising that this choice exists - that broad had a technical right to stand his ground and not to walk - to arguing that not walking was the _only_ right thing to do, that this is what all batsmen _must_ do in similar circumstances - so you're slurring all those who have made the choice to walk in the past and limiting the possibility of them even being able to do so in the future.
> 
> I'll tell you know as well to save you the time and effort - if you go down the semantic route that cheating occurs exclusively and expressly when formal rules are broken you are onto a loser.


 

Come off it BA.. You're sounding like Gubby Allen and the grand old men of the days of Gentlemen vs Players!

If you think the first banning of professionals for 'underperforming' (cricket clubs started so Gentlemen could bet) goes back at least 200 years before Sreesanth et al, you'll know there is no tradition of players walking. Gentlemen may have done at stages throughout the history of the game but then their livelihood didn't depend on the game. A professional has always had to do what he was told or lose income.. so of course Broad was going to stand there.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

Half of me wants some quick wickets and a early win for England. The other half wants it to go right to the wire so we get a few hours of Sunday cricket


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Come off it BA.. You're sounding like Gubby Allen and the grand old men of the days of Gentlemen vs Players!
> 
> If you think the first banning of professionals for 'underperforming' (cricket clubs started so Gentlemen could bet) goes back at least 200 years before Sreesanth et al, you'll know there is no tradition of players walking. Gentlemen may have done at stages throughout the history of the game but then their livelihood didn't depend on the game. A professional has always had to do what he was told or lose income.. so of course Broad was going to stand there.


 
What are you on about? Where have i suggested that this never-existing spirit of cricket is alive and well today? I've said clearly and repeatedly that if you know that you are out you should walk - that's it. No added guff about doing so taking the bread out of the mouths of children, no attempt to say the blame was really the australians - nothing beyond me saying what i think Broad should have done and that i consider not doing so to be cheating - whenever it was done and whoever does it.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 14, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Half of me wants some quick wickets and a early win for England. The other half wants it to go right to the wire so we get a few hours of Sunday cricket


 
was just thinking the same thing and was about to post the question of which option do we want!!!

(checks nails for available biting capacity)


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> The Broad issue would only suggest that umpires need more assistance...


 
Not more reviews or technology  What would assist most is players being honest, and walking when they know they're out.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2013)

This is one of those completely "depends whee you draw the line" questions, and whilst I understand other peoples view, I will strongly disagree with anyone that said Stuart Broad was right to stand.

If anyone asks why you'd want to follow a game that lasts for 5 days, show 'em this one. Nothing else does ebbing and flowing, instant legends, and toiling efforts that require a medal. This morning or tonight, 22 players will shake hands after a truly epic and amazing test, though the sour point that will overhang it, be discussed for the whole fucking summer every time rain stops play and they have to fill some shite TV.

Inherent in most English fans and, especially cricket fans, is that we _don't cheat_. All a bit old school and pompous, but, to tell it how it is, that's cricket for you. It was cheating. It was knowingly claiming an unfair advantage.

To compare it to it's nadir - modern football with diving - is that really a place we want to go?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What part of it have you decided that i haven't grasped? What part of Broad having a choice regardless of the umpires decision are you having particular difficulty with? Are you denying that he did have such a choice - and that all batsmen do? That only the umpires decision counts? Maybe you better tell that to all the other batsmen who have used the same choice that broad possessed and walked when they thought they were out.


 
Oh do pay attention. A batsman can happily walk if he wants to. I'm not having any difficulty in understanding he has a choice, i said it some posts back! What im saying is that as the umpire is in a position to decide whether he is in or out he is entitled to wait for it. If the umpire makes a decision he is not out then he's entitled to stand his ground. If he wants to walk and give himself out, that's up to him. I don't consider waiting for the umpires decision if you know you hit it as cheating because that's what the umpire is there for.



> You've passed beyond even recognising that this choice exists - that broad had a technical right to stand his ground and not to walk - to arguing that not walking was the _only_ right thing to do, that this is what all batsmen _must_ do in similar circumstances - so you're slurring all those who have made the choice to walk in the past and limiting the possibility of them even being able to do so in the future.


 
Im not saying he should have stood his ground, im saying he's entitled to wait for the umpire's decision.



> I'll tell you know as well to save you the time and effort - if you go down the semantic route that cheating occurs exclusively and expressly when formal rules are broken you are onto a loser.


 

Im not going down any route. Ive played cricket for 25 years or so in village cricket, junior cricket, and league cricket at Division 1 through to Division 6 standard. Ive walked when being not out to stumpings, run outs, and caught behinds. Sometimes with league umpires, sometimes with my own team mates umpiring. I've also not walked in other situations where ive been given not out despite the fact i hit it. Abuse - yes plenty of it, but they all knew that the umpire made the decision.

I think ive run out of ways of explaining the same thing over and over again.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What are you on about? Where have i suggested that this never-existing spirit of cricket is alive and well today? I've said clearly and repeatedly that if you know that you are out you should walk - that's it. No added guff about doing so taking the bread out of the mouths of children, no attempt to say the blame was really the australians - nothing beyond me saying what i think Broad should have done and that i consider not doing so to be cheating - whenever it was done and whoever does it.


 

Well then you're wrong because not walking isn't cheating as it doesn't break any laws of the game. The suggestion someone should points to the 'spirit' and the 'spirit' has never existed so you shouldn't walk on that basis either.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

My Vipbox stream is a bit erratic this morning


----------



## leftistangel (Jul 14, 2013)

Only a casual fan of cricket and tend to watch it more when the Ashes is on, so I tend to notice changes all the more than someone who watches it all the time.So its crystal clear to me what a mess DRS has made of a flawed but intrinsically human game.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Badgers said:


> My Vipbox stream is a bit erratic this morning


 

try http://www.crictime.com/watch_live_cricket_streaming-free-1.htm ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Oh do pay attention. A batsman can happily walk if he wants to. I'm not having any difficulty in understanding he has a choice, i said it some posts back! What im saying is that as the umpire is in a position to decide whether he is in or out he is entitled to wait for it. If the umpire makes a decision he is not out then he's entitled to stand his ground. If he wants to walk and give himself out, that's up to him. I don't consider waiting for the umpires decision if you know you hit it as cheating because that's what the umpire is there for.
> 
> Im not saying he should have stood his ground, im saying he's entitled to wait for the umpire's decision.
> 
> ...


 
You have said the same daft thing in ever lengthening sentences growing more and more frustrated at your inability to get me to agree with you - this is your failing because you don't understand that you cannot and will not ever get me to think not walking when you know you are out is the right thing to do (i'm going to leave the other mad stuff you brought in without seeming to fully understand the implications of - or how weak your defence is 'that's what the umpire is there for' doesn't cover what _Broad_ should do for example).

btw, if the real culprits in your world are the aussies, what sanction do you recommend? for their disgraceful behaviour in undermining this _spirit of cricket_ (that doesn't exist)?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

leftistangel said:


> Only a casual fan of cricket and tend to watch it more when the Ashes is on, so I tend to notice changes all the more than someone who watches it all the time.So its crystal clear to me what a mess DRS has made of a flawed but intrinsically human game.


 

Spot on. Some people want perfection, but fail to realise that imperfection is what makes the game so good. They're all fucking idiots.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Oh do pay attention. A batsman can happily walk if he wants to. I'm not having any difficulty in understanding he has a choice, i said it some posts back! What im saying is that as the umpire is in a position to decide whether he is in or out he is entitled to wait for it. If the umpire makes a decision he is not out then he's entitled to stand his ground. If he wants to walk and give himself out, that's up to him. I don't consider waiting for the umpires decision if you know you hit it as cheating because that's what the umpire is there for.


But for the batsman it isn't a decision. The umpire may have to 'decide' what he thinks happened, but in this instance the batsman _knows_ what happened. By the rules of the game he should be out, he knows this, and yet he stays. How is that not cheating?

Again, just because the official misses something, doesn't stop the rules having been broken.


----------



## leftistangel (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Spot on. Some people want perfection, but fail to realise that imperfection is what makes the game so good. They're all fucking idiots.


 

Perfection is always unattainable. The game has been transformed since the 2009 ashes because of the rushed introduction of a flawed technology which is regarded by the gullible as infallible which is only now being scrutinised. In return for any marginal improvement, the authority of umpires has been undermined, the nature of batting has been changed and the whole course of the game altered.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Well then you're wrong because not walking isn't cheating as it doesn't break any laws of the game. The suggestion someone should points to the 'spirit' and the 'spirit' has never existed so you shouldn't walk on that basis either.


 
I'd advise you the same as i advised barking mad, if you go down the route of arguing cheating exclusively exists in the breaking of formal laws you going to lose. No, suggesting cheating exists without breaking fornal rules does not rely on their being an existing spirit of the game but rather on simple good old fashioned dishonesty.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

Stop banging on about it now butchers  go and get that Sunday onion.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd advise you the same as i advised barking mad, if you go down the route of arguing cheating exclusively exists in the breaking of formal laws you going to lose. No, suggesting cheating exists without breaking fornal rules does not rely on their being an existing spirit of the game but rather on simple good old fashioned dishonesty.


 

Thanks for the advice but you're wrong.

At the very least (whether you or someone agrees or not) I've illustrated why Broad should have stood his ground rather than repeated he was cheating without any real support from the history, laws, spirit, personal experience as to why he should walk other than he's cheating or being dishonest. It's not how the game is played nor has it ever been.

Anyway the players are out, the cricket has started..


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Anyway the players are out, the cricket has started..


Who the fuck cares about the cricket


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Thanks for the advice but you're wrong.
> 
> At the very least (whether you or someone agrees or not) I've illustrated why Broad should have stood his ground rather than repeated he was cheating without any real support from the history, laws, spirit, personal experience as to why he should walk other than he's cheating or being dishonest. It's not how the game is played nor has it ever been.
> 
> Anyway the players are out, the cricket has started..


 
Nor have i based my defence of my position on nay of the things that you suggest i did (or that defence of walking must be based on). I've called Broad's actions cheating as they were dishonest. That is the case entire.

Your illustration consisted of a) other people do the same b) if he didn't some kids would go hungry. Now that might satisfy you, but it most assuredly doesn't satisfy me. Enough... for now.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

leftistangel said:
			
		

> Perfection is always unattainable. The game has been transformed since the 2009 ashes because of the rushed introduction of a flawed technology which is regarded by the gullible as infallible which is only now being scrutinised. In return for any marginal improvement, the authority of umpires has been undermined, the nature of batting has been changed and the whole course of the game altered.



Nothing undermines the authority of umpires more than demonstrably wrong decisions. There would be far fewer of these if players were honest. Had Broad walked before any decision, a poor decision would have been avoided.


----------



## leftistangel (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> Nothing undermines the authority of umpires more than demonstrably wrong decisions. There would be far fewer of these if players were honest. Had Broad walked before any decision, a poor decision would have been avoided.


 

If their authority is undermined, that increases the likelihood of wrong decisions.

I'd abolish DRS myself, but if its hear to stay then I'd take the DRS right out of the players hands and make it purely an umpiring tool. It will never work as it is supposed to when some decisions can be looked at (ie when a team has reviews left) and some can't be.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

leftistangel said:
			
		

> If their authority is undermined, that increases the likelihood of wrong decisions.



A failure to walk means more wrong decisions.

When the emphasis shifts from what actually happened to what a player can get away with,  games will increasingly be decided by poor decisions rather than good cricket. That can only be bad for the game. 

Just look at football. Almost all post-match chat is focused on bad refereeing. Because so many of the players are trying to dupe the ref.

Whether or not a failure to walk is strictly an  infringement of the rules, it is clearly dishonest, and damaging to the sport. The fact that others cheat is no excuse. Nor do I buy the argument that it's ok to cheat now that money turns on dong so!


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 14, 2013)

I've decided I want the wickets and no nail biting finish please


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Mumbles274 said:
			
		

> I've decided I want the wickets and no nail biting finish please



Yeah. Especially as they seem to be settling into their stride, have forced a less attacking field, and are keeping the scoreboard ticking over.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

Yeah. Get rid of this Agar upstart please.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Yeah. Get rid of this Agar upstart please.


Done


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

Badgers said:
			
		

> Yeah. Get rid of this Agar upstart please.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Yeeeeeeessss!


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 14, 2013)

Crucial timing too before the required score went below 100


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have said the same daft thing in ever lengthening sentences growing more and more frustrated at your inability to get me to agree with you - this is your failing because you don't understand that you cannot and will not ever get me to think not walking when you know you are out is the right thing to do (i'm going to leave the other mad stuff you brought in without seeming to fully understand the implications of - or how weak your defence is 'that's what the umpire is there for' doesn't cover what _Broad_ should do for example).


 
You never agree with anyone. Which was perhaps my only mistake given your history on here.



> btw, if the real culprits in your world are the aussies, what sanction do you recommend? for their disgraceful behaviour in undermining this _spirit of cricket_ (that doesn't exist)?


 
Ive not said the Aussies are guilty of anything, other than Clarke wasting a review on a decision that he already knew was out. He should have accepted the umpire's decision and walked.

edit: had it been the other way round and an Aussie batsman hadn't walked, id' have said exactly the same thing.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> But for the batsman it isn't a decision. The umpire may have to 'decide' what he thinks happened, but in this instance the batsman _knows_ what happened. By the rules of the game he should be out, he knows this, and yet he stays. How is that not cheating?
> 
> Again, just because the official misses something, doesn't stop the rules having been broken.


 

Because the umpire makes a decision. He arbitrates and players accept it. It might sound strange, but this is how it works. I'm not always sure people understand exactly how important the umpire is (or perhaps was!) in the game of cricket. 

If people are bothered about 'cheating' when people dont walk, then my advise is to stop watching, because England would probably have lost this game by now and victory, accordingly should be very hollow.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Boom!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

"If you don't like something stop watching, because it's not going to change"? That's a rather sad and defeatist approach, isn't it?


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Finished by lunch?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

Just one left


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

And the Aussies coming back into it, less than 50 needed. Amazing test.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2013)

ffs


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 14, 2013)

How many overs til lunch?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

They're playing an extra half hour as there are nine wickets down.

I don't think Finn will be playing at Lords.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2013)

One doesn't so much enjoy Test cricket as endure it.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Fuckin' 'ell!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

Fuck I think the Aussies are going to steal this.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

30 needed...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 14, 2013)

squeaky bum time


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Ask Botham if he's still relaxed about it now.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 14, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> They're playing an extra half hour as there are nine wickets down.


ah, I missed them mention that.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 14, 2013)

cripes


----------



## marty21 (Jul 14, 2013)

one of those times when I want Sky  listening the the drama on TMS though - which is pretty good


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Swan and Anderson out for the series.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

marty21 said:
			
		

> one of those times when I want Sky  listening the the drama on TMS though - which is pretty good



Stream it


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Australia need 3 to win!


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

http://cricfree.tv/sky-sports-2-live-stream.php


----------



## marty21 (Jul 14, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Stream it


tried vipbox but they seem to want my credit card details - any others?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

Argghhhhh! 

22 to win


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2013)

Finn


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

Christ it'll be ridiculous if they go off for lunch now.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

I did think the guys on the radio mocking the Australian were indulging in some serious fate-tempting. Could still totally screw us


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2013)

Broad really going for Man of the match award!


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Cheater!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Lunch with 20 to go. Lordy!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2013)

marty21 said:
			
		

> tried vipbox but they seem to want my credit card details - any others?



No credit card on Vipbox


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2013)

Don't think I can watch when they come back on after lunch!


----------



## Balbi (Jul 14, 2013)

Finn's been early series Monty today


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 14, 2013)

Almost glad to only have tms.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 14, 2013)

Go to the pub people.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Here we go!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 14, 2013)

marty21 said:


> one of those times when I want Sky  listening the the drama on TMS though - which is pretty good



Too late now now but i'm holed up in the White Hart Dalston.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 14, 2013)

This is Jimmy's day. Come on lad.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Was this test ever going to finish any other way


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Is that it? Is it over?

Dammit, I have a pizza in the oven, make the bloody call!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

YESSSSS!!!!!


----------



## MrSki (Jul 14, 2013)

Result!!! Hotspot!!!!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2013)

woohoo!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

Andersen 10 wickets - should be MoM


----------



## Balbi (Jul 14, 2013)

Feather edges for Clarke and Haddin.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

I was never worried.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 14, 2013)

He should have walked


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 14, 2013)

Boom!


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Now, where does that leave the review system? After Broad, a lot of people were saying it should only be used for clear cut miscarriages, not speculative guesses, but by the sounds of it that was pretty speculative and it's just won the match!

Something to keep us occupied until the next test 

Well played, Oz.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 14, 2013)

Awesome


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 14, 2013)

Is hot spot a new term? Same as an edge yes?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 14, 2013)

Biddlybee said:


> Is hot spot a new term? Same as an edge yes?


 

Heat cameras on front and side, can indicate contact on the bat or pad.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 14, 2013)

Biddlybee said:


> Is hot spot a new term? Same as an edge yes?


 
Hot spot is a bit of technology that the off-field umpire can use to try to detect whether there was an edge if one of the teams requests a review of the on-field umpire's decision.  more here.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 14, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Now, where does that leave the review system? After Broad, a lot of people were saying it should only be used for clear cut miscarriages, not speculative guesses, but by the sounds of it that was pretty speculative and it's just won the match!
> 
> Something to keep us occupied until the next test
> 
> Well played, Oz.


 
The 'clear cut' miscarriage thing is bollocks anyway. It is why they have built the stupid umpire's call into LBW but how do you decide whether an edge is clear cut or not. Speculative guesses are punished by having a limited number of reviews and England showed good judgement with them in this match, unlike Australia who tended to waste them (although there is obviously some luck in this).

There will be lot's of whinging about DRS now but the game coming down to such a close decision like this would always be controversial, DRS or not and no matter which way the decision went.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 14, 2013)

Blimey!  What a nailbiter.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 14, 2013)

A great five days!

Roll on Thursday.

Hope the rest of the series can live up to this opener.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 14, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Now, where does that leave the review system? After Broad, a lot of people were saying it should only be used for clear cut miscarriages, not speculative guesses, but by the sounds of it that was pretty speculative and it's just won the match!
> 
> Something to keep us occupied until the next test
> 
> Well played, Oz.


 
next test on thursday,do we still want to get rid of the review system now lads???just saying.Well done Pommy bastards,i dont think it was as easy as some of your commentators were speculating before day one


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2013)

Combustible said:


> The 'clear cut' miscarriage thing is bollocks anyway. It is why they have built the stupid umpire's call into LBW but how do you decide whether an edge is clear cut or not. Speculative guesses are punished by having a limited number of reviews and England showed good judgement with them in this match, unlike Australia who tended to waste them (although there is obviously some luck in this).
> 
> There will be lot's of whinging about DRS now but the game coming down to such a close decision like this would always be controversial, DRS or not and no matter which way the decision went.


I agree with the journalist panel the technology isn't the problem it's how its been used.

In particular if the ICC want this then they need to (a) fund it properly, (b) train umpires to use it properly.


Overall though a totally amazing test and the prefect evidence why Test cricket is the best game in the world.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> next test on thursday,do we still want to get rid of the review system now lads???just saying.Well done Pommy bastards,i dont think it was as easy as some of your commentators were speculating before day one


Wasn't as easy as some of them were speculating at about 12:30 today!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2013)

Cook doesn't know the word "maelstrom"?! For _that_, he should lose the captaincy


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 14, 2013)

Combustible said:


> The 'clear cut' miscarriage thing is bollocks anyway. It is why they have built the stupid umpire's call into LBW but how do you decide whether an edge is clear cut or not. Speculative guesses are punished by having a limited number of reviews and England showed good judgement with them in this match, unlike Australia who tended to waste them (although there is obviously some luck in this).
> 
> There will be lot's of whinging about DRS now but the game coming down to such a close decision like this would always be controversial, DRS or not and no matter which way the decision went.


Surely there can't be criticism over the match-winning decision, as we can be confident it was out.

I would suggest that teams can make more use of it though. In an ideal world, I'd say that all deliveries would be checked over by the third umpire in case of any doubt. That might slow things up a bit, but two failures seems a bit limiting. Waiting for a decision from the third umpire is quite dramatic especially if the audience gets to see the replays so it's not something to be worried about too much IMHO.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

What a crap way to finish a game of cricket.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> What a crap way to finish a game of cricket.



That's what happens when people don't walk.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> That's what happens when people don't walk.



Yeah, rubbish for 150 years because people don't walk. Ironically Broad waiting for the umpires decision made it a great game and if England winning is the result you wanted it might leave a funny taste in your mouth...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> next test on thursday,do we still want to get rid of the review system now lads???just saying.Well done Pommy bastards,i dont think it was as easy as some of your commentators were speculating before day one



England fan but yes, review system should go. Ugly, ugly ugly thing.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> England fan but yes, review system should go. Ugly, ugly ugly thing.


 
You're right, far better the result goes the other way because of an incorrect decision.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Combustible said:


> You're right, far better the result goes the other way because of an incorrect decision.



Harmison bouncer, hooked by Kasparowicz down the leg side and caught by G. Jones. Umpire gives it out England win by 2 runs and Flintoff bends down to console Brett Lee. TV replay shows batsman hand wasn't on the bat when it hit his glove. Aussies very good about it and don't complain one iota, instead just praise a great game of cricket. 

Today for what was the first time in Ashes history the game wasn't decided on the field of play. Very sad in my view.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

If we'd have had that game with instant replay Australia might have won (which I have no problem with) but that moment would have been lost forever.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Harmison bouncer, hooked by Kasparowicz down the leg side and caught by G. Jones. Umpire gives it out England win by 2 runs and Flintoff bends down to console Brett Lee. TV replay shows batsman hand wasn't on the bat when it hit his glove. Aussies very good about it and don't complain one iota, instead just praise a great game of cricket.


 
So because England previously benefited from an incorrect decision and the Australians didn't complain about it, we should persist with a system which produces far more incorrect decisions (and by extension incorrect results)?



Barking_Mad said:


> If we'd have had that game with instant replay Australia might have won (which I have no problem with) but that moment would have been lost forever.


 
It wouldn't have been lost forever, it would have never occurred. There is no reason why DRS reduces the number of 'classic results'. Really your argument is that we shouldn't do anything differently because a particular set of circumstances produced a great game in England in 2005. I'm sure you could find games which were set up for an a exciting finish but a batsman was wrongly given out, leading to a predictable conclusion.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yeah, rubbish for 150 years because people don't walk. Ironically Broad waiting for the umpires decision made it a great game and if England winning is the result you wanted it might leave a funny taste in your mouth...


 
No.  But the fact that people don't walk, combined with the fact that TV has the ability to highlight bad umpiring decisions, has led to an increasing reliance on replays and technology.  Which, to my mind, detracts from the game.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yeah, rubbish for 150 years because people don't walk. Ironically Broad waiting for the umpires decision made it a great game and if England winning is the result you wanted it might leave a funny taste in your mouth...


 

Yes, I wanted England to win.  The fact that they did so by cheating does detract from the victory for me.

By 'waiting for the umpires decision', what you actually mean is seeking a dishonest advantage from the umpire's mistake.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> No. But the fact that people don't walk, combined with the fact that TV has the ability to highlight bad umpiring decisions, has led to an increasing reliance on replays and technology. Which, to my mind, detracts from the game.


I don't think it detracts from the game that a catch can be given from the thinnest of edges. I don't think it detracts from the game that batsman can be given out stumped when the momentarily raise their foot from the crease. I don't think it detracts from the game that batsmen can no longer simply pad up to spinners without risk of being out LBW thanks to 'doubt'. I don't think it detracts from the game that no-balls can be reliably detected. etc etc


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> Yes, I wanted England to win.  The fact that they did so by cheating does detract from the victory for me.
> 
> By 'waiting for the umpires decision', what you actually mean is seeking a dishonest advantage from the umpire's mistake.



Bowler bowls and the batsman plays a shot. Fielding side appeal to the umpire, not the batsman. Umpire makes a decision. Batsman abides by that decision. If he so wishes he can walk. 

It was always so. That's the game, like it or lump it. I'm my experience people waiting for a decision largely outweigh those who walk. Doing either is fine. 

There's also some who will walk on easy decisions, knowing what is coming. They hope this gives them a reputation as a walker, so when they don't walk they hope to benefit from a decision. 

I've played in games where I've asked batsmen if he hit it after being given not out and been told he had. I don't whine about it, it's part of the game. It seems to be more of an issue amongst people watching than it is amongst people playing the game who accept it for what it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy.312771/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> No.  But the fact that people don't walk, combined with the fact that TV has the ability to highlight bad umpiring decisions, has led to an increasing reliance on replays and technology.  Which, to my mind, detracts from the game.



People not walking has certainly been highlighted by tv. Although it happens all the time it's only noticed in a different light when the umpire gets it wrong.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Bowler bowls and the batsman plays a shot. Fielding side appeal to the umpire, not the batsman. Umpire makes a decision. Batsman abides by that decision. If he so wishes he can walk.
> 
> It was always so. That's the game, like it or lump it. I'm my experience people waiting for a decision largely outweigh those who walk. Doing either is fine.
> 
> ...



I hated it when I played. Never whined about it,  though - no point.  And I hate it as a spectator.  Yes,  it has become more and more a part of the game. But not one I like.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> I hated it when I played. Never whined about it, though - no point. And I hate it as a spectator. Yes, it has become more and more a part of the game. But not one I like.


 

It's not been any different in all my years of playing and i doubt it's any worse now than it was in the past - rose tinted glasses wearers may say otherwise  We had a discussion at our game yesterday. There were some who always walked, some how waited for the umpire and some who did both. In my experience waiting for the umpire to give you out, or not, is not frowned upon by other players of either team or the same team. It's just accepted as different ways of playing the game because the non-walkers know that those waiting for the decision are doing what's entitled to them by the laws of the game.

If the rule was there whereby you had to give yourself out, then people would do so - but it's not, and for the very reason that the umpire is charged with making a decision in the primary instance.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

I disagree. Whilst there's always been players who won't walk, I think it (and other sharp practice - not necessarily against the letter of the law) is becoming more common. And I think the game is worse for it. We can agree to disagree. I can't see either of us persuading the other.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> I disagree. Whilst there's always been players who won't walk, I think it (and other sharp practice - not necessarily against the letter of the law) is becoming more common. And I think the game is worse for it. We can agree to disagree. I can't see either of us persuading the other.


 

For me this is largely a non-issue when it comes to the issues that matter in the game. I frowned far more on Clarke and his team berating the umpire for not giving it. I actually sent one of my players from the field of play for challenging the umpires decision when fielding. Nobody ever did it again.


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> For me this is largely a non-issue when it comes to the issues that matter in the game. I frowned far more on Clarke and his team berating the umpire for not giving it. I actually sent one of my players from the field of play for challenging the umpires decision when fielding. Nobody ever did it again.


 
Cool. There's no place in the game for that.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2013)

Athos said:


> Cool. There's no place in the game for that.


 

Umpires decision is final. Or at least it used to be. Far more berating the umpire goes off in league cricket than it did when i was younger. Makes me really fucked off! The only person more important to the game than an umpire....the scorers


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Umpires decision is final. Or at least it used to be. Far more berating the umpire goes off in league cricket than it did when i was younger. Makes me really fucked off! The only person more important to the game than an umpire....the scorers



Yeah. I guess Stuart not walking until the umpire's finger went up isn't as bad as Chris refusing to go even after it had!

I'll be honest: I don't like the Broads. Especially Stuart's petulance.

ETA: And Snr's support for the apartheid regime,  of course.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2013)

In other news Boom Boom takes 7-12 in his ODI comeback


----------



## Athos (Jul 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:
			
		

> In other news Boom Boom takes 7-12 in his ODI comeback



And a half century!


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 15, 2013)

More batsmen not walking (Robelinda has been on an overnight roll)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Came someone go to this vid please so i can tell if it's been set this way on purpose or just a lucky time for me to look for it?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Came someone go to this vid please so i can tell if it's been set this way on purpose or just a lucky time for me to look for it?
> 
> View attachment 36656


 
You mean 999 views? Still says that when I click on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Ta, thought they must have set it to do that somehow.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 15, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> I actually sent one of my players from the field of play for challenging the umpires decision when fielding. Nobody ever did it again.


And you were absolutely right to do so.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 15, 2013)

Biddlybee said:


> Is hot spot a new term?


nope, it's an infrared imaging system


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ta, thought they must have set it to do that somehow.


it doesn't update in real time though. check again in an hour or so.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

Been away all week (Bath & West Showground, spending more time in S*m*rs*t than is healthy for a clean living Glos lad like me).

Broad: non-issue tbh. Happens in every single game ever, only most other times the umpire gets it right. Stop using your reviews to have a bet Clarke and you'll get the howlers overturned.

Australia - worst top six in world cricket and a captain who has never scored a century when batting higher than five in the order. OK bowling attack but nothing to be scared of really.
England - could probably do with a more reliable opening partner for the skipper and Finn is a slight concern. Other than that all good. Traditional wobbly first Test performance produces a win rather than a draw/defeat, I Ron Bell proves his worth yet again other than for those who are still living in 2005 (6000 runs at over 45 and 18 centuries is the kind of 'disappointing' Test career I would LOVE to have), James Anderson is simply fantastic and Stuart Broad for one showed that we're not interested in losing our Urn.

Hefty series win coming up


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2013)

Aye, the Broad thing was a non-issue.  I can't remember a test when so much rubbish was talked by so many people. 

Problems with DRS?  Nope, there was an issue with only one hot spot angle being available for the Trott dismissal which can be easily fixed.  The problem was with the twat who sat in the 3rd umpire chair.  Agar was stumped out early and there was enough doubt with the Trott dismissal to refer it back to the on-field umpire. 

As for the Broad issue well this is exactly the reason DRS was brought in, umpires do make howlers sometimes, they are fallible.  Its not the fault of the system if the aussies want to spend their referrals like eccentric millionaires.  And as for the walking thing, well everyone can fuck right off with that.  This is international sport at its highest level, the stakes don't get much higher and we're here to win a test match.  All the nobs that were whinging about Broad were the sort of idiots who ruled our game when we were getting routinely hammered for the best part of 15 years.  The fact that everyone keeps citing Gilchrist just shows how few people there are that walk all of the time, what a load of rubbish.

I play cricket with several aussies and they were all aghast at the idea that Broad should have walked, play to win - its the umpire's job to give you out.

Lastly I'm really beginning to get sick of Agnew, establishment twat who seems to think cricket is about a slice of cake and losing heavily.  All he does is whinge about everything from the sidelines, its about time the BBC brought in someone who recognises its not the 19th century anymore,


----------



## Athos (Jul 15, 2013)

Play to win,  yes.  But knowingly taking advantage of an umpire's mistake to win, isn't quite the same thing.

I'd rather see matches won and lost on what happens with the bat and ball, not on umpires' mistakes and players' sharp practice.

That's my opinion, and one which I can't see changing very easily. I understand that many others think the opposite. But what I don't understand is the hostility.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Aye, the Broad thing was a non-issue. I can't remember a test when so much rubbish was talked by so many people.


 
Not a non-issue for me and plenty of others. Now what?


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

People are welcome to see it as an issue obviously. I don't, can't be arsed. Glad England have players who aren't interested in defeat and that the two who demonstrated that most clearly this time - Bell and Broad - are the two who often take most flak. They both demonstrated it at Auckland as well. I'm happy with the game as it is, one in which the umpire makes the decisions when asked to by the players and the players then accept that by and large.

But you're welcome to have your debate. I just don't want to be involved in it.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

I'd rather discuss the astonishing bowling of Jimmy Anderson anyway. The ball that got Haddin was an absolute gem, even if the sound of it hitting the edge of his bat clearly didn't carry to the bowler's end. Whether or not the final decision was made on or off the field, it was a fantastic piece of cricket under pressure. Jimmy's going to sail pass Botham's total and on to 400 Test wickets, his average coming down all the time (as it has been for years now). He is an all time great 
December 2007 average: 39.2
Average in last five years: 27.64
Average in last three years: 24.73 (with 152 wickets in that time)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Lastly I'm really beginning to get sick of Agnew, establishment twat who seems to think cricket is about a slice of cake and losing heavily. All he does is whinge about everything from the sidelines, its about time the BBC brought in someone who recognises its not the 19th century anymore,


I do find myself on the other side of the argument very often with Agnew. Most disappointing for me is the way that he has become an apologist for Sky, citing recent England success as the reason, when recent England success has had absolutely nothing to do with Sky's money. Very, very disappointing that a BBC correspondent should so completely abandon the idea that our national sports belong to all of us.

The price we paid for winning back the Ashes in 2005 was that it suddenly got Sky interested in buying up cricket. That and ticket prices soared the next year. We were taken for mugs, and for Agnew to now defend that is sickening really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

He's not BBC - he's freelance - which is why he was able to scab without any guilt.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The price we paid for winning back the Ashes in 2005 was that it suddenly got Sky interested in buying up cricket. That and ticket prices soared the next year.



That and people thinking that Flintoff was somehow the ultimate in Test cricketers


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> I'd rather discuss the astonishing bowling of Jimmy Anderson anyway. The ball that got Haddin was an absolute gem, even if the sound of it hitting the edge of his bat clearly didn't carry to the bowler's end. Whether or not the final decision was made on or off the field, it was a fantastic piece of cricket under pressure. Jimmy's going to sail pass Botham's total and on to 400 Test wickets, his average coming down all the time (as it has been for years now). He is an all time great
> December 2007 average: 39.2
> Average in last five years: 27.64
> Average in last three years: 24.73 (with 152 wickets in that time)


Agree about Jimmy. His average will never quite reflect how good he's been for most of his career now. A piece in cricinfo worrying that England are very reliant on him, but that's inevitable. For all the all-round strength of Aus at their peak, they were very reliant on McGrath, too. That said, stay fit, Jimmy.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree about Jimmy. His average will never quite reflect how good he's been for most of his career now. A piece in cricinfo worrying that England are very reliant on him, but that's inevitable. For all the all-round strength of Aus at their peak, they were very reliant on McGrath, too. That said, stay fit, Jimmy.


It's a bit of a truism anyway - all teams rely on their best players surely and it's not like Broad, Finn and Swann haven't contributed before is it? And Bresnan and Tremlett too.
Gillespie and Lee were good bowlers. But they were better for being in the same team as McGrath and Warne.
Anyway, only a handful of pacemen have broken the 400 wicket barrier so when Anderson (and Steyn) get there, they will deserve to be feted for an extraordinary feat of endurance and consistency. For Anderson's average to be declining in an era when batsmen's averages have been climbing is a testament to his improvement in the last five years


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

I'm a bit concerned that Bresnan will be back for Finn this week. I'd rather see Onions or Tremlett, but I think Bresnan's next in line. Bless him, because I really like him and he never tries less than 100 percent, I just think he has less about him than Finn, Onions or Tremlett.

Onions was by far the best bowler in County Cricket last year. If they are going to drop Finn (and I wouldn't mind if they kept him, tbh), I'd want to see Onions get a go, personally.

As for Aus, they'll probably stick with the same bowlers, which suits me. I'd have Harris in for Starc, so I'll be pleased if Harris is kept out. I could see Harris doing very well in England.

Cowan will go. Which is a shame. Still, Khawaja? He'll do. If they hadn't burned the bridges, they could have called in Katich.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

Likewise, happy to see Harris kept out and Cowan/Khawaja doesn't concern me in the slightest.

More than happy to see Finn stay for Lord's too


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Predictions for Lords?

I'm predicting RUNS for England's top order. Bell aside, they underachieved at Trent Bridge and England very nearly paid the price. They will put that right. On the back of those runs, they'll get the 20 wickets and win, even though Aus might score a few too - Clarke could well get a hundred, and Rogers too, but it won't be enough.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm a bit concerned that Bresnan will be back for Finn this week. I'd rather see Onions or Tremlett, but I think Bresnan's next in line. Bless him, because I really like him and he never tries less than 100 percent, I just think he has less about him than Finn, Onions or Tremlett.
> 
> Onions was by far the best bowler in County Cricket last year. If they are going to drop Finn (and I wouldn't mind if they kept him, tbh), I'd want to see Onions get a go, personally.
> 
> ...


 

Bresnan's not an out and out bowler, given he bats reasonably well. As a Yorkie im loathed to say id go with Onions. Bresnan's main problem has always been that he doesn't bowl close enough to the stumps!

Edit: Although looking at their test records there's not much to chose between them, Bresnan bowls tighter, Onion more likely to get wickets. Lords might well be a hard pitch to bowl on given it will be a good batting wicket, so Bresnan might be more suited.....meh!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Bresnan's not an out and out bowler, given he bats reasonably well. As a Yorkie im loathed to say id go with Onions. Bresnan's main problem has always been that he doesn't bowl close enough to the stumps!


Worked for Colin Croft.


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ta, thought they must have set it to do that somehow.


 
it's at 1003 now. you just got lucky.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Worked for Colin Croft.


 

Hah yes, probably a touch quicker though


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

only about 10mph.

I was being facetious. Croft was fucking terrifying. But I wouldn't try to change Bresnan if that's his natural way. Someone else who did that and wasn't quite so fast was Ntini, and he did ok. That said, when Ntini lost a bit of pace, he was toothless. Bresnan is similar - he needs to be up around 85 mph to stay effective.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> only about 10mph.
> 
> I was being facetious. Croft was fucking terrifying. But I wouldn't try to change Bresnan if that's his natural way. Someone else who did that and wasn't quite so fast was Ntini, and he did ok.


 

i suspected you were 

Yeah, no point in changing him now, but it certainly doesnt help him in my limited opinion.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Predictions for Lords?
> 
> I'm predicting RUNS for England's top order. Bell aside, they underachieved at Trent Bridge and England very nearly paid the price. They will put that right. On the back of those runs, they'll get the 20 wickets and win, even though Aus might score a few too - Clarke could well get a hundred, and Rogers too, but it won't be enough.


Yep, England to make over 400 in the first dig. Clarke won't make runs, nor will most of the rest, England to win by plenty


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> only about 10mph.
> 
> I was being facetious. Croft was fucking terrifying. But I wouldn't try to change Bresnan if that's his natural way. Someone else who did that and wasn't quite so fast was Ntini, and he did ok. That said, when Ntini lost a bit of pace, he was toothless. Bresnan is similar - he needs to be up around 85 mph to stay effective.


 

We wound the bowling machine up to 90mph in the nets last week. I had a quick go. haha yeah, that's easy.  Not as fast as i actually thought 90mph would be but still rapid! Anything short of a length is terrifying. I didnt face the short of a length balls, just stood to one side as they came past! To think Brian Close (and others) faced that speed of bowling with no helmet. Proper brave, or mental.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Brian close nutted them away.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Phil Edmonds takes a break from the barrage in the Caribbean.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

How does he think vic marks felt?


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Who was it described seeing that as the happiest moment of his life? Some musician.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who was it described seeing that as the happiest moment of his life? Some musician.


Every cricket fan in the entire world?

Musician so obviously Jagger then


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

Broad is simply the flipside of John Inverdale - he doesn't know Andy Murray's girlfriend at all but was compelled to degrade women on these terms:




*Stuart Broad*        ✔ @StuartBroad8
Don't really follow tennis, but well done Andy Murray on the quality of your Mrs. #punching #teamadidas
5:30 PM - 7 Jul 2013


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> Every cricket fan in the entire world?
> 
> Musician so obviously Jagger then


 
No, it was a black musician - rebel mc or something (serious).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, it was a black musician - rebel mc or something (serious).


For South Africa, I'm guessing. Is Gatting the only man who toured twice?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For South Africa, I'm guessing. Is Gatting the only man who toured twice?


 

Emburey I think


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

I don't know. I thought it was , but the years don't add up. Nose broken 86 - tours later, i think it may then have been part of the general heaping of scorn on these scumbags whilst the tour was on in 1990 and retrospective jubilation at the prick. I'm sure it was rebel mc.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For South Africa, I'm guessing. Is Gatting the only man who toured twice?


He only toured once. Don't think any Englishman toured twice - Dilley was in the squad first time around but pulled out before touring in 1990 with Gatting. ETA - yeah, Emburey went twice, soz

Lawrence Rowe, Sylvester Clarke, Colin Croft, Alvin Greenidge, Bernard Julien, Alvin Kallicharran, Collis King, Ezra Moseley, David Murray, Derick Parry, Franklyn Stephenson, Emmerson Trotman, & Albert Padmore all went twice for the WI squad while Kim Hughes, Terry Alderman, John Dyson, Peter Faulkner, Mike Haysman, Tom Hogan, Rodney Hogg, Trevor Hohns, John Maguire, Rod McCurdy, Carl Rackemann, Steve Rixon, Greg Shipperd, Steve Smith, Mick Taylor & Graham Yallop all toured twice for the Aussies


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Ah, ok. Yeah, he was probably a bit young for the first one. Hadn't established his worth with the England team yet. 

Cunts, the lot of them. Which is hard for me. I really liked Graham Dilley, for instance. And Gooch.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

As a Glos fan, it's depressing to see Chris Broad (twat for many reasons), Kim Barnett, Terry Alderman, Monte Lynch, Bill Athey and David Graveney on the various squad lists - even though they weren't all with GCCC at the time


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Conflicting stories of why botham didn't go. Not enough money/not being a massive twat who was happy to prop up racism. The standard thing is that he was sold as part of the tour but refused at the end because he would be letting viv down (not playing together but still mates). I've seen the latter asked in person if this was their memory and he said there was never any chance at all no matter how much money they threw at him of botham going.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

And all totally forgiven as soon as apartheid ended. As if that made it ok...

The story of many of the West Indians who went is a very sad one. Not saying they didn't deserve what happened to them, but sad nonetheless. Sad all round. No surprise that so many went back, as it was only there and England that they could play. But a horrible story.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Conflicting stories of why botham didn't go. Not enough money/not being a massive twat who was happy to prop up racism. The standard thing is that he was sold as part of the tour but refused at the end because he would be letting viv down (not playing together but still mates). I've seen the latter asked in person if this was their memory and he said there was never any chance at all no matter how much money they threw at him of botham going.


I've heard Botham say 'I couldn't have looked Viv in the eye'. What was Richards' attitude to the West Indians who went, I wonder?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've heard Botham say 'I couldn't have looked Viv in the eye'. What was Richards' attitude to the West Indians who went, I wonder?


 
Open naked hatred.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Broad is simply the flipside of John Inverdale - he doesn't know Andy Murray's girlfriend at all but was compelled to degrade women on these terms:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously I'm not defending that, the nobber


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Open naked hatred.


Has he ever commentated with Colin Croft?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

Is Stuart Broad's dad Chris Broad a respected umpire? Is the stuff about apartheid tours still a mark against him or not?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Has he ever commentated with Colin Croft?


He might have done, but viv doesn't really do commentary that much. I think it was his influence that lead to the sidelining of croft in the west indies documentary a few years back. That he had no role in this story because of his later choices.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is Stuart Broad's dad Chris Broad a respected umpire? Is the stuff about apartheid tours still a mark against him or not?


Apparently not. Loads of apartheid tourists are respected members of the cricket establishment now. JTG mentioned one - David Graveney, for many years chief England selector.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is Stuart Broad's dad Chris Broad a respected umpire? Is the stuff about apartheid tours still a mark against him or not?


 
The did an informal truth and reconciliation without any truth or reconciliation. All forgot. Same as the IRB.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

With Botham, I remember the figure of £250k being bandied around, which was shitloads then. Doesn't stop him being a twat, but he didn't go. And neither did Gower. It's not mentioned much but surely Gower would have got shitloads too. May be twats but they're not cunts.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The did an informal truth and reconciliation without any truth or reconciliation. All forgot. Same as the IRB.



I had no idea Graham Gooch was involved he was a big figure in England.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I had no idea Graham Gooch was involved he was a big figure in England.


Captain of the first tour.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is Stuart Broad's dad Chris Broad a respected umpire? Is the stuff about apartheid tours still a mark against him or not?


He's an ICC match referee. Not necessarily respected, especially in Asia where he has often been accused of racism and hardly covered himself in glory following the terrorist attack in Lahore in 2009 when he accused the local security of 'disappearing' when needed - six Pakistani policemen were killed trying to protect him and the Sri Lankan team.


littlebabyjesus said:


> Apparently not. Loads of apartheid tourists are respected members of the cricket establishment now. JTG mentioned one - David Graveney, for many years chief England selector.


And Trevor Hohns filled a similar role in Australia


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Has he ever commentated with Colin Croft?


 



			
				sir viv said:
			
		

> I would rather die than lay down my dignity.


 
Pretty to the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With Botham, I remember the figure of £250k being bandied around, which was shitloads then. Doesn't stop him being a twat, but he didn't go. And neither did Gower. It's not mentioned much but surely Gower would have got shitloads too. May be twats but they're not cunts.


 
Gower openly said he would not go because he wasn't a racist cunt. And i think was dropped when the rebels came back and resasseted their power.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty to the point.


Viv's alright for one of your lot


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gower openly said he would not go because he wasn't a racist cunt. And i think was dropped when the rebels came back and resasseted their power.


I hadn't thought of it like that. I was always puzzled by the way Gower was treated in the late 80s. He couldn't field any more, but he was still a class act. He was the best English batsman of his generation and dropped prematurely. Hmmm. you might have something there...

I shall try to remember that the next time he annoys me.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

Doing the cultural side of the soft anti-BNP stuff in East London.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> Viv's alright for one of your lot


 
Loads of them hiding away. Andy Caddick was on the commentary against the welsh on friday - he did fuck, shit, bloody and shit within the first 5 minutes.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gower openly said he would not go because he wasn't a racist cunt. And i think was dropped when the rebels came back and resasseted their power.


Gower was the one England player who seemingly didn't know a thing about it in the summer of 1989. As England got thumped by Australia, these fucking snakes were making plans to get rich off the apartheid dollar. Sums up so much that was wrong with cricket at the time


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

I loved Gooch when I was very young. Not sure why, but I did.

It's hard. I've met Mike Gatting, and he's a lovely bloke in person. But he did that, and I'm sure to this day doesn't think he did anything wrong. 'we did a day's coaching in Soweto, etc, etc'.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Loads of them hiding away. Andy Caddick was on the commentary against the welsh on friday - he did fuck, shit, bloody and shit within the first 5 minutes.


I was at NZ v India in the 1999 World Cup at Trent Bridge when a Kiwi camera crew interviewed me and asked me who my favourite NZ cricketer was. 'Andy Caddick' said I


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Loads of them hiding away. Andy Caddick was on the commentary against the welsh on friday - he did fuck, shit, bloody and shit within the first 5 minutes.


 

Always seemed such a polite one too...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> Gower was the one England player who seemingly didn't know a thing about it in the summer of 1989. As England got thumped by Australia, these fucking snakes were making plans to get rich off the apartheid dollar. Sums up so much that was wrong with cricket at the time


Didn't know that either. Yes, I can imagine that those that were off wouldn't speak to Gower. In Milan Kundera's The unbearable lightness of being, a doctor writes a piece for a magazine and is called in by the authorities and told to retract it. As he comes out and his colleagues think he's retracted, they all smile and are matey with him. When they realise he hasn't retracted, they suddenly become hostile. They resent him for being better than they are.

it's really hard to say this, but everyone who went on that 1990 tour is a cunt. And that includes the late Graham Dilley.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's hard. I've met Mike Gatting, and he's a lovely bloke in person. But he did that, and I'm sure to this day doesn't think he did anything wrong. 'we did a day's coaching in Soweto, etc, etc'.



http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/gatting-to-become-mcc-president/article4676625.ece

I think his county club should have sent Gatting to Coventry aswell as England. No immigrant or foreign player would have been comfortable playing alongside him at Middlesex.

1975-1998 and nothing bad happened now he's president of the club.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

It's been politely forgotten. Boycott went. A final paycheck before retirement. And he sees fit to comment on SA's quota system? Fucker.

tbh it's politely forgotten by lots of people, me included. I listen to Boycott and enjoy what he says very often. Remembering that he did this makes me question myself.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

On a completely different tack - here's a picture of Jack Ikin catching Bradman at slip at Brisbane in 1946:







Any guesses what happened next?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Was he given not out?


----------



## Combustible (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh it's politely forgotten by lots of people, me included. I listen to Boycott and enjoy what he says very often. Remembering that he did this makes me question myself.


 
And he was also convicted of assaulting his partner wasn't he? The fact that he is quite an unpleasant individual seems to be quite widely acknowledged.  But now he is often just seen as a bit of a character now, especially since he appears to have mellowed since recovering from cancer.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was he given not out?


He stood his ground, the umpire said 'not out' and England were absolutely incensed. Wally Hammond - who didn't shy away from batting on poor pitches unlike a certain other great batsman of his era - told Bradman what he thought of him at the end of the over. Bradman was 28, he went on to make 187. Australia won by an innings and 332 runs


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

Combustible said:


> And he was also convicted of assaulting his partner wasn't he? The fact that he is quite an unpleasant individual seems to be quite widely acknowledged.  But now he is often just seen as a bit of a character now, especially since he appears to have mellowed since recovering from cancer.


He wasn't convicted, no


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

Combustible said:


> And he was also convicted of assaulting his partner wasn't he? The fact that he is quite an unpleasant individual seems to be quite widely acknowledged. But now he is often just seen as a bit of a character now, especially since he appears to have mellowed since recovering from cancer.


 
This is going to sound all wrong. But he assaulted his partner. If he was genuinely sorry for having done so and didn't do it again, I can forgive him that. But touring SA? He needs to say that he was wrong to do so and to try to make amends for having done so, including making sure that the money he made and subsequent income he got from it is given away. afaik he hasn't don that.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> He wasn't convicted, no


Wiki seems to suggest otherwise



> In 1996, Boycott assaulted Margaret Moore, a former lover. Boycott denied the charges, claiming she had fallen over and injured herself. He pointed to the fact that Moore was in financial difficulties and said that he would never hit a woman. However, in the second trial beginning on 20 October 1998, Boycott, having missed the first trial in January where his conviction had been set, appeared before a French Magistrates court and was given a three-month suspended sentence,[170] and his £5,300 fine was confirmed.[171] He was criticised by the Magistrate for the way he conducted his case and for "rudely interrupting" Mrs Moore's barrister.[172] According to Boycott, Moore had grown angry when he refused to marry her, stating that "he was not the marrying kind" and had fallen when throwing his clothing from the window, hitting her head on the carpet.[173] However, when he again appealed against his conviction, Moore's version of events that Boycott had attacked her by punching her in the face, causing bruising, was upheld, in the light of photographs of her injuries shown to the court and the testimony of a doctor that the injuries could not have been caused in the way described by Boycott


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's been politely forgotten. Boycott went. A final paycheck before retirement. And he sees fit to comment on SA's quota system? Fucker.
> 
> tbh it's politely forgotten by lots of people, me included. I listen to Boycott and enjoy what he says very often. Remembering that he did this makes me question myself.



I think Mark Steel was on the radio making jokes in a positive light about Boycott.

They made a "perfectly strong" *legal* case at least in the 1982 one - it being if businesses were allowed to go to south Africa , the unofficial tour was simply a business transaction and nothing more should be taken by official sporting authorities. Businesses did trade and make money in South Africa perfectly legally as could professionals - a doctor could emigrate to South Africa and make plenty of money and he wouldn't be struck off from his country of origin but a cricketer could. 
I think it was only India and West Indies  threatening to cancel any and all matches with England or any teams that contained rebel players that made the British cricket authorities ban 'the Rebel 12' - can't believe Gooch's name didn't register - for a short time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> He stood his ground, the umpire said 'not out' and England were absolutely incensed. Wally Hammond - who didn't shy away from batting on poor pitches unlike a certain other great batsman of his era - told Bradman what he thought of him at the end of the over. Bradman was 28, he went on to make 187. Australia won by an innings and 332 runs


There you go. Criticising Stuart Broad is criticising Donald Bradman! (The don's got a fucking cheek too)

I'd love to hear the umpire's explanation for how it got to second slip, though.  At least Dar had the excuse of the keeper's gloves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I think Mark Steel was on the radio making jokes in a positive light about Boycott.
> 
> They made a "perfectly strong" *legal* case at least in the 1982 one - it being if businesses were allowed to go to south Africa , the unofficial tour was simply a business transaction and nothing more should be taken by official sporting authorities. Businesses did trade and make money in South Africa perfectly legally as could professionals - a doctor could emigrate to South Africa and make plenty of money and he wouldn't be struck off from his country of origin but a cricketer could.
> I think it was only India and West Indies threatening to cancel any and all matches with England or any teams that contained rebel players that made the British cricket authorities ban 'the Rebel 12' - can't believe Gooch's name didn't register - for a short time.


They were banned for 3 years. And yes, irrc, it was only after the tour had happened.

But  again irrc, with the 1990 one, they all knew they were in line for bans.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

Combustible said:


> Wiki seems to suggest otherwise


ah, sorry


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There you go. Criticising Stuart Broad is criticising Donald Bradman! (The don's got a fucking cheek too)


He was caught by Ikin at short leg for 22 in the second Test, given not out, and went on to make a double ton. In the fourth Test, Cyril Washbrook was given out when Don Tallon claimed a catch on the bounce off Ray Lindwall. Bradman could have withdrawn the appeal (most of the Aussie team were incredulous), but didn't.

Bradman wasn't a very nice man


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They were banned for 3 years. And yes, irrc, it was only after the tour had happened.
> 
> But  again irrc, with the 1990 one, they all knew they were in line for bans.


Neil Foster's knees had gone and he decided to take the money. Athey's Test career was over anyway. And so on and on. They tried to get one or two younger players (Gus Fraser maybe?) but they weren't that daft.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> He was caught by Ikin at short leg for 22 in the second Test, given not out, and went on to make a double ton. In the fourth Test, Cyril Washbrook was given out when Don Tallon claimed a catch on the bounce off Ray Lindwall. Bradman could have withdrawn the appeal (most of the Aussie team were incredulous), but didn't.
> 
> Bradman wasn't a very nice man


That is the thing. Off the top of my head, the list of walkers I know of is two: Lara and Gilchrist.

I'm sure there have been others, but it shows that it isn't the norm.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is the thing. Off the top of my head, the list of walkers I know of is two: Lara and Gilchrist.
> 
> I'm sure there have been others, but it shows that it isn't the norm.


Colin Cowdrey used to walk but Aussies of that era were convinced he only did so when clearly out and used his reputation as leverage on umpires when it wasn't quite so clear cut


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> Neil Foster's knees had gone and he decided to take the money. Athey's Test career was over anyway. And so on and on. They tried to get one or two younger players (Gus Fraser maybe?) but they weren't that daft.


Exactly. Dilley's career was largely over. It's depressing how many players took it as their retirement fund. Fuckers, the lot of them. There are no excuses. None of these were poor people. They were comfortably well-off people who wanted to be rich.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> Colin Cowdrey used to walk but Aussies of that era were convinced he only did so when clearly out and used his reputation as leverage on umpires when it wasn't quite so clear cut


That's always Boycott's argument - how many walk when it's a thin nick first ball?


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly. Dilley's career was largely over. It's depressing how many players took it as their retirement fund. Fuckers, the lot of them. There are no excuses. None of these were poor people. They were comfortably well-off people who wanted to be rich.


The PCA isn't described as the only union whose members are more right wing than their employers for nothing


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Boycott went..


Ah, shit 

I'm far from the biggest cricket fan, but he's always good value on TMS. Always feel that we all make mistakes and very seldom does one mistake make the person, but that's pretty disappointing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

I like Boycott on tms. 

But let's face it, would Agnew have gone? Probably, if he'd been good enough to have been invited. I can't see him having the moral framework that would instruct him to refuse it. The harsh truth is that those who said no, like Botham and Gower, are in the minority.

I don't want to criticise Botham too much, but even he needed his mate to push him into the right decision. He said 'I couldn't look viv in the eye' rather than 'I couldn't look myself in the eye', although of course the former lead to the latter realisation. But Gower, perhaps, was one of the very few who made the right decision without needing that.*

*I can imagine Bob Willis giving the idea short shrift also, tbf.


----------



## JTG (Jul 15, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Ah, shit
> 
> I'm far from the biggest cricket fan, but he's always good value on TMS. Always feel that we all make mistakes and very seldom does one mistake make the person, but that's pretty disappointing.


He's a massive cunt. Usually on the nail with regard to cricket but a cunt nonetheless


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2013)

JTG said:


> He's a massive cunt. Usually on the nail with regard to cricket but a cunt nonetheless


Yeah.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 16, 2013)

Interestingly in his Greatest 11's book when he's talking about Zimbabwe he says he was wrong to say that sport and politics can be separated. He doesn't actually come out and say he was wrong to go SA (and IIRC he didn't just go, he was one of the main organisers) but when I read that page it did jump out at me.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I loved Gooch when I was very young. Not sure why, but I did.
> 
> It's hard. I've met Mike Gatting, and he's a lovely bloke in person. But he did that, and I'm sure to this day doesn't think he did anything wrong. 'we did a day's coaching in Soweto, etc, etc'.


Female friends who've had cause to run across him beg to differ.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Yep, England to make over 400 in the first dig. Clarke won't make runs, nor will most of the rest, England to win by plenty


To expand: Australia came very close to winning at Trent Bridge, it's true. But with only around half the team contributing (Hughes didn't do enough despite his unbeaten 81, Cowan was awful, Clarke still can't make runs in the top four, Watson is still a very peculiar cricketer indeed, Starc is clearly out of sorts etc) and the rest fairly limited (Haddin played the innings of his life but fell short and still isn't that great a keeper, Smith has improved but really isn't that good etc), I'd say they're more likely to continue making sub 300 totals than England are.

In short: England have plenty of room for improvement, Australia probably don't have much more than they've shown already.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Oh, and Pietersen to get a big score. He was rusty at TB but looking ominous. He's up for this I think
If I seem gung-ho - 2006/7 still hurts and I want some proper revenge


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not a non-issue for me and plenty of others. Now what?


 
Well you must have been watching a different game for the last 25 years.  They are showing loads of highlights of ashes tests from the last 20 odd years on sky and I'm yet to see anyone walk for a edge to the keeper (Broad's edge only went to slip because it deflected off the keeper).  From a 25 minute highlight show of Edgbaston 1997 alone I can say Steve Waugh didn't walk with a clear nick, Nasser Hussain didn't walk with a big deflection, Ian Healey, Mark Butcher and Mark Waugh of the players I counted and that's from just one test, the scorecard shows a lot more caught behind, I wonder how many of them walked?

The reality is walking is so vanishingly rare in professional cricket that to single out one player because it went to 1st slip (because it deflected off the keeper) is pointless.   There is nothing in the laws of the game about walking and until there is every player has the right to wait for a decision.

Interestingly I've just watched the channel 5 highlights of the final ball to win this last test match (having heard bbc and seen sky) and Michael Vaughan points out that Haddin looked worried, no one else had mentioned that.  Why would he look worried unless he knew something?  So we can stick Haddin in the same pile as 99% of cricketers who have played at the top level over the last 25 years.

I've kept wicket for 15 years now and my experience is that on a nice sunny afternoon playing a friendly or charity match everyone is all honest and walks every time.  Get down to the nitty gritty of league matches and your team up against it virtually everyone leaves the decision to the umpire.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

What's any of that go to do with you deciding on my behalf that it's not and cannot be an issue for me and others? Don't you get that there's no way you can make it a non-issue for us? You can tell us there's no spirit of cricket and never was, that others have done it, that people are financially dependent on him not walking, that it's up to the umpire and he has a technical right to go with his decision and on and on - none of that effects whether it's an issue for me and people like me at all. Please don't be so aggressively presumptuous.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 16, 2013)

This is interesting debate for sure, but I am just looking forward to more cricket on Thursday


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's any of that go to do with you deciding on my behalf that it's not and cannot be an issue for me and others? Don't you get that there's no way you can make it a non-issue for us? You can tell us there's no spirit of cricket and never was, that others have done it, that people are financially dependent on him not walking, that it's up to the umpire and he has a technical right to go with his decision and on and on - none of that effects whether it's an issue for me and people like me at all. Please don't be so aggressively presumptuous.


 
I was deciding it was a non-issue for me, it was under my name, posted by me. Let me make it clear everything I say on this site is my opinion, and I think it bollocks to single out a single player for not walking when virtually everyone does it.

To go back to your original question "what now?"  What do you think should happen?  The MCC together with the ICC change the laws to oblige a batsman to walk when they know they are out?  Unenforceable can of worms.  Maybe internal action by England?  But then I've just cited two previous England captains that didn't walk (in the same match) and I bet I could find examples for Vaughan and Strauss as well, so would that be fair?  What else?  What can be done?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 16, 2013)

Mickey Arthur (as part of his DRS of his sacking) saying the relationship between Watson and Clarke is 'cancerous' and it was Watson who told him about Warner.. that'll help the 'team'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

Divisive chap, Clarke, it seems. Simon Katich isn't a fan either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I was deciding it was a non-issue for me, it was under my name, posted by me. Let me make it clear everything I say on this site is my opinion, and I think it bollocks to single out a single player for not walking when virtually everyone does it.
> 
> To go back to your original question "what now?" What do you think should happen? The MCC together with the ICC change the laws to oblige a batsman to walk when they know they are out? Unenforceable can of worms. Maybe internal action by England? But then I've just cited two previous England captains that didn't walk (in the same match) and I bet I could find examples for Vaughan and Strauss as well, so would that be fair? What else? What can be done?


 
Who says i'm singling him out, i think all batsmen should walk when they know they are out. I know it's not going to happen. I know precisely nothing can be done about it as well. It doesn't mean that i have to think they're therefore right not to walk. Broad is being talked about because, well, broad is being talked about on account of not walking in a very high profile test.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Mickey Arthur (as part of his DRS of his sacking) saying the relationship between Watson and Clarke is 'cancerous' and it was Watson who told him about Warner.. that'll help the 'team'.


 
The Clarke / Watson relationship was well known to be in a bad way.  It sounds like Arthur never fixed that problem and ultimately it cost him his job.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Mickey Arthur (as part of his DRS of his sacking) saying the relationship between Watson and Clarke is 'cancerous' and it was Watson who told him about Warner.. that'll help the 'team'.


Twatto: the unthinking man's Mark Ealham vs Michael Clarke, a slightly more disappointing Kim Hughes for the 21st century. But who's best? There's only one way to find out...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> The Clarke / Watson relationship was well known to be in a bad way. It sounds like Arthur never fixed that problem and ultimately it cost him his job.


 
Maybe they fell out because Clarke mentioned Watson's average.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Maybe they fell out because Clarke mentioned Watson's average.


Saying Watson's average is an insult to mediocre cricketers everywhere


----------



## Santino (Jul 16, 2013)

He's been well coached for his press interviews but clearly years spent as the captain-in-waiting have done him no favours with the rest of the team. He's basically Joffrey.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Santino said:


> He's been well coached for his press interviews but clearly years spent as the captain-in-waiting have done him no favours with the rest of the team. He's basically Joffrey.


Highest score in the top 4: 81. He's one of the world's leading batsmen. Apparently


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 16, 2013)

Fuck it.. time for the Twatto video again


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who says i'm singling him out, i think all batsmen should walk when they know they are out. I know it's not going to happen. I know precisely nothing can be done about it as well. It doesn't mean that i have to think they're therefore right not to walk. Broad is being talked about because, well, broad is being talked about on account of not walking in a very high profile test.


 
Fair enough and from a personal point of view I also wish everyone would walk, I'd have twice as many dismissals to my name.  When batting I've walked loads of times but there have also been occasions when I have stood my ground, once in a worst situation then Broad but that was mainly because they were a bunch of cunts who had just been swearing at me all game.

For me, I just don't see any difference from not walking to say deliberately slowing the ball down in rugby or taking a yellow card for the team in football. Its just part of the game and a lot of the vitriol aimed at Broad (general point, not you BA) has been at best been naïve and at worst hypocritical and absurd.

Where does everyone stand on the fielding team appealing when they know its not out?


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Fuck it.. time for the Twatto video again



Every time he's in danger of looking respectable, this video needs to be wheeled out


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Where does everyone stand on the fielding team appealing when they know its not out?


Absolutely fine if they're English, obviously Cheating Aussie Wicketkeepers (ie all of them) should be shot at dawn


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> a lot of the vitriol aimed at Broad has been at best been naïve and at worst hypocritical and absurd.


I agree with this. Agnew, for one, saying that it will haunt Broad for years, was being ridiculous.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with this. Agnew, for one, saying that it will haunt Broad for years, was being ridiculous.


Oh I dunno, some of us are still bringing up Bradman's more cheaty moments nearly 70 years later


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Anyway, people are only holding Broad to a higher standard cos everyone knows he's a bit of a dick anyway


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

From another site: Chris Rogers' secret list on how to help Twatto be less shit



> Ways to keep Blonde twat focused during Ashes tests and try to minimise shame:
> 
> build a rapport with one another off the field by having a couple of drinks together (ye gads!) and chatting movies and shit (consider pretending to love _Pretty Woman_ as much as he does if absolutely necessary)
> communicate as much as possible on the field (stick to one syllable words)
> ...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with this. Agnew, for one, saying that it will haunt Broad for years, was being ridiculous.


 
Aye Michael Clarke has form for this on at least two occasions and yet when people talk about Clarke they mention his quality as a batsman and him being the captain of the shittest aussie team in 25 years*.  

*As it happens I don't think they are, I think they look a better outfit then England beat down there a couple of years back.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

SO ANYWAY

Lord's

England stick to the same 13 man squad as at Trent Bridge. Wouldn't be surprised at the same team again, Finn's record at Lord's is a zillion times better than Bresnan's
Australia: dunno. Possibly the same tactics as before - Six number sevens, four number eights and Michael Clarke (who, as already stated, is no better than a good number five)


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Aye Michael Clarke has form for this on at least two occasions and yet when people talk about Clarke they mention his quality as a batsman and him being the captain of the shittest aussie team in 25 years*.
> 
> *As it happens I don't think they are, I think they look a better outfit then England beat down there a couple of years back.


Really? Better than a team that included Katich, Ponting and Hussey?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

I think a lot of the cracks in the aus team were papered over by two innings that won't be repeated combining to give a false picture of where they are at.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think a lot of the cracks in the aus team were papered over by two innings that won't be repeated combining to give a false picture of where they are at.


Totally. If anything, trent Bridge served to highlight how poor they are. This is as good as they get people.

England to win the toss at Lord's and bat. Michael Clarke to waste a review on it.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Really? Better than a team that included Katich, Ponting and Hussey?


 
Yes.  Whilst the tour of India will be seen as the low point I actually think they've been on an upward curve since the last ashes.  This squad has some very interesting bowling prospects and I'd say they are going to be a very difficult team to beat in a few years, they just need a couple of batsman and a wicket keeper who can see a few yards ahead of him so can help the captain not waste reviews. 

Ponting, Hussey and Katich were all way past their best when we did them down under and their bowling was woeful.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> England to win the toss at Lord's and bat. Michael Clarke to waste a review on it.


 


On the toss?


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Yes. Whilst the tour of India will be seen as the low point I actually think they've been on an upward curve since the last ashes. This squad has some very interesting bowling prospects and I'd say they are going to be a very difficult team to beat in a few years, they just need a couple of batsman and a wicket keeper who can see a few yards ahead of him so can help the captain not waste reviews.
> 
> Ponting, Hussey and Katich were all way past their best when we did them down under and their bowling was woeful.


Katich was dropped way too early and he was right to be upset about it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Katich was dropped way too early and he was right to be upset about it


Agreed. And Hussey wasn't past his best. He was in a rich vein of form.

When he was dropped, Katich had the best recent form of anyone in the team. I'm pretty sure the fact that he hated Clarke was a big factor once Ponting had given up the captaincy.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> On the toss?


Absolutely. Other reviews will be wasted when Twatto refers to the man upstairs after being bowled middle stump and when Clarke pulls straight to midwicket but 'thought it hit his arm guard'. After a bowling referral is spent when Pattinson pitches one two feet outside leg but is adamant about the lbw, England escape when Trott loses his off stump, stands his ground and Aleem Dar gives him not out.

England to win by an innings and quite rightly so


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agreed. And Hussey wasn't past his best. He was in a rich vein of form.
> 
> When he was dropped, Katich had the best recent form of anyone in the team. I'm pretty sure the fact that he hated Clarke was a big factor once Ponting had given up the captaincy.


Katich's injury at Adelaide was the signal for England to charge through unhindered, Perth notwithstanding


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Katich's injury at Adelaide was the signal for England to charge through unhindered, Perth notwithstanding


 
Bollinger
Beer
Doherty
Johnson


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Bollinger
> Beer
> Doherty
> Johnson


Quite. Katich was one of the few bits of quality left anywhere in the side


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> England to win the toss at Lord's and bat. Michael Clarke to waste a review on it.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Bollinger
> Beer
> Doherty
> Johnson


obv I take your point that the Aussie attack carries greater _potential_ now than in 2010/11. But in terms of actual current _class_, that side overall had more than this one does, specifically in the top six. The present Aussie top six has about one and a half Test standard batsmen in it


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

I think Warner will be back for this test instead of Cowan.  Cowan looks like a walking wicket and no doubt Lehman will have approached things with a clean slate approach. 

Personally I'd have Lyon over Agar.  Nathan Lyon was one of the few guys to come out of the India series with any credit and his reward?  Being dropped for someone who even his own family hadn't heard of.    Thinking about it since Warne there has been a pattern of the aussies treating their spinners pretty shoddily, didn't Hauritz end up giving his baggy green a Viking funeral in disgust at his treatment?


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I think Warner will be back for this test instead of Cowan. Cowan looks like a walking wicket and no doubt Lehman will have approached things with a clean slate approach.


He'd have to get back on the plane from South Africa bloody quick then


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Personally I'd have Lyon over Agar.


 

Can you imagine the epic journo lols if this happened?!


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Personally I'd have Lyon over Agar. Nathan Lyon was one of the few guys to come out of the India series with any credit and his reward? Being dropped for someone who even his own family hadn't heard of. Thinking about it since Warne there has been a pattern of the aussies treating their spinners pretty shoddily, didn't Hauritz end up giving his baggy green a Viking funeral in disgust at his treatment?


Hauritz had a garage sale of all his Australia kit. Bit of an odd fish but better than Beer, Krejza, Doherty et al. The 2009 Ashes were won when Australia failed to pick Hauritz at the Oval


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> He'd have to get back on the plane from South Africa bloody quick then


 
Really?  What's he doing out there?  Well looking at their squad it'll have to be Usman Khawaja then.

Without Warner in the country the cupboard is looking a bit bare if they pick up a couple of batting injuries which is likely given Clarke's dodgy back.  We may yet see Ponting rise from the ashes.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Really? What's he doing out there? Well looking at their squad it'll have to be Usman Khawaja then.
> 
> Without Warner in the country the cupboard is looking a bit bare if they pick up a couple of batting injuries which is likely given Clarke's dodgy back. We may yet see Ponting rise from the ashes.


He's off with the A squad

This Clarke/Watson thing is just a repeat of the Hughes v Marsh/Lillee thing only with less talent isn't it? First time as tragedy, second as farce etc etc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

Ponting won't be back. Katich is in form and in the country...

Speaking of fractious dressing rooms, Cook's role in rehabilitating Pietersen seems increasingly clear to me. I think Cook's done a fine job in bringing Pietersen back into the fold.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Katich is in form and in the country...


 
As is Ponting.

But yeah it seems highly unlikely.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

McGrath in today's Graun:


> I've been lucky enough to present three caps: the first was to Nathan Hauritz, the next to Mitchell Johnson and now Agar. Every time it really is a special honour.


The contrast there is informative


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

Ponting's also formally just retired from 1st class cricket. He retired from tests too. Katich didn't. He was dropped for being one of three older players so that they didn't all retire at the same time. *smirk*


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ponting's also formally just retired from 1st class cricket. He retired from tests too. Katich didn't. He was dropped for being one of three older players so that they didn't all retire at the same time. *smirk*


"We can't afford to lose all that experience in one go, so we'll lose some of it now instead"
I'm sure it made sense at the time


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> "We can't afford to lose all that experience in one go, so we'll lose some of it now instead"
> I'm sure it made sense at the time


Hmmm. Which one to drop? Katich has the best recent record. But he tried to kill Michael Clarke that one time. It's Clarke's fault.


----------



## JTG (Jul 16, 2013)

Clarke is shit on so many levels. His enemies are shit too though. It's great


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 16, 2013)

Finn should play IMO.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

JTG said:


> Clarke is shit on so many levels. His enemies are shit too though. It's great


 
Apparently you're wrong. It turns out he's the bestestest captainy blokey evah.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23294942

Colville (I know) was going on the other day about how the aussies are winning the PR battle because of Clarke. It appears we have a media love-in on our hands.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

That reads like a pisstake. The writer clearly knows fuck all about cricket.

Clarke's been a shit captain who's failed to galvanise his team. He's been in outstanding personal form. That's it.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2013)

He's the only Aussie that would get a game in our (even by our standards) merely above average side IMO.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 16, 2013)

Siddle would get a game I would have thought.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

Yup apparently the way to win over the aussie public is to get gubbed in India, have a public fall-out with your vice-captain, lose the 1st test in an ashes series and then give a jokey interview about how your shocking misuse of referrals may have cost your team the game.

It turns out the Taylor, Waugh and Ponting approach of trying to win games of cricket was wrong all along.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 16, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Yup apparently the way to win over the aussie public is to get gubbed in India, have a public fall-out with your vice-captain, lose the 1st test in an ashes series and then give a jokey interview about how your shocking misuse of referrals may have cost your team the game.
> 
> It turns out the Taylor, Waugh and Ponting approach of trying to win games of cricket was wrong all along.



In the last test I thought referrals aside, he captained quite well tactically. I couldn't say the same about ponting in quite few matches. I have little else to add.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> In the last test I thought referrals aside, he captained quite well tactically. I couldn't say the same about ponting in quite few matches. I have little else to add.


Clarke's a very attacking captain. He will declare when there's no compelling need to declare, and he'll take risks. But I don't think he has the quality team to be able to captain like that. He'll be found out some time soon by losing a match he should never have lost.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2013)

I think Cook's tactics (and general team-stewarding) are some of the most frustrating/shit I've ever seen tbh.


----------



## Santino (Jul 16, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> I think Cook's tactics (and general team-stewarding) are some of the most frustrating/shit I've ever seen tbh.


The thing about captaincy is that most of the work is invisible to us, except indirectly in a team's performance. A captain might make poor on-field decisions and not appear to be motivating the team but still be a 'good' captain because they keep the dressing room happy, stop tensions from developing into full-on arguments and keep the team focussed on playing the game. In terms of a team's long-term successes those are the sort of things that count.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> I think Cook's tactics (and general team-stewarding) are some of the most frustrating/shit I've ever seen tbh.


 
Ever since the Flower / Strauss axis got together England have been a defensive team in the field, I see no reason why that will change under Cook, if anything he appears to be more defensive.  On the final day with England needing wickets to win the match, with the ball swinging from one end and the ball flying into the slips Cook only had himself there for long periods.

I don't mind it so much and accept that its a tactic that has generally brings us more success then failure.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2013)

Sure, I'm loathed to suggest it should be fixed as it's working (though I'm still of the opinion it's 'despite' rather than 'because of').

Things like The late late declaration against NZ (and, more importantly, refusing to face up to the media to explain the late dec), defensive field placings and inability to rally the troops through a good (10th wicket!) oppo stand I see as our biggest achilles heel tbh. I am, tbf, constantly proved wrong though .

He seems to lead by respect earned through his batting class, not captaincy ingenuity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2013)

It's more than just batting class. Clarke has that too, but does not command respect. Seems to me that Cook has something of a 'servant-leader' approach. He leads by looking out for everyone and taking on the 'junior' chores such as ball polishing.

I don't think there's much ingenuity. But he is liked by everyone in the team, even if they might not all like each other.


----------



## Santino (Jul 16, 2013)

Tactical nous is talked up a lot because commentators and writers have space to fill. Vaughan was praised for his unorthodox tactics but the fragility of the team in the later part of his tenure suggests that basic team management wasn't being done very well.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like Boycott on tms.
> 
> But let's face it, would Agnew have gone? Probably, if he'd been good enough to have been invited. I can't see him having the moral framework that would instruct him to refuse it. The harsh truth is that those who said no, like Botham and Gower, are in the minority.
> 
> ...


 
Belatedly (and apols for going back to it) but I remembered the DH Robins Tours and Bob Willis visiting South Africa.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cricket_in_South_Africa_from_1971_to_1981). If you include players who went to Rhodesia (and this is ignoring those who went and coached/played as individuals etc.) you have (pre Packer) going. This lists misses out Garry Sobers going to Rhodesia and playing

1973 Anthony Brown; David Brown; Frank Hayes; Jackie Hampshire; Robin Hobbs; David Hughes; Robin Jackman; Roger Knight; John Lever; Peter Lewington; Arnold Long; John Murray; Clive Radley; Mike Smith; David Turner; Peter Willey; Bob Willis

Then.. Brian Close (captain); Younis Ahmed (Pakistan); Ray East; John Edrich; Bruce Francis (Australian); John Gleeson (Australian); Graham Johnson; Peter Lee; John Lever; Graham Roope; John Shepherd (WI); Mike Smith; John Snow; Roger Tolchard; Bob Woolmer 

1975 Brian Close; Bruce Francis (Australian), John Sheppard (West Indian), Roger Tolchard, Younis Ahmed (Pakistan); Malcolm Francke (Sri Lanka/Australia), Geoff Greenidge (West Indies), Tony Greig, Jackie Hampshire, Frank Hayes, Eddie Hemmings, Terry Jenner (Australia), John Lyon, Clive Radley, Stephen Rouse, John Steele, Stuart Turner, Max Walker (Australia).

1976 Phil Carrick, Trevor Chappell (Australia), Geoff Cope, John Douglas (Australia), Frank Hayes, Mike Hendrick, Geoff Howarth (New Zealand), Andrew Kennedy, Peter Lee, David Lloyd (captain), Derek Randall, Phil Slocombe, David Steele, Fred Titmus, Roger Tolchard, Gary Troup (New Zealand), Dav Whatmore (Australia).

1976 Richie Benaud (manager), Greg Chappell, Mike Denness, Bob Taylor, John Shepherd, Ian Chappell (Australia) ; Phil Edmonds; Gary Gilmour (Australia), Alan Hurst (Australia) , Martin Kent (Australia), Dennis Lillee (Australia); Ashley Mallett (Australia); John Morrison (New Zealand), Glenn Turner (New Zealand),Derek Underwood (England); Max Walker (Australia).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2013)

I didn't know there were so many tours. What a depressingly long list.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 17, 2013)

ICC confirm what was fairly obvious to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23333065

DRS is a good system and far more reliable then umpires alone, I really don't understand the controversy around it because all the errors in the last test were human related.  The 3rd umpire should have referred the Trott decision back to the on-field umpire and the aussies should use their referrals for how they were intended.

Personally I wonder if just having one referral would be a better way to go, that way it would always be kept back for the obvious howler instead of the speculative LBW punt.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 17, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> ICC confirm what was fairly obvious to me.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23333065
> 
> ...


 
I think it generally works pretty well as it is tbh. You'll always get the occasional punt (if it's for the last wicket you might as well, however many you have) but I don't think most captains do it too much - Michael Clarke will be learning the lesson now. I think two helps get more decisions right than one would, without taking up huge chunks of playing time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2013)

If you're going to reduce it to one, I think teams should keep it if the decision is 'umpire's call'.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're going to reduce it to one, I think teams should keep it if the decision is 'umpire's call'.


 
That seems fair.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2013)

For all the talk about Broad, the Trott dismissal was the real foul-up.

Re Broad, Michael Holding is calling England hypocrites after the Bell run-out affair with India. I agree - the two incidents do not sit happily next to each other.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 17, 2013)

Supported by the World Cricket Committee (for what its worth)


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Re Broad, Michael Holding is calling England hypocrites after the Bell run-out affair with India. I agree - the two incidents do not sit happily next to each other.


 
He's also got a bee in his bonnet about the Ramdin affair in the Champion's Trophy and he has a point about that as well. 

In the wider context of the 'spirit of the game' he is correct but I also think he is comparing apples with pears.  Cricket is full of these inconsistencies around the 'spirit of the game' and there are loads of unwritten rules about what you should and shouldn't do on a cricket field.  However not walking is as common as appealing for something you know is not out, and on that front Holding himself knows a thing or two about that. 

I'm yet to meet or read one aussie who thought Broad was wrong to stand there.  Punter was in the Standard yesterday saying how flabbergasted he was when Gilchrist walked in 2003.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 17, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I'm yet to meet or read one aussie who thought Broad was wrong to stand there. Punter was in the Standard yesterday saying how flabbergasted he was when Gilchrist walked in 2003.


 
That's right. I don't think it was just him either in that team who thought it was irresponsible (or something like that). Another reason I imagine why Gilchrist and Warne didn't get on at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

Have to share this. I thought Jack russel had a benefactor now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Belatedly (and apols for going back to it) but I remembered the DH Robins Tours and Bob Willis visiting South Africa.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cricket_in_South_Africa_from_1971_to_1981). If you include players who went to Rhodesia (and this is ignoring those who went and coached/played as individuals etc.) you have (pre Packer) going. This lists misses out Garry Sobers going to Rhodesia and playing
> 
> 1973 Anthony Brown; David Brown; Frank Hayes; Jackie Hampshire; Robin Hobbs; David Hughes; Robin Jackman; Roger Knight; John Lever; Peter Lewington; Arnold Long; John Murray; Clive Radley; Mike Smith; David Turner; Peter Willey; Bob Willis
> 
> ...


 
Benaud, the god. What a disgusting list.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2013)

I'd be interested to know what Swann thinks of Broad not walking, given that he branded Perera a cheat for the same thing, and said that he wanted to kill him. Was reminded of that from a story on the BBC website this afternoon.


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2013)

So - Alastair Cook's record as captain: played 10; won 5; drawn 4; lost 1. Two series wins out of three (including in India) and one draw. 'Oooh, he's a bit negative' 'needs to improve a bit y'know'
Michael Clarke: beat India at home, West Indies away and Sri Lanka at home. Hammered in India, lost at home to the Yarpies, fallen out with his vice-captain and, at the risk of repeating myself, can't get a score batting in the top four. Oh, and 1-0 down to England already

Yep, England really need to 'take note' there Mr BBC man


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For all the talk about Broad, the Trott dismissal was the real foul-up.
> 
> Re Broad, Michael Holding is calling England hypocrites after the Bell run-out affair with India. I agree - the two incidents do not sit happily next to each other.


Yeah, the Trott one was the cock up and England were quite right to request clarification because more than one procedure appeared not to be being followed

Don't agree with Holding at all. The Bell incident was an example of something that is widely seen as being beyond the pale. I don't think the Broad thing was at all.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 17, 2013)

Although he apologised about it, I think it was the Gary Sobers match in Salisbury/Harare in 1970
 summary here http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/235653.html

that allowed the leeway for the later Rhodesia tours, arguing Rhodesia was more racist when Sobers went.

Interestingly, few Indian players on the list, perhaps Congress took it seriously in order to gain Third World credibility as against Pakistan and China? I think there were stiff (never make money from sport again) penalties, not just a ban for a few years, does anyone know?

This was the liberal captain of England Mike Brearley (himself anti strongly apartheid) response apparently: "In my view our Board were right to warn English cricketers that flirting with South Africa may put international cricket at risk. But I doubt whether, even if they wished to, they could go further, and I also doubt whether they should. It is a bulwark of an open society that people should be allowed, where possible, to do as they wish. They can be dissuaded, even disapproved of, but not prevented."


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2013)

Not seen much mention of it but Haddin supposedly nodded when Prior said 'you hit that didn't you?' as they waited for the review


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're going to reduce it to one, I think teams should keep it if the decision is 'umpire's call'.


But that gives unlimited scope for speculative LBW reviews from the fielding side?


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> But that gives unlimited scope for speculative LBW reviews from the fielding side?


Twatto will be pleased when he's given out lbw for 47 yet again


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Finn should play IMO.


and surely will. Home ground where he's taken 29 wickets at just over 20 in five Tests. Madness to drop him for either Bresnan (dire record at Lord's and not the same since his injury) or Onions (sorry, just don't trust him to be anything more than OK)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> But that gives unlimited scope for speculative LBW reviews from the fielding side?


Not quite unlimited scope. If it's missing completely, you lose it and that's that.

I don't think it should be reduced to one, personally. I'm happy for it to stay at two, with even an additional one added after 100 overs. I'd like to see more decisions got right.

Was chatting last night about the Haddin dismissal, and I'm amazed by how many people don't understand hotspot. It can miss things, but where there is a tiny nick and it does show up, it shows up as a tiny white mark. That's it - that's the evidence that he nicked it. I had two people saying to me that it was 'only a tiny mark', so it wasn't conclusive.


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was chatting last night about the Haddin dismissal, and I'm amazed by how many people don't understand hotspot. It can miss things, but where there is a tiny nick and it does show up, it shows up as a tiny white mark. That's it - that's the evidence that he nicked it. I had two people saying to me that it was 'only a tiny mark', so it wasn't conclusive.


Wow


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 17, 2013)

Can't wait for tomorrow


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 17, 2013)

JTG said:


> Don't agree with Holding at all. The Bell incident was an example of something that is widely seen as being beyond the pale. I don't think the Broad thing was at all.


So? That doesn't mean that England, and all those who said that Bell shouldn't be out, aren't guilty of hypocrisy.

Holding is right, if you argue for the people to play by the spirit of the game then you can't moan about being called a two-faced hypocrite when you don't walk.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite unlimited scope. If it's missing completely, you lose it and that's that.
> 
> I don't think it should be reduced to one, personally. I'm happy for it to stay at two, with even an additional one added after 100 overs. I'd like to see more decisions got right.


I'd be happy with more reviews. If things are clearly not out the third umpire should be able to report that quickly. In my ideal cricket scenario, every ball is covered by the third umpire if necessary, and there is no need for appealing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

That's such a daft idea. Half the fun of the game (now) is the use of reviews. And before, people who brazened it out scoring scandolous centuries.And the bowler getting steamed up.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

Any confirmation Starc and Cowan dropped for Khawaja and Harris?


----------



## JTG (Jul 18, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> So? That doesn't mean that England, and all those who said that Bell shouldn't be out, aren't guilty of hypocrisy.
> 
> Holding is right, if you argue for the people to play by the spirit of the game then you can't moan about being called a two-faced hypocrite when you don't walk.


That's exactly what I'm saying and Holding is wrong. So are you.

One thing that's obvious is that this whole thing isn't clear cut, as illustrated by the spread of views. Doesn't matter really, cricket's the same now as it was before. Bit of a laugh.


----------



## JTG (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Any confirmation Starc and Cowan dropped for Khawaja and Harris?


Not that I can see yet.

Beautiful morning. Lord's. Win this and the Ashes are very nearly retained.

Come on England


----------



## JTG (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Any confirmation Starc and Cowan dropped for Khawaja and Harris?


Graun reporting but nothing official yet.

This is good. Changes after one match - England should be unchanged. We're winning


----------



## JTG (Jul 18, 2013)

Michael Holding: brilliant at accepting 'not out' decisions from umpires


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Actually that's a bit unfair on Holding posting that video because that entire tour was nothing short of a scandal.  I don't think the Windies got one LBW decision all tour, supposedly the best fast bowling unit ever and they didn't get one decision.



redsquirrel said:


> So? That doesn't mean that England, and all those who said that Bell shouldn't be out, aren't guilty of hypocrisy.
> 
> Holding is right, if you argue for the people to play by the spirit of the game then you can't moan about being called a two-faced hypocrite when you don't walk.


 
No its just not that simple, its not black and white.    Bowlers appeal when they know its not out, bowlers deliberately follow through onto the pitch to create rough, batsman run down the middle of the pitch when they know they are bowling last, bowlers deliberately bowl at the body, fielders deliberately rough up the ball to get it to reverse etc etc etc

None of these things are in the spirit of the game but they all occur in every match.  As I said earlier the game is full of inconsistencies but there are several lines you do not cross such as if a ball deflects into a gap accidently off a batsman when completing a run you don't then take advantage and run again or if the ball slips out of the bowlers hand just as he bowls it the batsman shouldn't run up and wack in off the ground like a golf shot although you are entitled to.

To simply stand there and say 'Spirit of the Game' does not reflect how the game is played and was ever played, there is no such thing its something wheeled out when people think they've been hard done by. 

As I said earlier Holding is pissed with the way Ramdin was dealt with when the ICC cited the 'Spirit of the Game' because he claimed a catch which he knew he had dropped.  I agree with Holding and wonder why a West Indian was penalised when so many others have done the same thing and not been (I remember AB DV doing the same in England a few years back), I doubt an Indian or a English cricketer would have been dealt with in the same way.  But these situations are different and Holding knows it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Odd post -_ there are lines that are not crossed._ Ok, you spent some time explaining why if you're out nit walking is not crossing one of those lines, now you've sent some time explaining why a relatively minor thing is crossing one of those lines. Would you like yo outline some more of these uncrossable lines?

Buttler took and claimed a catch that didn't carry in the champions trophy btw.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Odd post -_ there are lines that are not crossed._ Ok, you spent some time explaining why if you're out nit walking is not crossing one of those lines, now you've sent some time explaining why a relatively minor thing is crossing one of those lines. Would you like yo outline some more of these uncrossable lines?


 
Not really because the coverage has just started and I can't be bothered but here is a couple more, you could throw sledging into that in that you can chat all manner of shit but never whilst the bowler is on his run up.  As a wicket keeper you are expected to let the batsman know if you have changed from standing back to standing up, it is very bad form to sneak up behind a batsman when the bowler is on his way. 

I never said any of this is right but for whatever reason some parts of gamesmanship are considered part of the game and others are not, I can't explain the logic behind it, its just the way it is.



> Buttler took and claimed a catch that didn't carry in the champions trophy btw.


 
Exactly, I wonder why he wasn't suspended like Ramdin?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Harris in. Sensible from Aus, surprisingly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Not really because the coverage has just started and I can't be bothered but here is a couple more, you could throw sledging into that in that you can chat all manner of shit but never whilst the bowler is on his run up. As a wicket keeper you are expected to let the batsman know if you have changed from standing back to standing up, it is very bad form to sneak up behind a batsman when the bowler is on his way.
> 
> I never said any of this is right but for whatever reason some parts of gamesmanship are considered part of the game and others are not, I can't explain the logic behind it, its just the way it is.
> 
> ...


 
See, _the spirit of cricket_ lives. 



Was it one of those lines you don't cross - or rather, as you've argued, one of those lines it's ok to cross. Or was it something else? You seem to have an idea why?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

Finn out Bresnan in confirmed?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2013)

JTG said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying and Holding is wrong. So are you..


Then on what basis am I and Holding wrong? Your only argument so far is that lots of people who hold a hypocritical belief don't believe themselves to be hypocrites. Hardly persuasive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Finn out Bresnan in confirmed?


Don't know. Might have to wait for the toss.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

What i expected, want another 20 runs on the board. I'd have stuck with Finn here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Bresnan is marking out his run for some reason.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> No its just not that simple, its not black and white. Bowlers appeal when they know its not out, bowlers deliberately follow through onto the pitch to create rough, batsman run down the middle of the pitch when they know they are bowling last, bowlers deliberately bowl at the body, fielders deliberately rough up the ball to get it to reverse etc etc etc
> 
> None of these things are in the spirit of the game but they all occur in every match. As I said earlier the game is full of inconsistencies but there are several lines you do not cross such as if a ball deflects into a gap accidently off a batsman when completing a run you don't then take advantage and run again or if the ball slips out of the bowlers hand just as he bowls it the batsman shouldn't run up and wack in off the ground like a golf shot although you are entitled to.


What does any of this rambling nonsense have to do with the point Holding made? 



Teaboy said:


> To simply stand there and say 'Spirit of the Game' does not reflect how the game is played and was ever played, there is no such thing its something wheeled out when people think they've been hard done by.


Then why aren't the England team hypocrites when they used the spirit of cricket argument when Bell was run out? If you accept the above statement then it follows that Holding is right.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> What does any of this rambling nonsense have to do with the point Holding made?


 
That's actually pretty pathetic.  The spirit of the game is not black and white and there are some examples for you to work with.



> Then why aren't the England team hypocrites when they used the spirit of cricket argument when Bell was run out? If you accept the above statement then it follows that Holding is right.


 
Only if Holding accepts he's a hypocrite because he used to appeal when he knew its wasn't out.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

England win the toss and bat.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Actually that's a bit unfair on Holding posting that video because that entire tour was nothing short of a scandal. I don't think the Windies got one LBW decision all tour, supposedly the best fast bowling unit ever and they didn't get one decision.


 
I was halfway through posting the same.. NZ beating that WI team without umpiring help? There were racism allegations made during that tour too.. and Croft barging the umpire during his run up.  Watch from about 1.40 (flicks bails off going back to his run then barges Goodall..)





Anyway back to the Test..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Anyway back to the Test..


 
It's not going away


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

Some sort of reactionary political demonstration has invaded the pitch.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 18, 2013)

Not a peep mentioned on TMS!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Hijacking neutral sport.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> Some sort of reactionary political demonstration has invaded the pitch.


 
 Oh no, its not Trenton Oldfield pissed at how lots of public schools play cricket?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Oh no, its not Trenton Oldfield pissed at how lots of public schools play cricket?


 
Have you taken the day off and started on the cider first thing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Good point made by someone on cricinfo. Harris never likely to survive back-to-back tests so was always going to be picked this week.

I think that might be right.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have you taken the day off and started on the cider first thing?


 
Nearly, I'm working from home and the sun is shining.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Why the flip is this not started? What's with the 11-15 nonsense?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Her maj was late.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good point made by someone on cricinfo. Harris never likely to survive back-to-back tests so was always going to be picked this week.
> 
> I think that might be right.


Yep the right decision IMO even if it is a little harsh on Starc, for me Harris is as good as anyone in the world


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Chuck her out a plane like the olympics. Bresnan now confirmed for Finn btw.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 18, 2013)

Feel bad for Finn, though he bought nothing to the first test 

Good looking lad for a cricketer though!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Pretty conservative from England going for Bresnan. Unsurprising, though.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Yep the right decision IMO even if it is a little harsh on Starc, for me Harris is as good as anyone in the world


 
Well he's taking the new ball so we'll get an early chance to see.  He can bat a bit as well if I recall?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Harris was Aus's best bowler in the last Ashes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2013)

Cook out. Good/lucky bowling change.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

I wonder if he was just changing the bowlers ends, still worked anyway.  Another failure for Cook, he is looking out of form.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

plum. Cook looking to play off his legs


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2013)

Bugger.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Bloody hell that's a tight call.  He has hit it but was it pad first?  Should probably stay with the original decision.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 18, 2013)

fucks sake


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Great choice to move Root up the order, been a real success so far.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Masterstroke to drop Compton. Next 10 years and next captain assured. RIGHT NOW!!! Well done Michael Vaughan.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

This is a Twenty20 game, yes?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2013)

Bad start for England, can't lose another before lunch.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

What should Compton's price be? Millers head?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2013)

Oh shit,


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What should Compton's price be? Millers head?


England would like to be able to drop Root down to 6, but that would mean dropping Bairstow for Root's failures. Brilliant situation they've got themselves into.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 18, 2013)

i might cry


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2013)

Good old England, never never letting us down


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jul 18, 2013)

Oof


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2013)

Santino said:
			
		

> This is a Twenty20 game, yes?



A Ten10 game?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Fair play to aus.  It is doing a fair bit out there at the moment, openers are there to see off the new ball.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 18, 2013)

Another fun test?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2013)

It's going to be good, this


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Balbi said:


> It's going to be good, this


 
It shouldn't have to be good. It should be easy.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

All we need is two batsmen who can grind out a century each in difficult conditions.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Great choice to move Root up the order, been a real success so far.


 


butchersapron said:


> Masterstroke to drop Compton. Next 10 years and next captain assured. RIGHT NOW!!! Well done Michael Vaughan.


 
I think Root deserves the same time as Compton to settle in, so another 14 innings to go?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It shouldn't have to be good. It should be easy.


 

Nah - that's how Aussies used to think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> I think Root deserves the same time as Compton to settle in, so another 14 innings to go?


 
Point has to be that Compton was in great form _against Australia_ running into this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> I think Root deserves the same time as Compton to settle in, so another 14 innings to go?


 
Why though - choice already made. He's staying - and being made captain. Compton to come back will be seen a a defeat by management. So can't happen. As santino says it's a brilliant situation_ they've got themselves into._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Point has to be that Compton was in great form _against Australia_ running into this.


 
200 or so in three innings, every new ball seen off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 200 or so in three innings, every new ball seen off.


Yes, and whatever criticisms we can level against Compton, his record in tests, first in India, but even to an extent against NZ in England, shows that he survives the first 20 or so overs more often than not.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Pattinson gets a bit carried away considering he's the one bowler not up to much so far.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

Have the Australian fans been out buying onions? Or would they have to buy a food named after one of their bowlers? Maybe a Lion Bar.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

I may make a pro/anti compton list of posters later.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Bairstow scores 50+ = root safe. Bairstow scores -0 = root safe.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Point has to be that Compton was in great form _against Australia_ running into this.


 

(With a perverse hat on) you could argue that Watson scored a 100 in one of those matches so clearly not Test conditions. Just think if Compton wasn't given enough of a chance then Root should be given a similar sort of go (especially if Cook isn't scoring as an opener either).


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I may make a pro/anti compton list of posters later.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

If one opener is failing then another opener who is failing should def be kept on? That is perverse.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

You'd thought the experience of Bell in 2005 and Bopara in 2009 would have made them cautious about having promising but young batsman up the order in ashes tests.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> (With a perverse hat on) you could argue that Watson scored a 100 in one of those matches so clearly not Test conditions. Just think if Compton wasn't given enough of a chance then Root should be given a similar sort of go (especially if Cook isn't scoring as an opener either).


I wouldn't advocate dropping Root. But he didn't have to move up to open, and so far, three innings in, he's been a failure as an opener.

Problem with Compton is that he was told to go away and score runs, did exactly that, but still wasn't even considered. It would have been a case of Compton staying as opener, Root moving to 6 and Bairstow dropping out, had Compton played.

Just cos you open in 1st class, doesn't mean you ever have to open in tests. Michael Hussey was an opener, remember. He did rather well batting at 5/6 nearly the whole of his test career.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

The ball is already doing less now.  All the openers had to do was see off the new ball  and then we could have filled our boots but instead they both failed and exposed Pieterson to the new ball, he got a good one and now we are in the shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Root fails = drop Bairstow. Game's a bit rigged here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

He who cannot be touched. Warner had a go i suppose.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 18, 2013)

hello all,just thought i would pop in for a quick gloat.Good session for us,looks like her Maj saw 3 go and thought"fuck this"and buggered off in her Roller.
I dont understand why the umpire cant have the benefit of the review whenever he sees fit.The captain of the fielding team or the batsmen could be allowed to question an unfavourable decision


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2013)

Had a nap and missed the lunch break 

Hopefully Trott and Bell can dig in for a while longer after the awful start.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Had a nap and missed the lunch break
> 
> Hopefully Trott and Bell can dig in for a while longer after the awful start.


 

Are you purposely trying to be a jonah here?


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

shitballs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)




----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2013)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Are you purposely trying to be a jonah here?



I am going out to buy an onion


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

Bairstow must be feeling the pressure.  If he performs poorly, he could be dropped, so that Root can go down the order, for Compton to come in at 2.  Somewhat harsh, given that the principal driver would be Root's failure as an opener.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Well England have got themselves into a right mess here again.  Pitch looks a belter, weather is idea and with the exception of Harris the Oz bowlers haven't been doing anything special, indeed Pattinson is having a bit of a shocker.  Its 450-500 1st innings situation and what are we at?  153-4.  Total dross.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

Athos said:


> Bairstow must be feeling the pressure. If he performs poorly, he could be dropped, so that Root can go down the order, for Compton to come in at 2. Somewhat harsh, given that the principal driver would be Root's failure as an opener.


 
Well its totally in Bairstow's control to stop that happening.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:
			
		

> Well its totally in Bairstow's control to stop that happening.



Not necessarily. If he bats well (and Root has a bad second innings), surely they'll have to address the problem, and drop Root himself.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

That's what I mean.  Bairstow won't get dropped if he scores runs, so he's at the crease now in perfect conditions.  No excuses really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> That's what I mean.  Bairstow won't get dropped if he scores runs, so he's at the crease now in perfect conditions.  No excuses really.


Yes he will be  because you don't drop fec


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

I'm sorry but that's absolute crap from Bairstow. You don't deserve to keep your place with shots like that.

Looks like a no ball mind.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 18, 2013)

bugger,oh well Root was out by a quarter of an inch and siddle was too


----------



## souljacker (Jul 18, 2013)

in out in out shake it all about


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 18, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> bugger,oh well Root was out by a quarter of an inch and siddle was too


 
I shouldn't worry, not being able to play a straight ball straight is a bit of a technical flaw which should get exposed again.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 18, 2013)

Another shit Bell innings


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

Three quick wickets for Smith!  No wonder they're not taking the new ball.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Ach. Falling apart now.

Australia's day.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

And Broad walks out to boos.  At Lords!

ETA: Except it wasn't - it's Anderson gone in as night watchman. Must be wondering what he has to do after taking 10 wickets in the last game!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2013)

Batsman should have done a lot better on that pitch. The early loss of wickets was dire too. 

However the first innings score was 215, and Australia first innings was 280 with Agar pulling an amazing number 11 score out the bag. England should be doing better but Australia should be too. Will have to see how they do tomorrow


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2013)

Athos said:


> And Broad walks out to boos. At Lords!


 
Only from Aussie supporters. Hypocrites.

I've been generously gifted 2 tickets for Monday ...... fingers crossed!

If anyone else is planning to be there and fancies a beer, drop me a PM.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Only from Aussie supporters. Hypocrites.
> 
> I've been generously gifted 2 tickets for Monday ...... fingers crossed!
> 
> If anyone else is planning to be there and fancies a beer, drop me a PM.


 
I wasn't there.  But, according to Blowers, it wasn't just from Aussies.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2013)

Athos said:


> I wasn't there. But, according to Blowers, it wasn't just from Aussies.


 
With no disrespect whatsoever to the wonderful HB, a friend that was there reckons it was a bunch of about 20 pissed-up Aussies, who were in turn boo'd by the _civilised_ folk. 

I've had a night out with Blowers.

In the process of him trying to pull my mate, Lesley (30 years his junior), we ended up in his "club" in Kensington/Knightsbridge.

He's an absolutely top bloke if that evening was a yardsdtick.

_Apparently, _when we first met I demanded proof that he really was Henry Blofeld and he instantly produced his credit cards and driving license!


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> With no disrespect whatsoever to the wonderful HB, a friend that was there reckons it was a bunch of about 20 pissed-up Aussies, who were in turn boo'd by the _civilised_ folk.
> 
> I've had a night out with Blowers.
> 
> ...


 
Couldn't you tell by the voice alone?  I'd have just asked him to say "my dear old thing."


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

Blofeld! Jusht ash I exshpected.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> Blofeld! Jusht ash I exshpected.


 
His father was the at school with ian Flemming.  That's where he got the idea for the villain's name.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Bad from england today. As i feared harris effective. Not convinced at all by bairstow. Loose


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bad from england today. As i feared harris effective. Not convinced at all by England. Loose


Fixed for you (bell notwithstanding)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2013)

Bell played well then got a good one. Credit to smith. Biarstow though? Out to a full toss at that stage in the game? Bad. Bad thinking.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 18, 2013)

Tbh I though bairstiw did ok... Yeah he was out to a bad shot, yeah he got bowled all ends up by a no ball, but he rode his luck and scored runs.. I only listen to it on radio and saw highlights but no matter how ugly.. They were 68 well needed runs and he did more than some others so ill give him the benefit for that. 

I don't really have a problem with any of the England batting really.. It was tough to start with and 3 fell but that's cricket... More concerned about prior than anything else but he'll rectify that at some point

I was only joking with my previous comment.. It was a good days cricket which aus came out on top of... No drama in any of the performances if you ask me


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

I don't agree, mumbles. Against a better team than Aus, I'd be very worried by England's score. Against the India of Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman/Sehwag, for instance, I'd think this score was woefully under par.

It's worrying that Cook couldn't keep Watson out. And it's worrying that Bairstow is loose even on a belter when he's in. OK, Trott misjudged one, but he played well till then - he'll be disappointed he got out, but I'm not worried about him. My worry at the moment is the openers and Bairstow.

And that's a bad score. Any final total under 400 is not good, and they look unlikely to get that.

Credit where it's due, but criticism where it's due too.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2013)

Athos said:


> His father was the at school with ian Flemming. That's where he got the idea for the villain's name.


 I just can't see Daniel Craig enthusing about red buses and pigeons.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 19, 2013)

Ah, I don't disagree with your points or angle. I'm just not in that school of cricket analysis like that if it makes sense. I do understand it and appreciate what you say though

But for me, It doesn't matter if they'd be shit against a better team.. They're not playing one. It doesn't matter if anyone looks in bad form, they are class players and you know the adage about that. 


Yes, it's a bad score so far, but aus are yet to show what they can do. I am fairly sure of a first innings lead for aus, but as we know... A match can be won or lost in one session and there's many more yet to come.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2013)

Good finish by Broad and Swann, those extra 40 odd runs past what the Aussies were hoping for might come in very handy.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2013)

Should be enough against this lot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Still at least 50 short of a decent score, though. Looks like a belter to bat on, and you can add about 50 to your score for the lightning quick outfield. But 361's not a disaster.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Not a great score but not a disaster in the end. You'd think England could turn around a reasonable first innings deficit with Australia batting last.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2013)

Great opening over there


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Well the pitch looks like a belter and England could be in for a long day here.  Mind, you can always rely on Watson to get a start and then get out and as per usual waste a review on it, what a twat he was plumb.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:
			
		

> Well the pitch looks like a belter and England could be in for a long day here.  Mind, you can always rely on Watson to get a start and then get out and as per usual waste a review on it, what a twat he was plumb.



Nice pre-lunch gift there


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

It just looked out.  I don't understand why Chris Rogers didn't tell him to just walk off, perhaps the problems in the squad are not as old news as they make out? Perhaps a new boy didn't feel he could overrule the old vice captain?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Watson lbw for 30?

<Falls off chair in shock>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

That was plumb, you plum. Surely Watson of all people should know what plumb lbw feels like.

Highest %age lbw dismissals of any batsman, according to tms.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2013)

Tbf it was going pretty left-to-righty. Clarke's done worse.

(Plus, if you were Watson, you'd do it for the anti-Clarke Lols or to give less chance for MC to embarass himself later on )


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Seems like the shit full toss is the ball to go for in this game.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 19, 2013)

The dog ball gets the wicket. Now Hughes to try and get double figures.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2013)

Shame Watson wasted that review...


----------



## Idaho (Jul 19, 2013)

Australia don't seem to have any DRS strategy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Ooops.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2013)

Me fucking nan could have caught that.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2013)

Enjoying today's play. England bowling well, just need another wicket to rattle cages a bit more.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Not the first that Trott has dropped. Not the best slipper.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2013)

I can see Swan getting Khawaja in a minute.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Fuck me, hotspot is shit.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

England were 28-3 so Australia are well ahead of the game here.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck me, hotspot is shit.


 
This might be a stupid question (especially given it's been used in properly hot coutries) but is it less likely to show up when the weather is as hot as it is? Or will the difference in temperature still be the same?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Aussies are getting themselves in a right mess with their reviews here and now we have Shane Warne on commentary saying Phil Hughes wasn't out because Phil Hughes didn't think he was out.  What a mess they are getting tied up in.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck me, hotspot is shit.


 
Actually its quite good, its not perfect.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Aussies are getting themselves in a right mess with their reviews here and now we have Shane Warne on commentary saying Phil Hughes wasn't out because Phil Hughes didn't think he was out. What a mess they are getting tied up in.


yep. Ignoring the snicko evidence. There was a noise. Perhaps Shane would like to suggest where it came from?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Actually its quite good, its not perfect.


It's not good enough.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not good enough.


 
For what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Strange passage of play.

Everyone got it wrong for the Rogers dismissal - bowler, batsman and umpire. Then Trott drops a dolly. Then Hughes plays a terrible shot and gets the tiniest of edges and reviews.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> For what?


To pick up the thin edges, which ought to be the only edges that the umpire misses.

If that had been given not out, it would have stayed not out. So hotspot was useless.

That said, at least the 3rd ump knew how to use hotspot (lack of) evidence this time.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yep. Ignoring the snicko evidence. There was a noise. Perhaps Shane would like to suggest where it came from?


 
I've never believed this whole thing when people say 'As a batsman you know when you've hit it'.  I just don't think that's the case and sometimes in the flurry of the shot there can be all sorts of noises.  So in short I am very confident that Hughes thought he's missed it but I'm equally confident he did nick it and Warne is talking 100% bollocks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

fwiw, Mark Butcher reckons you always know if you've hit it. That said, before snicko, etc, nobody could ever know whether or not they always knew.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2013)

Sawn gets Khawaja


----------



## yardbird (Jul 19, 2013)

And 69 for 4


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Aus self-destructing now. Four wickets. Four bad shots.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Two more wickets and they're into the batsmen.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To pick up the thin edges, which ought to be the only edges that the umpire misses.


 
I think there are few more instances such as the bad pad decisions and was there a inside edge before pad, most of the time hot spot is very useful



> If that had been given not out, it would have stayed not out. So hotspot was useless.


  But as long as everyone knows its not perfect and just one more tool to be used to eliminate the howler of which this wasn't ever going to be one.



> That said, at least the 3rd ump knew how to use hotspot (lack of) evidence this time.


 
I think there might have been a tiny white mark, but yes it was correct that they stuck with the on-field decision.  I love the DRS system but not when its used to overrule the on-field umpire on marginal decisions.

Oh and what on earth was that shot by Usman?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I think there are few more instances such as the bad pad decisions and was there a inside edge before pad, most of the time hot spot is very useful


 
Yes, fair enough. As long as the 3rd ump knows how to use it. Snicko is far better. They're working on being able to turn it round in 5 seconds, at which point they will be able to use it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Extra bounce for Swann. Wicket not so docile now.

But wow, Aus are a poor side. NZ were more of a test.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Both teams making this flat track in perfect conditions look like a minefield.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

The aussie bowlers must be sick of their top order.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Two more wickets and they're into the batsmen.


here ya go!

One thing for sure, i think. England won't enforce the follow-on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Hit the pad with his bat. Worthy of his mate Watson, that one.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2013)

I popped out for an hour at 69-4 thinking things were not going too bad


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

With the Watson referral you just have to conclude he's thick twat. After Trent Bridge they must have had a long chat about how England dealt with them much better and it may have cost them the match. Then first thing Watson does is throw one away, which puts pressure of Rogers who walks when he should have referred. Lehman and Clarke must have been banging their heads against the wall.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Dear lord, it gets worse.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 19, 2013)

The Aussies must have bet on themselves to fuck up. 96-7!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 19, 2013)




----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> England won't enforce the follow-on.


They'd be right not to enforce it. Give Jimmy a rest, and grind the Aussies into the dirt.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2013)

Will Australia make 150?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Santino said:


> They'd be right not to enforce it. Give Jimmy a rest, and grind the Aussies into the dirt.


Absolutely. No reason at all to do it. Sometimes there are arguments both ways. Not in this case.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Actually its quite good, its not perfect.


 
Bit like umpires


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2013)

*Last 10 overs*: *RR* 0.60


----------



## MrSki (Jul 19, 2013)

Mind you it seems to be the tail that scores the most for our antipodean cousins.

Not just the scoring that is the wrong way round.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Haddin totally at fault for the run-out. He'd have made it if he'd responded to the call, and it was Agar's call. Australia are in a collective brain-freeze.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2013)

*Last 10 overs **RR* 0.50


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Haddin totally at fault for the run-out. He'd have made it if he'd responded to the call, and it was Agar's call. Australia are in a collective brain-freeze.


 
sounds like he was ball watching. Schoolboy error.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Bit like umpires


 
Exactly, so if it can help the umpires be a bit better then its all good.


As far as the match and indeed the series we've seen some really poor batting (Bell aside) from both teams.  Clarke got a decent ball today but the rest of them just wilted some in comical style.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Exactly, so if it can help the umpires be a bit better then its all good.
> 
> 
> As far as the match and indeed the series we've seen some really poor batting (Bell aside) from both teams. Clarke got a decent ball today but the rest of them just wilted some in comical style.


He got a decent ball, but he also got his pad in the way of his bat. He was at fault.

I think Smith got a good one. Really spat at him. He's the only one I'd let off.

England a bit reliant on Anderson, mind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

A certain D. Warner a certainty to play next test, I'd think.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He got a decent ball, but he also got his pad in the way of his bat. He was at fault.
> 
> I think Smith got a good one. Really spat at him. He's the only one I'd let off.
> 
> England a bit reliant on Anderson, mind.


 
Yeah, the ball Clarke got wasn't unplayable by any means.  It all the talk about hot spot no one really mentioned just how loose Hughes' shot was, then Usman and the run out.  I agree with you there is some sort of collective meltdown going on with the Aussies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Agar actually ran 1.5 lengths of the pitch, including one turn, for that run-out. It was an easy single, surely.

Schoolboy error from cricketers playing like schoolboys. Hughes and Khawaja played appalling shots.

Don't care what Warne thinks, Hughes hit that. Snicko proved it. So it was a brilliant decision by Dharmasena, as was his call for Clarke (although surely England would have reviewed a not out call).

As for Mr Erasmus... He was the third ump last time, and he's not doing much better out in the middle this time. Feel a bit sorry for Rogers. Khawaja didn't help him, either, just shrugging his shoulders like that.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't care what Warne thinks, Hughes hit that. Snicko proved it. So it was a brilliant decision by Dharmasena, as was his call for Clarke (although surely England would have reviewed a not out call).


 
Aye Warne made a right prat of himself on that one.  I think you're right England would have reviewed but the decision would have stood I reckon.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Exactly, so if it can help the umpires be a bit better then its all good.
> 
> 
> As far as the match and indeed the series we've seen some really poor batting (Bell aside) from both teams. Clarke got a decent ball today but the rest of them just wilted some in comical style.


 
The umpires don't need any help. The game doesn't need 100% correct decisions. As Adam Gilchrist says in today's CricInfo




> The spontaneity and drama, the magic and intrigue that Test cricket always possessed has been lost. The reality and finality of seeing the umpire's finger raised has been erased, because everyone now looks to the batsman or fielding captain to see their response.
> 
> Compare the way the Trent Bridge Test ended on Sunday with the memorable scenes at Edgbaston in 2005, when in a similar result Australia fell agonisingly short of the target. Michael Kasprowicz was the last man out, caught behind off Steve Harmison, and if the DRS had been in place, we would probably still be looking at the tape because I don't think anyone really knows even now whether it was out or not. That's fine: I have no problem with the decision that was made.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/651695.html


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2013)

Badgers said:
			
		

> Will Australia make 150?



Sorry, I meant '120'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Harris can bat.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm laughing at this, but at the same time I'm thinking, fucking hell Aussies, put up a fucking fight!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2013)

souljacker said:


> I'm laughing at this, but at the same time I'm thinking, fucking hell Aussies, put up a fucking fight!


 
I think we know how they felt for many a year.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 19, 2013)

I feel really sorry for Australia, but only in a patronising way.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 19, 2013)

Up until that last wicket, I thought Blowers has done remarkably well this series - He's managed to mostly limit his mistakes to randomly announcing Warne as one of the Aussie players and consistently calling Stuart, Chris. That was however, fairly classic Blofield. 'He's bowled him!' *tufnell interjects* 'Sorry, I mean caught at slip, absolutely, well! isn't it all very exciting etc'


----------



## MrSki (Jul 19, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Up until that last wicket, I thought Blowers has done remarkably well this series - He's managed to mostly limit his mistakes to randomly announcing Warne as one of the Aussie players and consistently calling Stuart, Chris. That was however, fairly classic Blofield. 'He's bowled him!' *tufnell interjects* 'Sorry, I mean caught at slip, absolutely, well! isn't it all very exciting etc'


 
He was talking about the best partnership for the 11th wicket earlier.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 19, 2013)

MrSki said:


> He was talking about the best partnership for the 11th wicket earlier.


 
Missed that!


----------



## JimW (Jul 19, 2013)

> Smith c Bell b Swann 2​Haddin c Trott b Swann 7​Agar run out Prior   2​Siddle c Swann b Anderson 2​


I could get in this Aussie middle order!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> The umpires don't need any help. The game doesn't need 100% correct decisions. As Adam Gilchrist says in today's CricInfo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Very easy for ex-players (who had already made their reputation) and blokes on the internet to say we can accept 75% correct decisions.  Although I think most people would accept Gilchrist's point that questioning the umpires is inherently not great but its difficult to see a different way of doing it. 

The technology exists it cannot be un-invented, seeing just how many poor decisions were being made and not rectified would harm the game far more then the mostly invented problems with the DRS.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> The technology exists it cannot be un-invented, seeing just how many poor decisions were being made and not rectified would harm the game far more then the mostly invented problems with the DRS.


Yep. Exactly what was happening before drs and why it had to be brought in. Loads of people were crying out for technology, just as people are in football now. No turning back - but the system can and I'm sure will be improved.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Also the big talking point of the last test came about because of a very poor call by an umpire and already today we've seen another poor decision this time by Erasmus.  It is only because the aussies are utterly inept (probably another reason Gilchrist is against it) at using the DRS system that these wrongs weren't righted.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Does anyone feel it would be justice for Australia to score a 130-150 partnership for the last wicket?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Does anyone feel it would be justice for Australia to score a 130-150 partnership for the last wicket?


 
Erm, why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Does anyone feel it would be justice for Australia to score a 130-150 partnership for the last wicket?


Nope. It was a shocker from Erasmus (again, and his last shocker, Trott, went Aus's way), but they only have themselves (well, Watson mainly) to blame.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Erm, why?


 

They seem to be underdogs, plus Australian republicans would have been put into a difficult situation on the first day with the Queen.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

All out forget it. 

New question what are the rules for follow on?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2013)

Don't do it at all costs. 

I would tho.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> plus Australian republicans would have been put into a difficult situation on the first day with the Queen.


 
This is something I hadn't considered.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> All out forget it.
> 
> New question what are the rules for follow on?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow-on


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Well done England. But dismal from Australia. Utterly dismal. They're as bad a team as England were in the 1990s.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> They seem to be underdogs, plus Australian republicans would have been put into a difficult situation on the first day with the Queen.


What about English republicans?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> All out forget it.
> 
> New question what are the rules for follow on?


Team needs to be more than 199 behind. In a four-day match, the figure's 149. Cook has the option whether or not to enforce it.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Kanda said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow-on


 

Ta. 

"The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. This is a tactical decision which the captain makes based on the state of the game, the conditions of weather and pitch, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining."
So why isn't Australia following on?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> Don't do it at all costs.
> 
> I would tho.


I wouldn't in this case. There are still more than 3 days left. The forecast is perfect. It's still very good for batting, despite the score, and will only get harder as the pitch wears.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Ta.
> 
> "The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. This is a tactical decision which the captain makes based on the state of the game, the conditions of weather and pitch, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining."
> So why isn't Australia following on?


 

Because its up to Alistair Cook and he fancies a bat on this pitch (possibly because he fucked it first time round).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Ta.
> 
> "The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. This is a tactical decision which the captain makes based on the state of the game, the conditions of weather and pitch, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining."
> So why isn't Australia following on?


 
Australia have lost twice after enforcing the follow-on. Headingley 1981 and Kolkata in about 2001. It's the only realistic chance Australia have to win the game in this case - score 400 and knock Eng over for 150. It's possible, and has happened, and that makes teams cautious. Also, you give your bowlers a rest before they go out again.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Why are TMS talking about nonsense instead of the pros and cons of following on? If English bowlers are on a roll they should continue, shouldn't they? 

Has anyone here ever captained any team in any kind of multi-day test? What would you do?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Ta.
> 
> "The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. This is a tactical decision which the captain makes based on the state of the game, the conditions of weather and pitch, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining."
> So why isn't Australia following on?


 
Cook decided not to enforce. It's generally hardest to bat last, the bowlers get a rest, and there's no real time issue with over 3 days left and no chance of rain, so really no reason to enforce it.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why are TMS talking about nonsense instead of the pros and cons of following on? If English bowlers are on a roll they should continue, shouldn't they?
> 
> Has anyone here ever captained any team in any kind of multi-day test? What would you do?


 
Not me, but there are 4 ex-England captains on Sky and none would have enforced the follow-on.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why are TMS talking about nonsense instead of the pros and cons of following on? If English bowlers are on a roll they should continue, shouldn't they?
> 
> Has anyone here ever captained any team in any kind of multi-day test? What would you do?


 

Give the bowlers a break. Also, by the time the Aussies get in, the pitch will have deteriorated a lot, so swannie can get another 5for.

The reason TMS are talking nonsense, is because that's what they do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

It is still a good wicket. Aus could score 400 second time round. I'm normally in the camp that says enforce it where possible. But there was never any chance of enforcing it this time.

Also, a 3-day test would lose Lord's a fortune in ticket refunds.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Ta.
> 
> "The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. This is a tactical decision which the captain makes based on the state of the game, the conditions of weather and pitch, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining."
> So why isn't Australia following on?



Would you enforce it? I wouldn't.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is still a good wicket. Aus could score 400 second time round. I'm normally in the camp that says enforce it where possible.


 

Forgot about the pitch. 

So is the plan for England to reach a number in the captain's mind and then "declare"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Forgot about the pitch.
> 
> So is the plan for England to reach a number in the captain's mind and then "declare"?


Yep. In this case, they would declare with a lead of well over 500. Knowing cautious England, they'll probably bat on until the lead's at least 550. But there's ages to go yet, so no need not to be cautious.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Athos said:


> Would you enforce it? I wouldn't.


 

My thinking was: the bowlers aren't that tired they've done under a day, they are doing well and could carry on.

Not really good enough of a reason.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Hey up, Watson has the new ball.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. In this case, they would declare with a lead of well over 500. Knowing cautious England, they'll probably bat on until the lead's at least 550. But there's ages to go yet, so no need not to be cautious.


 
There's also a demoralising effect for the rest of the series. If you can put Oz in chasing a massive score and get them out a mile short of it you really put yourself on top, more than simply winning the game.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Ideal opportunity for Joe Root - he really needs to get a big score here.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 19, 2013)

Cook will be quite happy to let aus bat last .Swan will certainly be happy to bowl


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Of course by not enforcing the follow-on it will bring into play the most frustrating aspect of the Cook / Flower combination.  We'll bat on far to long and go looking for a 500+ lead for some reason.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. In this case, they would declare with a lead of well over 500. Knowing cautious England, they'll probably bat on until the lead's at least 550. But there's ages to go yet, so no need not to be cautious.


 
The advantage so far is 233. So they need at least 320 to make a 550 lead they could be bowled out quickly though which is a possibility. 
The danger also becomes if they spend too long trying to make that 320 for a 550 lead they use up so much time that Australia can just bat everything defensively into the ground, score few runs but finish up time for a draw.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Of course by not enforcing the follow-on it will bring into play the most frustrating aspect of the Cook / Flower combination. We'll bat on far to long and go looking for a 500+ lead for some reason.


England might be bowled out, of course, but if they're not, I'll take a wager with anyone that they won't declare until the lead is 550.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The advantage so far is 233. So they need at least 320 to make a 550 lead they could be bowled out quickly though which is a possibility.
> The danger also becomes if they spend too long trying to make that 320 for a 550 lead they use up so much time that Australia can just bat everything defensively into the ground, score few runs but finish up time for a draw.


Yes. Basically Australia are looking at batting two days to save the match. Again, it's been done. England in South Africa when Atherton and Russell batted out the last day. England haven't won yet! Whatever else happens, you need 20 wickets to win a test, and so far they only have 10.

But it's only the second day! There is ages to go yet. If England are still batting at close of play tomorrow, they will have a lead of well over 500 already. Also, Aussie bowlers will be tired and demoralised and there will be easy quick runs to be had. First job is to bat normally for two sessions.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:
			
		

> My thinking was: the bowlers aren't that tired they've done under a day, they are doing well and could carry on.
> 
> Not really good enough of a reason.



You ever bowled in that heat?  I bet the bowlers would welcome a rest. And why bat fourth, when that's likely to be the most difficult. We have a lead in the series. Bat steadily and we could declare before lunch on Sunday(maybe even put them in for the last hour on on Saturday).  By which time the lead would be unassailable, and we still have a long time to bowl them out.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The advantage so far is 233. So they need at least 320 to make a 550 lead they could be bowled out quickly though which is a possibility.
> The danger also becomes if they spend too long trying to make that 320 for a 550 lead they use up so much time that Australia can just bat everything defensively into the ground, score few runs but finish up time for a draw.


 
There's still well over three days left and that would leave Australia batting tomorrow. I don't see a problem with it at all tbh. LBJ is right that it's definitely what they'll aim at IMO.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Athos said:


> You ever bowled in that heat? I bet the bowlers would welcome a rest. And why bat fourth, when that's likely to be the most difficult. We have a lead in the series. Bat steadily and we could declare around lunch on Sunday. By which time the lead would be unassailable, and we still have a long time to bowl them out.


 

No but I've portered so I take your point, though as trained professional cricketers who have to play in Karachi and Mumbai they might be better able to overcome the heat. Lunch on Sunday turn-around could mean Australia survive a day and a half without playing for runs to secure their draw. It will still be very hot on Sunday and Monday.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Aus will be batting before lunch on Sunday. If England get a real hurry-on tomorrow, Aus may be batting half an hour before the close tomorrow evening.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.  First bat well for two sessions and see where you are.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:
			
		

> No but I've portered so I take your point, though as trained professional cricketers who have to play in Karachi and Mumbai they might be better able to overcome the heat. Lunch on Sunday turn-around could mean Australia survive a day and a half without playing for runs to secure their draw. It will still be very hot on Sunday and Monday.



Yeah. I edited my post just before you replied. If we go a reasonable lick, they might put them in for the last hour of Saturday.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2013)

I would enforce it. Jimmy and swanny have barely broken sweat so far, and those batsmen look shot. They clearly dread batting atm
I can barely believe just how bad a set of batsmen Australia seem to be, on the evidence of this innings, and Australia's first nine wicket partnership at Trent Bridge


----------



## JimW (Jul 19, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I would enforce it. Jimmy and swanny have barely broken sweat so far, and those batsmen look shot. They clearly dread batting atm
> I can barely believe just how bad a set of batsmen Australia seem to be, on the evidence of this innings, and Australia's first nine wicket partnership at Trent Bridge


 
Agree with them saying the pitch is going to deteriorate tho so give Swann a go on the last two days. If he gets all ten he equals an Austin Hedley Ashes record of 15 in a match  (IIRC off TMS)


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Shane Watsonlbw Tim Bresnan 30 
Chris Rogerslbw Graeme Swann 15
Usman Khawaja c Kevin Pietersen b Graeme Swann 14 
Phillip Hughesc Matt Prior b Tim Bresnan 1 
Michael Clarke * lbw Stuart Broad 28 
Steven Smithc Ian Bell b Graeme Swann 2
Brad Haddin †c Jonathan Trott b Graeme Swann7 
Ashton Agarrun out (Matt Prior)2 
Peter Siddlec Graeme Swann b James Anderson2 
James Pattinson not out10 
Ryan Harrisc Kevin Pietersen b Graeme Swann10 

I feel sad that it was a poor Australia performance. I can't remember anything like it against England.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agar actually ran 1.5 lengths of the pitch, including one turn, for that run-out. It was an easy single, surely.


tbf, he's clearly carrying an injury.
btw, on the subject of Aussies, anyone seen liquidlunch recently? I want to torment him


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, he's clearly carrying an injury.
> btw, on the subject of Aussies, anyone seen liquidlunch recently? I want to torment him



Last spotted when they were doing well...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What about English republicans?


They tend not to be drawn from the ranks of England Test Cricketers, tbh!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

wtf

16 wickets today so far.

wtf

Shit batting. From both teams.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 19, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Last spotted when they were doing well...


 
When was that?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf
> 
> 16 wickets today so far.
> 
> ...



Nuts isn't it. There's only Bell (and maybe Broad) who's maintained any composure in either game.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> When was that?



When England were 28 for 3 in the first innings. Round about then anyway.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 19, 2013)

I know...slightly tounge in cheek.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> I know...slightly tounge in cheek.



I miss some subtleties while watching and posting. I even missed the chance to say '2006'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2013)

Well that was all very strange. England need to regroup a bit overnight. They're doing their best to give Australia a sniff.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 19, 2013)

JimW said:


> Agree with them saying the pitch is going to deteriorate tho so give Swann a go on the last two days. If he gets all ten he equals an Austin Hedley Ashes record of 15 in a match  (IIRC off TMS)


 

You mean Hedley Verity?


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 19, 2013)

Just watching the highlights, England laughing as Watson reviewed was priceless


----------



## JimW (Jul 20, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> You mean Hedley Verity?


 
Yes, that must be right. Wasn't listening properly in the excitement of the tumbling wickets, obviously.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2013)

I really don't know what to make of yesterday except this is not a high standard of cricket by any means.  There has been some decent bowling in spells, all the English bowlers were there or thereabouts and Siddel's spell last night was very impressive given the match situation.   

However, the batting and a lot of the fielding has just been utter village.  Fielding wise England grassed two dollys and Brad Haddin twice in one day failed to even go for a regulation w/k catch.  The batting by both sides has been miserable (Bell aside) and England are miles ahead not through any particuarly great play but because Oz are beating themselves.  Watching the aussies bat yesterday was more akin to watching someone self-harm rather then compete at sport.  I guess I should be enjoying it more but I'm finding the whole thing a bit sad. 

At the moment this game looks like its going to be a rout, the only thing that could save it is if England get bowled out cheaply, say below 150.  All this on a pitch that is offering very little for the bowlers, quite astonishing really.  The only thing that could save the series in general from being a whitewash is England havent been any great shakes either so if the aussies can get some runs on the board in a game then I think England look vulnerable.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 20, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I really don't know what to make of yesterday except this is not a high standard of cricket by any means. There has been some decent bowling in spells, all the English bowlers were there or thereabouts and Siddel's spell last night was very impressive given the match situation.
> 
> However, the batting and a lot of the fielding has just been utter village. Fielding wise England grassed two dollys and Brad Haddin twice in one day failed to even go for a regulation w/k catch. The batting by both sides has been miserable (Bell aside) and England are miles ahead not through any particuarly great play but because Oz are beating themselves. Watching the aussies bat yesterday was more akin to watching someone self-harm rather then compete at sport. I guess I should be enjoying it more but I'm finding the whole thing a bit sad.
> 
> At the moment this game looks like its going to be a rout, the only thing that could save it is if England get bowled out cheaply, say below 150. All this on a pitch that is offering very little for the bowlers, quite astonishing really. The only thing that could save the series in general from being a whitewash is England havent been any great shakes either so if the aussies can get some runs on the board in a game then I think England look vulnerable.


 

The headline on one piece in The Age (Melbourne paper) was 'Batsmen Ruin Perfectly Good Test Match.' 

Which is quite funny but also not far from the truth.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2013)

As an England fan I just want to see a batsman (aside from Bell) go out there and put a high value on his wicket. I want to see someone with the mindset that says "I'm not leaving the crease unless you dig me out". There is plenty of time and in both matches the respective tails have shown batting is perfectly possible on these pitches. Whether it's Root, Bairstow or Prior I want to see someone get stuck in today and play a proper test match innings.

My observations on how we have batted so far tell me that Cook is out of form, Root has a technical flaw against the moving new ball (not a great attribute for an opener), Trott is not playing like Trott, we've got entertainer KP rather then responsible serious KP, Bairstow seems to have neither the technique or temperament to score a big match changing ton. I reckon Bairstow would be great coming in when we already have 400 on the board and the field is spread but coming in when we are up against it and the ball is hooping around? Nah, I have no faith in him thus far.

I don't know if Agar's injury is affecting his bowling if not I think today could show whether his selection over Lyon was a wise choice. This is a pitch that Swann got a 5fer on and even a part timer picked up 3fer. If Agar bowls a lot today but fails to get the wickets then they must change their spinner. Agar's knock at Trent Bridge was fantastic but it doesnt cover up for the fact that their best spinner (the only aussie player to come away from India with his reputation intact) is carrying the drinks.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> As an England fan I just want to see a batsman (aside from Bell) go out there and put a high value on his wicket. I want to see someone with the mindset that says "I'm not leaving the crease unless you dig me out". There is plenty of time and in both matches the respective tails have shown batting is perfectly possible on these pitches. Whether it's Root, Bairstow or Prior I want to see someone get stuck in today and play a proper test match innings.


 
I read that in a Geoff Boycott accent


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 20, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2013)

Warner got 6 and 11 against a Zimbabwe select 11.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Warner got 6 and 11 against a Zimbabwe select 11.


 
Yup in scores of 226 and 156, problems everywhere for the aussies.



Mr.Bishie said:


> I read that in a Geoff Boycott accent


 
You should see me bat.  Actually Boycott's taken a slighty different tact to me and reckons if England remember they can bat the series is well and trully fucked.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2013)

Cloud cover and a bit of conventional swing, it looks like the best day to bowl so far.  That's all we need, game will probably be over by tea time.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2013)

Good morning for England, exactly what was required.  Oz attack has looked pretty toothless for the 1st time, just goes to show again what a good surface this is.  

Root needs to go on now.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2013)

I was going to say earlier that one wicketless session would put the Test beyond Australia. But I forgot.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Looking comfortable 350 runs in front


----------



## yardbird (Jul 20, 2013)

I'm hoping for  Root 66!


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2013)

I expect England won't declare while Root's in, and maybe not if Bell was closing in on another century.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Well played Joe Root! 

Start smacking them for 6 now Rooty!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Good century  

Would kinda like the England batsman to throw caution to the wind now. Six wickets left and over 400 runs in front. Bit of showboating to further dampen the Australian morale


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Start smacking them for 6 now Rooty!



 Yup ^


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Maybe declare at 500?


----------



## ice-is-forming (Jul 20, 2013)




----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Maybe declare at 500?



Yeah. Six wickets to get 70 runs should be doable even with England just clouting everything


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, he's clearly carrying an injury.
> btw, on the subject of Aussies, anyone seen liquidlunch recently? I want to torment him


 
dont worry about me,i am suffering enough torment in my own house at 1.00 am,the only way for me to retain my sanity is to drink heavily and drift off into my memory of the golden years of test cricket that we won of course


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2013)

Tire out their bowlers. Grind them into the dirt.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> In your faces, Bell haters.  In.  Your.  Faces.


In

Your

Faces


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 20, 2013)

if that German bitch hadnt fucked off after 3 wickets on the first day,things could have been different.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Bell - 50 off 82 balls


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Start really whacking it lads. Get Australia in soon and nick a couple of early wickets. I can't watch tomorrow


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Wait til 500 ahead, then start swatting flies


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Wait til the 500 comes up, then start swatting flies



Should be up in a few overs


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Australia's morale is seeping down through their boots.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 20, 2013)

good to see the emergance of J Root after a couple of ordinary performances.And i will put on the record my opinion of D Warner has diminished since he got in the shit for punching the kid.Looks like Root is having the last laugh,Warner only made 6 for the Aussie A team.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 20, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Australia's morale is seeping down through their boots.


 
Dunno about that,always do better with our backs against the wall,stranger things have happened.We will find  a way to lift and come home with a wet sail,straight after the cow jumps over the moon


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Australia's morale is seeping down through their boots.


That happens. The game has got away from them now. Any team would be looking ordinary in this match situation. I hope they show fight in their second innings, make England get them out.

Interesting listening to Jim Maxwell this morning. He was utterly scathing about Australia's batting, and he puts it down in part to 2020 and the distortion it is having on the game. England are lucky in the sense that all their players, Pietersen excepted, still get the vast bulk of their money from playing for England.

Australia now have the 'Big Bash' in the middle of their season. In the round of Sheffield Shield that immediately followed it, not a single game went to four days. Players earn more for being good at 2020 than they do for being good at 1st class cricket, but I just don't think the skills are transferable.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 20, 2013)

money corrupts more than players,the true essence of the game is taken when 2020 demands the best players.No break for top level players these days with the ridiculous amounts offered to play in India.We pay our blokes enough i would have thought,to make a decent living in Australia,without going to the sub continent for 2 months.Then again,i can only dream of making money like that,same as most of the mighty unwashed


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2013)

Cook should at least wait until Root gets out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Someone needs to introduce Shane Warne to the concept of hotspot. 'Definitely didn't hit it' he says after hotspot shows a hot spot on the bat.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 20, 2013)

Is that a bit of booing going on when Root's been applauded at 100 then 150? Sure I could hear some jeers / boos. Anyway, good work England 

Oh and Shane Watson's a fucking dick.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2013)

Maybe Warnie needs to start bowling again, rather than chatting guff in the commentary box


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

They're shouting his name.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 20, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Is that a bit of booing going on when Root's been applauded at 100 then 150? Sure I could hear some jeers / boos. Anyway, good work England
> 
> Oh and Shane Watson's a fucking dick.


Yes i noticed that


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 20, 2013)

Roooooooot. Sounds a bit like boooooooooo.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 20, 2013)

Definitely got booed after that 2nd six, Bumble mentioned it too. Maybe it's aimed at the TOTALLY RUBBISH AUSTRALIAN CRICKET TEAM 

Crush them! Grind them into the dirt!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

'cries of rooooooot' said the commentary


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 20, 2013)

Nasser just mentioned "cries of Root going up around the ground" - so is that a thing then, "Rooooooooot"? Barmy Army etc?

Ah well. Good on the young lad


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

liquidlunch said:
			
		

> hello all,just thought i would pop in for a quick gloat.



How is that working out for you?


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 20, 2013)

They've done it for Luke Donald at the golf for years.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Wait til 500 ahead, then start swatting flies


 
I'd rather they build a 1000 run lead for 2 reasons:

1) For the lols and utter humiliation of the Aussies.

2) Cos I've got tickets for Monday.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2013)

There's absolutely no need to declare overnight. Let Root attempt a double century tomorrow morning and then declare before lunch.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 20, 2013)

Bloody Root, can't open, drop him


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> I'd rather they build a 1000 run lead for 2 reasons:
> 
> 1) For the lols and utter humiliation of the Aussies.
> 
> 2) Cos I've got tickets for Monday.



A grand would be amusing  especially if we could bowl the Aussies out for less than their first innings. 

Do you get a refund if all is done by close of Sunday?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 20, 2013)

KP won't field for rest of Test as he has a calf strain. May explain why Gooch was in the nets with Morgan today?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

paulhackett said:
			
		

> KP won't field for rest of Test as he has a calf strain. May explain why Gooch was in the nets with Morgan today?



 his batting has hardly set the world on fire but been fielding fairly well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> There's absolutely no need to declare overnight. Let Root attempt a double century tomorrow morning and then declare before lunch.


I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to bat on tomorrow. 566 lead is plenty enough already. That much has never been chased down in the history of 1st class cricket, and it already represents a run rate of more than three an over. They won't do that. They will already be thinking of digging in for the draw. So England are already in a position where they can't lose, and all batting on tomorrow does is make it a little easier for Australia to hang on for a draw.

Knowing England, it wouldn't surprise me to see them batting on, but it's a mistake imo. I'd have sent Swann out instead of Bairstow tonight with instructions to slog and had Australia in for three or four overs before the close. As it is, Bairstow has gone nowhere, scoring 11 off 41 balls when Australia had already given up.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to bat on tomorrow. 566 lead is plenty enough already. That much has never been chased down in the history of 1st class cricket, and it already represents a run rate of more than three an over. They won't do that. They will already be thinking of digging in for the draw. So England are already in a position where they can't lose, and all batting on tomorrow does is make it a little easier for Australia to hang on for a draw.


"So Captain, do you think I'll get my 200 tomorrow?"

"No, I'm going to declare overnight. Fuck you, Root."


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2013)

I do like the idea of declaring literally overnight though. Maybe around 1.30am, via telegram.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> "So Captain, do you think I'll get my 200 tomorrow?"
> 
> "No, I'm going to declare overnight. Fuck you, Root."


He's 22 runs away from it, not 2 runs. But anyway, no, the team comes first.

It's not 'fuck you' at all. And I have to say that the last 70 or so of those runs have been among the easiest runs Root will ever get, against an attack that had basically given up. IMO he should just be mightily pleased with what he's got.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 20, 2013)

It's less batting on to reduce time for Australia to bat than, if they do dig in, less time for England to bowl. You really don't want to have a 4 man attack bowling for potentially 2 days on the back of your own decision. Yes the chances are that won't happen, but..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> It's less batting on to reduce time for Australia to bat than, if they do dig in, less time for England to bowl. You really don't want to have a 4 man attack bowling for potentially 2 days on the back of your own decision. Yes the chances are that won't happen, but..


That makes no sense. If they are bowling for 2 days, that's because they haven't taken the wickets. It's simply a case of maximising your chance of victory once you've eliminated the chance of defeat.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Anyone see the offending tweet made by 'Cricket Australia' after the Bell catch saga?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2013)

An ode to Ian Bell by kabbes, aged 36 1/2

Oh Bell
You are the end
of the Australians
But not a bell end
Although your helmet
Certainly suits you
And your strokemaking is masterful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Anyone see the offending tweet made by 'Cricket Australia' after the Bell catch saga?


What did it say?

Blatantly out, btw. It's about time the protocol with that was changed. It's been proved that clean catches can appear to bounce on the tv screen, so the benefit of the doubt should go with the fielder.

That's one of my bugbears, that.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That makes no sense. If they are bowling for 2 days, that's because they haven't taken the wickets. It's simply a case of maximising your chance of victory once you've eliminated the chance of defeat.


 

Of course it makes sense.. You can't assume Australia will always roll over? They batted for more than 100 overs to save/win the last Test at Lord's.

Harris has hardly bowled at all today as Australia want him fit. Australia targeted Finn in the last Test so apparently Cook would have to bowl Anderson more, so in the worst case scenario, they don't want their bowlers bowling for 2 days (assuming they don't take the wickets). Why else have they batted on?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

Ah..


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What did it say?
> 
> Blatantly out, btw. It's about time the protocol with that was changed. It's been proved that clean catches can appear to bounce on the tv screen, so the benefit of the doubt should go with the fielder.
> 
> That's one of my bugbears, that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

It makes no sense to me. Give yourselves less time to win in case the opposition plays well? That's just giving the opposition a slightly better chance of saving the game. If Aus bat for two days, so be it. Well done them.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> What did it say?
> 
> Blatantly out, btw. It's about time the protocol with that was changed. It's been proved that clean catches can appear to bounce on the tv screen, so the benefit of the doubt should go with the fielder.
> 
> That's one of my bugbears, that.



I thought it was 90% out.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> An ode to Ian Bell by kabbes, aged 36 1/2
> 
> Oh Bell
> You are the end
> ...


"P.S. I am wanking as I write this."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I thought it was 90% out.


They did a feature on this on Channel 4. Mark Nicholas held the ball in his hands just above the ground and they filmed it head-on. It looked like it was touching the ground. It's a rather odd optical illusion, in fact.

I wonder whether that one might come back to bite England later this series or the next.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> They did a feature on this on Channel 4. Mark Nicholas held the ball in his hands just above the ground and they filmed it head-on. It looked like it was touching the ground. It's a rather odd optical illusion, in fact.



It is a tough call eh? It was really hard to see clearly even after many repeat viewings. Initially I thought not out but then swung to out, but that took many views. 

Think the benefit of the doubt should always be with the fielder? It does not seem 100% here either. 

The debate is part of the sport


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Think the benefit of the doubt should always be with the fielder?


 
In this case, yes, because the technology has been shown to mistakenly give the illusion that it's been grassed when it hasn't. It should be changed, imo. Any doubt in the tv replays, and the catch is given.

Truth is that the best placed official to see it was Erasmus.

Chalk up another bad decision for him. He's having a shocker.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 20, 2013)

I think they will declare first thing. Can't see the point in playing just for the vanity of one or more team members.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> In this case, yes, because the technology has been shown to mistakenly give the illusion that it's been grassed when it hasn't. It should be changed, imo. Any doubt in the tv replays, and the catch is given.
> 
> Truth is that the best placed official to see it was Erasmus.
> 
> Chalk up another bad decision for him. He's having a shocker.



The umpires have not been great eh? 




			
				Idaho said:
			
		

> I think they will declare first thing. Can't see the point in playing just for the vanity of one or more team members.



I would send out the batsman just to slog for half an hour and then declare. 

Declaring now should almost certainly be fine, but no harm in hitting a few demoralising overs, then making the Aussies walk off and pad up?


----------



## pocketscience (Jul 20, 2013)

paulhackett said:


>


 
The most poignant thing about that is the word Collapse appearing after Cricket Australia


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to bat on tomorrow. 566 lead is plenty enough already. That much has never been chased down in the history of 1st class cricket, and it already represents a run rate of more than three an over. They won't do that. They will already be thinking of digging in for the draw. So England are already in a position where they can't lose, and all batting on tomorrow does is make it a little easier for Australia to hang on for a draw.
> 
> Knowing England, it wouldn't surprise me to see them batting on, but it's a mistake imo. I'd have sent Swann out instead of Bairstow tonight with instructions to slog and had Australia in for three or four overs before the close. As it is, Bairstow has gone nowhere, scoring 11 off 41 balls when Australia had already given up.


 
This Australian side couldn't bat for a day on this dry and broken track against Swann. They're psychologically damaged. I say give the lad Root a chance to get a double hundred and inflict more humiliation upon them. The weather is going to hold. Declaring makes us look like we're respecting their batting prowess.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I think they will declare first thing. Can't see the point in playing just for the vanity of one or more team members.


 
It's not vanity. It's piling on the psychological damage.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 20, 2013)

Declare, then open the bowling with trott and root.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 20, 2013)

Not seen the catch, or 'catch'. If the umpire can't see for certain and cant give a decision, it's a not out call. However tradition used to dictate that this could be sorted out by the batsmen asking the fielder if he caught is and walking if he says he caught it. Always been one of the more trickier situations in cricket. In recent years batsmen have been less likely to ask the fielder (especially in test cricket) or take his word for it. As a fielder you don't always know if you've caught it clean, especially if it drops in front of you and you dive forward, sometimes with your eyes closed for fear of missing it and it bouncing up in your chops!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 20, 2013)

I'd carry on batting for two reasons. One you're rubbing their noses in the situation and second you're allowing the pitch to deteriorate to a point where bowling them out becomes easier. Yes, we should and most likely would be able to bowl them out easily if we declared now, but if you stick them in when it's harder to bat it's making the end result more likely to be a complete and utter thumping. Sometimes is not just about winning, but how you win. We've had plenty of these situations in the past when we were crap. Rightly we were put to the sword and really humiliated. It's only right we get our own back


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 20, 2013)

Well played Joe Root. Quality knock. Cook's record will be in danger i'd say


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 20, 2013)

Badgers said:


> How is that working out for you?


 
got over it pretty quickly actually,but thanks for asking


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> This Australian side couldn't bat for a day on this dry and broken track against Swann. They're psychologically damaged. I say give the lad Root a chance to get a double hundred and inflict more humiliation upon them. The weather is going to hold. Declaring makes us look like we're respecting their batting prowess.


 Yes, I hadn't thought of it quite like that.

Better get it right, though, or it will turn out to have been hubris. 

All I'd say is England in Joburg, when Atherton batted nearly two days unbeaten. That wasn't a very good England side either.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Australia now have the 'Big Bash' in the middle of their season. In the round of Sheffield Shield that immediately followed it, not a single game went to four days. Players earn more for being good at 2020 than they do for being good at 1st class cricket, but I just don't think the skills are transferable.


Growing up I always heard about the quality of Shield cricket and that it was generally above that of the Championship. I was quite surprised when I came out here, IMO the reverese is true.

I know it's anecdotal and I've seen most of my county cricket with Yorkshire who are one of the stronger counties while I've seen my Shield cricket with WA who have been very poor over the last five years but some of the Shield cricket I've seen has been very poor indeed. (seeing Beer play earlier this year I couldn't believe he was playing first class cricket, let alone the fact that he had a Test cap - it was village green stuff)

The attendance's are also abysmal (again worse than CC IME), I mean I remember Langer's last game for WA which you would have though might get a decentish crowd in - no chance.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 20, 2013)

Yes, County Cricket gets more of a crowd than any other domestic 1st class system, I believe, by quite a distance. Average daily gate for the County Championship is 1000. I think only about half that are there at any one time during the day as members pop in and out, but that's not bad, really.

tbh I would guess that Shield cricket was far stronger back when Australia were far stronger. An Australian 2nd eleven from 10-15 years ago would beat the current Australian first team. I mean I know nothing about Shield cricket except that these chaps over here are supposed to be the best players it's produced. There must be some real shockers behind them.

That's very worrying for Australian cricket, no? Doesn't sound like the future is too bright.

Does the Shield final get big crowds at least, do you know?


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 21, 2013)

Does anyone know how the revometer works? I've never seen it before!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 21, 2013)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> Does anyone know how the revometer works? I've never seen it before!



I was thinking this


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It's not vanity. It's piling on the psychological damage.


Is that ethical?


----------



## diond (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I read that in a Geoff Boycott accent


Hehe, I've just been catching up with this thread and when I came across tb's post, I thought the exact same thing too! Have a like.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 21, 2013)

Cook did say before the Ashes started that he wanted to bully Australia - and thats exactly what England are doing to them now.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 21, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is that ethical?


 

Course it is!


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jul 21, 2013)

I can't help but think, that given aus need to bat out for a draw, would they rather bat 5 or 6 sessions? 

Isn't it the adage: what do they least want?... And do that.

We Must declare overnight and fire in with new ball at 11am tomorrow


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 21, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is that ethical?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 21, 2013)

Good to see Dave Warner's brother keeping up the family tweeting tradition.. escape goat


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

^^ wtf is that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

An escape goat 

England bat on. I don't agree with it. Hope it doesn't prove to be hubris. I don't think it's the _ruthless_ thing to do.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

@self


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Can't believe Aus haven't taken the new ball!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Ugly, this is now. Every over that goes by makes Australia's job that tiny bit easier.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An escape goat
> 
> England bat on. I don't agree with it. Hope it doesn't prove to be hubris. I don't think it's the _ruthless_ thing to do.


 
I agree with you. As a tactic it could go tits-up, especially if it rains and it's looking very grey here at the moment.

Still got my fingers crossed for tomorrow though.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 21, 2013)

How shit was that from Watson


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> ..it's looking very grey here at the moment.


 

The reason why they haven't taken the new ball then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

I've never seen this before. Giving Bairstow the single.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The reason why they haven't taken the new ball then?


It's all about delaying Root's 200.

Sorry, I don't get this. I don't get it at all. Let's get Root to his 200, but it's ok to sacrifice Bairstow?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> I've never seen this before. Giving Bairstow the single.



Ah well...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Gone.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

Not sure Aus wanted wickets.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's all about delaying Root's 200.
> 
> Sorry, I don't get this. I don't get it at all. Let's get Root to his 200, but it's ok to sacrifice Bairstow?


 

Confused here too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Clarke's got it spot on. Go on Prior, you can have a 4 but you can't have a single. And then the reverse last ball.

Don't even chase the ball if it beats the field, just usher it to the boundary.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

What a shambles. 178 not out would have been very fine.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Declared now thank fuck!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 21, 2013)

All done finally. Shame Root could not post up the 200 but he can hardly moan. 

Prediction for first fall of wicket? I am going for 18 runs.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Swan to take the first.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 21, 2013)

I can only imagine they had an hour to bat so there would be a shorter session for Anderson etc. to bowl then back at them this afternoon, even though it's cooler today. Less than 20 minutes batting just seems shambolic


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Two cheap wickets for Harris. That's not being ruthless.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 21, 2013)

Badgers said:
			
		

> Prediction for first fall of wicket? I am going for 18 runs.



Come on


----------



## Idaho (Jul 21, 2013)

Distorting the game to give one player a chance at a total is pointless. Cook should have been a bit more alpha about it and just said well done root, 178*, you can get your double ton at old Trafford.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

Twatto lbw, no review


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Distorting the game to give one player a chance at a total is pointless. Cook should have been a bit more alpha about it and just said well done root, 178*, you can get your double ton at old Trafford.


Yes. More than that, I'd have liked orders to slog last night. Bairstow made 11 of 40-odd deliveries. Why not send Swann/Broad in to slog and get them in for 20 minutes at the end? It probably won't matter, but it might, and that's why they have not been ruthless.

Botham agrees with me, which is a bit worrying.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 21, 2013)

Not even getting his regular 30.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Walking wicket...

Played across the line again.


----------



## liquidlunch (Jul 21, 2013)

Waders and shovels for the top order,lets see you dig yourself out the shit boys


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> Waders and shovels for the top order,lets see you dig yourself out the shit boys


Rogers and Clarke are the only two capable of it, I'd think.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 21, 2013)

People on this thread are lacking balls.

Australia were never going to bat for 2 days.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 21, 2013)

Fuck me. That's shit


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

Wicket maiden first over. Not bad swanny. Now they're going to be shitting it about leaving stuff no matter what line.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

(((Spymaster's day out tomorrow)))

Brain fade from Rogers. Forgot about the slope.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

6-fer for Swann, I reckon.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 21, 2013)

Good grief


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Another awful review.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Where's Jack Russell when you need him?


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 21, 2013)

Australolia


----------



## pennimania (Jul 21, 2013)

Coming late to this thread.

May I just say the only reason I don't want Australia out today is to see the torture prolonged as long as possible


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Nice to see Broad giving Clarke some short brutal balls


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Roooooooooooooooooooot!


----------



## Balbi (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Nice to see Broad giving Clarke some short brutal balls


 

Embracing his inner Slytherin 

ROOOOOOTT


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Roooooooooooooooooot! 

Awesome off spin bowling from the lad


----------



## Balbi (Jul 21, 2013)

Rooty tooty.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 21, 2013)

Feathery one?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

136 for 6


----------



## Balbi (Jul 21, 2013)

Root 2 - 8  Twat, he'll never keep up this consistency


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Root 2 - 8  Twat, he'll never keep up this consistency


 

He can only get better!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Looks like Spymaster won't be off to the cricket tomorra, when we bowl 'em all out after tea


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

154 for 7 

Third Umpire's DRS nightmare again


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> 154 for 7
> 
> DRS nightmare again


 

Yeah not sure about that one tbh. On the balance of probabilities I think he did hit it but it's not clear is it? He should get the benefit of the doubt there.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Nothing on hot spot. So why the third umpire gave it out, fuck only knows.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Snicko reckons it was out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Nothing on hot spot. So why the third umpire gave it out, fuck only knows.


He heard a sound and saw a deflection. Sounds like he got it spot on. TMS talking a load of shit at the moment.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Snicko reckons it was out.


 

But snicko isn't used by the third umpire as a tool of review.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> But snicko isn't used by the third umpire as a tool of review.


No, it isn't, but they do have audio. He said he heard a noise. And he was right. Another correct decision reached with the help of drs. I'm a bit fed up with the number of commentators who don't understand drs, tbh.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, it isn't, but they do have audio. He said he heard a noise. And he was right. Another correct decision reached with the help of drs.


 

Ah ok - missed the noise decision.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm a bit fed up with the number of commentators who don't understand drs, tbh.


 
Yep.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Glenn McGrath is painful to listen to.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Glenn McGrath is painful to listen to.


 

I'm watching a stream on Sky Sports 2 so they change commentary every half hour. And no McGrath!


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'm watching a stream on Sky Sports 2 so they change commentary every half hour. And no McGrath!


He is on TMS on Bbc radio


----------



## Balbi (Jul 21, 2013)

Root drops, so drop Root


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> He is on TMS on Bbc radio


 
I know


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

It's ok. Tuffers is on now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

and now we've got Boycott saying James Taylor is _too short_ to play test cricket.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> and now we've got Boycott saying James Taylor is _too short_ to play test cricket.


 

lol


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

I'm trying to think of short batsmen who've made it in test cricket. Maybe they have a nickname that reflects their lack of stature... Can't think...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Brian Lara. Nuff said.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying to think of short batsmen who've made it in test cricket. Maybe they have a nickname that reflects their lack of stature... Can't think...


 

Tendulkar. 5'5"
Bradman 5'7"
Ponting 5'10"


Very surprised to hear Boycott saying that. There's a general theory that small batsmen make better batsmen as they are more compact and play the shorter ball better.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 21, 2013)

Clean bowled by Jimmeh.

Also, Bell's a maggot and look at him.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Boycott's full of shit.

Peachy inswinger from Anderson to take out off stump 

Wrap it up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2013)

Tendulkar 5ft 5

Bradman 5ft 7

Brian Lara was something of a giant. 5ft 8.

Taylor is 5ft 6. Averages around 50 in 1st class cricket, Taylor. Unlucky not to be ahead of Bairstow in the reckoning, I think.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Brian Lara was something of a giant. 5ft 8.


 
Was he? I'd have put money on him being shorter than that!


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 21, 2013)

The american sport size is a great disadvantage but Cricket,football,and rugby size is not important,even the old time wrestlers like jackie pallo and mick macmanus were not giants (i know it was not competetive sport)


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2013)

2-0


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2013)

Thank fuck for that!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 21, 2013)




----------



## shagnasty (Jul 21, 2013)

It is hard to see what the aussies can do.To win the ashes they need to win the final three matches and then they have to face england at home the only bright spot is probably Agar


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 21, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> It is hard to see what the aussies can do.To win the ashes they need to win the final three matches and then they have to face england at home the only bright spot is probably Agar


 

He's questionable tbh. He played one brilliant innings but has only taken a couple of wickets so far. Their tail end batting has been good as a whole though, and some of their bowling. The rest has been awful.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 21, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> It is hard to see what the aussies can do.To win the ashes they need to win the final three matches and then they have to face england at home the only bright spot is probably Agar


 

He's rubbish! I was just going to come on here and say what a masterstroke it was to allow his 98..He's undroppable!


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2013)

I refuse to start enjoying the spectacle of their demise, until someone decides to recall Warner.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

Surely he'd bring a cool head and some much needed stability?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Looks like Spymaster won't be off to the cricket tomorra, when we bowl 'em all out after tea


 
Ah bollocks to it.

Some of my mates took the day off so were all going out for a lunch on the piss anyway.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 22, 2013)

So, 5-0?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So, 5-0?


 
It looks likely doesn't it?

The odds on England 5-0 are only 3-1 at the moment so not really worth bothering with. I might do a silly tenner on Australia to take the series 3-2 at 33-1 though.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2013)

Agar has been comprehensively outbowled by Swann so far, OK he's not the first spinner that has happened to but in this last test Agar was outbowled by both Smith and Root.  Agar not only failed to threaten on a turning pitch but couldn't get any control either, most notably when Root was on 99 he gave him a long hop outside off stump.  Agar is 19 and a very bright prospect, he may go onto be a very good test all rounder but at the moment he is not the best spinner the aussies have, Lyon has to play next match.

Perhaps the most worrying thing for Oz is that England haven't really played great themselves and haven't needed to.  Cook, Pieterson and Prior have made no impact with the bat, several easy catches and a stumping have been missed and some of the bowling has been patchy.    The aussies just look shot in the head, some of the shots played and referrals wasted show a team who are frazzled.  Unless Lehman performs miracles or the weather intervenes this has 5-0 written all over it,


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2013)

I'd normally never rule out England pathetically and bizarrely capitulating in at least one Test in an Ashes series, but I think this Oz team will struggle to force a win from almost any position.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 22, 2013)

Did anyone catch Clarke bemoaning the LBWs when interviewed after the match by TMS?

Snide dig at Watson?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 22, 2013)

Sounds to me like Clarke is the real problem here. Best batsman, good tactician too. But terrible leader.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 22, 2013)

Who else deserves to have a regular place in the side that has leadership qualities?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 22, 2013)

Simon Katich?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2013)

Katich will not play for Oz again.  They need to be building a new squad and Katich is not the answer.  Personally if I was an Oz selector I would stick with the same side except Lyon for Agar.  If they start chopping and changing every test their transformation to England circa 1990's will be complete.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds to me like Clarke is the real problem here. Best batsman, good tactician too. But terrible leader.


 
Aus mate of mine reckon that watson has, since he was at his elite private school, been used to getting things his own way, with him being the one calling the shots and gets worked up when he doesn't - and this was aggravated by the long term grooming to be capt that state school Clarke received (this is not me making a political point here before i get jumped on), and that now if he can't control he will just go out and play utterly selfishly so that he either becomes a hero or fails and leaves the team in trouble - they also thought this might be forcing people to take sides on this basis (Cowan, Rogers, Pattinson and Agar all went to similar schools) but this bit was speculation based on what and how players have been talking in public.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 22, 2013)

Ironic if true that it's the Aus team riven with class strife.

Whavever happened to Allan Border's "mateship"?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2013)

Watson just isn't an opener but he wants to be.  If he bowled a bit more and average of 35 batting at 6 or 7 would be ok but he's not up to the job to open.    That said I wouldn't say he's thrown his wicket away yet on this tour its just that England have exposed a major technical flaw which he hasn't been able to counter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 22, 2013)

There might be something in the private school sense of entitlement thing. But the fact that Watson is such a big 2020 star might also be a factor. He earns more money than everyone else in the team - and everyone in the England team, pretty much - because he's a star in IPL. He's Billy Big Potatoes.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 22, 2013)

Or he might just be a dick.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 22, 2013)

James Pattinson out of Tour with stress fracture of lower back.

Next up - one of them contracts chicken pox


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Glenn McGrath is painful to listen to.


 

I thought Glenda was alright, but anyway, he's going home now so someone else will be the Aussie specialist. Irc,it's been Ian Chappell in the fairly recent past and wasn't Thommo on TMS many moons back? I always enjoy Michael Slater but presume he works for telly.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 22, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02yj0p3/profiles/damien-martyn

BBC have Damien Martyn profile on their TMS page so maybe he's taking over from Glenda. No idea what he's like on't radio. Also, was it me or was Ed Smith more entertaining this Test match, presumably a little sleep deprived from the birth of his kid?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 22, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> James Pattinson out of Tour with stress fracture of lower back.
> 
> Next up - one of them contracts chicken pox


Bad luck. Young quicks often get that. It's the batters that deserve to be sent home


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 22, 2013)

Just having a little look round cricinfo at the Aussie side to see if they have any hidden gems and discovered Xavier Doherty has a first class bowling average of 45+! _How_ has he got to play test cricket for them? Srsly? That's the kind of average you'd expect from a part time bowler. It's not like he's played because he can bat either as with that he averages about 12. Surely they have better players than him? 

He's played almost the same number of games as Darren Pattinson who counts as probably England's weirdest pick in the last 10 yrs and he's got a respectable average of 32.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 22, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I thought Glenda was alright, but anyway, he's going home now so someone else will be the Aussie specialist. Irc,it's been Ian Chappell in the fairly recent past and wasn't Thommo on TMS many moons back? I always enjoy Michael Slater but presume he works for telly.


I like ian chappell. Thommo's in the country certainly


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 22, 2013)

Ok, let's look at a few others. Steve Smith, all rounder extraordinaire)... a bowling ave of 54 in f/class cricket! (Considerably worse than Ian Bell, a bit worse than KP!)

I then had a look at the bowling averages for the Sheffield Shield from this year and discovered not one of the top 13 wicket takers were in the Australia side. James Pattinson is the only one who made the top 20! :http://www.cricket.com.au/series/sheffield-shield-201213?t=Points-Stats&b=Bowling

Granted, the bowling isn't the weak spot, so searching the batting average yielded an interesting picture, Phil Hughes and Brad Haddin doing well, Chris Rogers top run scorer, (actually I'll edit this, he faced the most balls, reading wrong column!) Steve Smith averaging 38. What they see in him, I don't know, he's not a test match batsman or bowler but he did about as well as people like Cameron White. Basically, no player jumped out as if they should be there but weren't.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/sheff...averages/batting.html?id=7544;type=tournament

Stand out performer in Sheffield Shield last year was one RT Ponting...


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 22, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like ian chappell. Thommo's in the country certainly


 

Chappell would be entertainingly furious I reckon. I think Thommo does those tours now doesn't he? I'm sure they've talked to him on TMS about leading his groups of fans etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2013)

I like Chappell - despite his botham rubbish. He's been very active in opposing the ridiculous attacks on asylum seekers all parties have been engaged in over there. And i suspect botham's vocal public royalism is a response to chappells's equally vocal republicanism.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 22, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Katich will not play for Oz again. They need to be building a new squad and Katich is not the answer. Personally if I was an Oz selector I would stick with the same side except Lyon for Agar. If they start chopping and changing every test their transformation to England circa 1990's will be complete.


 
They won't be able to build from this though, too many of their batsmen aren't good enough. Is Chris Rogers the answer if Katich isn't?. 

I was at Lords yesterday, really nice ground if the atmosphere is a little bit restrained and a bit of an anticlimax with the match basically wrapped up by then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2013)

Magoffin in for the highest averaging aus batsman?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Just having a little look round cricinfo at the Aussie side to see if they have any hidden gems and discovered Xavier Doherty has a first class bowling average of 45+! _How_ has he got to play test cricket for them? Srsly? That's the kind of average you'd expect from a part time bowler. It's not like he's played because he can bat either as with that he averages about 12. Surely they have better players than him?


 God knows, why they dropped Haurtiz is a mystery.

OK he wasn't in Swan's class, let alone Warne's, but England won the 2005 Ashes with a spinner who could keep it reasonably tight at one end, pick up a couple of wickets and bat a bit, Haurtiz could do all that - certainly in Australia anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I like Chappell - despite his botham rubbish. He's been very active in opposing the ridiculous attacks on asylum seekers all parties have been engaged in over there. And i suspect botham's vocal public royalism is a response to chappells's equally vocal republicanism.


Always was a big critic of Howard too. 

EDIT: As that link points out  Should have read it first.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bad luck. Young quicks often get that. It's the batters that deserve to be sent home


 

Jimmy did iirc, and look at him now!


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> God knows, why they dropped Haurtiz is a mystery.
> 
> OK he wasn't in Swan's class, let alone Warne's, but England won the 2005 Ashes with a spinner who could keep it reasonably tight at one end, pick up a couple of wickets and bat a bit, Haurtiz could do all that - certainly in Australia anyway.


 

Why they dropped Lyon is also beyond me, I think he was the leading wicket taker in the last series (or last year, can't remember which). I don't understand why Cameron White hasn't had a bigger go than he has, he can bat and his f/class bowling average is considerably better than Doherty and he's only about 30. I suppose he doesn't bowl so much these days.

STOP! _*I've found an Australian spinner who can bowl!*_ This guy: Steve O'Keefe has taken 80 wickets at 26 in his f/class career (which is only slightly higher than Warne's career ave, though obviously Warne took a LOT more wickets) and was the top spinner in the domestic game last year (24 wickets at 22 conceding just 2.1 runs p/over). He also has a first class batting average of 30. He's 28, so it's not like he's too old to be worth giving a go too. It's just weird some of the players they pick then discard. Like their actual records on a cricket pitch don't matter. 

As far as I can see, no other spinner in Aussie cricket averaged less than 33 with the ball last year.:http://stats.espncricinfo.com/sheff..._bowling_average.html?id=7544;type=tournament (I omitted part timers who took 1 or 2 wickets) I'd understand it if they picked people they thought has promise and stuck with them till they matured but it's like they are picking random players out of a hat. Michael Beer being the example last series.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

White's exactly the sort of player they should not be picking. Not good enough with bat or ball - the spinning equivalent of Derek Pringle.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> White's exactly the sort of player they should not be picking. Not good enough with bat or ball - the spinning equivalent of Derek Pringle.


 

Yeah I take the point, I'm no great fan of White but he's better than some of the players they do pick who have literally no record to speak of. At least White has a semi respectable record in first class cricket. It's like they go, 'this guy is rubbish, let's pick someone worse...' I suppose it's a bit like the days of Pringle, Chris Lewis, Mark Ealham and so on all trying to be the new Botham figure and just not being good enough. I'm trying to think of someone worse than Pringle. 

At least when England picked someone like Ian Salisbury he had the figures to suggest he might be able to bowl. I'm just at a loss to explain the logic in the selection process, which is very reminiscent of 90s England. I have to say, every time Bell gets a ton against Aussie, it speaks volumes for the process of picking a player and sticking with them. Same with Anderson, Broad. They stick with Watson at the top, even though he's obviously not cut out to open but chop and change spin bowlers constantly and don't even take the spinner who has far and away the best average in their domestic cricket and is a good age to play. Weird


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

Stuart Macgill 'mystified' as to why Steve O'keeffe not playing... 

_"I can't shed any light on it," MacGill said._
_"I have asked questions. When he wasn't picked (for India), I wanted to know if there was anything I should know about and nobody can tell me anything._
_"I don't know why you would pick Xavier Doherty over Steve O'Keefe._
_"For me it was always about wickets and runs, if you have the form you get picked for the next level. Xavier Doherty has taken two wickets, Steve has 17._
_"The guy can bowl ... I don't understand why he hasn't got the opportunity he deserves."_
_

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/australia/speculation-of-fallout-with-cricket-australia-grows-as-steve-okeefe-seeks-clarity-over-snub-for-tour-of-india/story-fn2mcu3x-1226588114993#ixzz2ZrRh8Z19_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

One proviso with O'Keefe. Good average, but look at wickets per game - less than 3. Only one 5-wicket haul and no 10-w hauls. Plus he plays at Sydney, which is reasonably spin-friendly.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One proviso with O'Keefe. Good average, but look at wickets per game - less than 3. Only one 5-wicket haul and no 10-w hauls. Plus he plays at Sydney, which is reasonably spin-friendly.


 
Yeah, I can see he's not Warne, I just don't understand why he's not better than the options they do have. He's done alright in the T20 internationals he's played as well and he can hold a bat. 


Nathan Lyon, higher ave (38) and only 3 5fers in more matches (2.86 wickets/game)
Xavier Doherty - higher ave (45!!) and 3 5fers in even more games (2.3 wickets/game
Steve Smith - Astronomical ave (54) and 1 5fer in more games. (1 wicket/game)
Ashton Agar - Higher ave (35) and 1 5fer but no 4fers. (in less games) (2.75 wickets/game)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

And not forgetting...

Beer. 40 ave, 1 5fer (just over 2 wickets/game)

Krejza. 1 5fer, 1 10fer in a match (a test match no less) 114 wickets at 49.5


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And not forgetting...
> 
> Beer. 40 ave, 1 5fer (just over 2 wickets/game)
> 
> Krejza. 1 5fer, 1 10fer in a match (a test match no less) 114 wickets at 49.5


 

Krejza is the lad who took 8 for 200+ isn't he? Didn't he get both the most wickets and most runs conceded on debut? 

Who else have they picked since Warne? Beau Casson has a dodgy heart and so can't play anymore. Brad Hogg is too old, who was the fella who was about 40 when they picked him?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Oh, I forgot him. Leggie, no wickets, bowled like a drain.

This calls for a definitive list of Aus spinners since MacGill retired, I think.

ETA:

It was the mighty Bryce McGain. A better 2020 economy rate than test economy rate - smacked for 149 wicketless runs in 18 hapless overs.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

As much fun as it is picking over the bones of dismal aussie selections over the last few years (of which there have been many) there are some lessons to be learned and also a big siren should be sounding for anybody who loves test cricket.

I have been doing a fair but of reading about Oz cricket over the last few days and a few things are coming up time and time again. 

Firstly the importance of shield and grade cricket has diminished, both have been side-lined in favour of the big bash, the ipl and other limited overs cricket. 

Secondly the academy has taken over the roles the domestic game used to do, so many of the current crop of players have been hand-picked with a total lack of 1st class experience, the proving ground is simply not there any more.

Thirdly and perhaps most worryingly is the amount of money young Oz players are earning through limited over cricket.  The shambles that were thumped by England are in the most far more wealthy then the England players.  Anyone who wants to know the affect of rewarding mediocrity with large sums of money has on young sportsman should look no further then the embarrassment that is the English national football side.

The reason why these things are bad for the game in England is because we are also in danger of putting to much emphasize on the academies and not enough investment in the domestic game.  But also is this a blip for aus or are they in terminal decline in test cricket because the appetite isn't there any more.  How long can the ECB keep young English players away from the big bash and ipl by dangling the carrot of test cricket for England and what's the point of being good at test cricket if there is no one to compete against?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Our domestic game is pretty healthy in playing terms - and academies aren't squeezing that in this country as far as i can see. County cricket just has too wide a base for what is happening over there to happen here. The problems here are test counties taking financial risks, not playing stuff.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Then on what basis am I and Holding wrong? Your only argument so far is that lots of people who hold a hypocritical belief don't believe themselves to be hypocrites. Hardly persuasive.


tbh I've said before that this doesn't hold much interest for me so... cba mate, sorry


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> As much fun as it is picking over the bones of dismal aussie selections over the last few years (of which there have been many) there are some lessons to be learned and also a big siren should be sounding for anybody who loves test cricket.
> 
> I have been doing a fair but of reading about Oz cricket over the last few days and a few things are coming up time and time again.
> 
> ...


 
Yes I've read several similar articles in the Aus press (OK I read them for an internal gloat, but they can be quite interesting.)

The day after they were thrashed at Lords they announced quite a substanial extension of the Big Bash, so it will now take the best part of 2 months iirc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

England have moved away from stopping everything for a month to cash in on t20. Aus are still moving further towards the idea that the prime months should be exclusively t20. That's good and sensible from England. There's long been a place for beer-matches to keep the counties solvent - I'd see the new Friday-night 2020 as filling the same role as the Sunday League used to fill. No problem as long as it remains as the side-show. Australia have nakedly been trying to make the Big Bash the main event, and I think the fact that they are separate franchises from Sheffield Shield doesn't help at all. I'm a bit disappointed by the likes of Warne pushing t20 in return for the megabucks. He doesn't seem to give a single shit about wider issues.

Somehow the money generated by t20 needs to be channelled to help the four-day game that loses money. It needs an understanding that t20 couldn't exist without the longer form of the game - interest in cricket would just die out over the years. Lots of fans are like me - follow tests avidly, fork out a small fortune for one or two days at a live match, not attending four-day 1st class cricket at all really, but occasionally turning up to a county one-dayer or t20, which is far cheaper than international cricket.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The day after they were thrashed at Lords they announced quite a substanial extension of the Big Bash, so it will now take the best part of 2 months iirc.


 
That said pretty much all there needed to be said about how cricket is being administered in Australia at the moment and where their priorities lie. Its extraordinary that they thought that would be a good time to make the announcement.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> That said pretty much all there needed to be said about how cricket is being administered in Australia at the moment and where their priorities lie. Its extraordinary that they thought that would be a good time to make the announcement.


Good, clearly _very angry_ article on that here. Probably the one most of us have read.

What mystifies me a bit is that Aus are the other country that get packed houses for tests. You'd have thought that they would see successful test cricket as the no.1 priority - the thing that keeps everything else flowing.

Clearly they've got a Thatcherite type in charge. McLaurin years ago tried to make a big deal out of the 'subsidy' counties received from test receipts. He didn't understand how these things work either.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Our domestic game is pretty healthy in playing terms - and academies aren't squeezing that in this country as far as i can see. County cricket just has too wide a base for what is happening over there to happen here. The problems here are test counties taking financial risks, not playing stuff.


 
Its in decent shape now but looking to the future are you worried that to many players are being taken out of the domestic game to be involved in academies and Lions matches etc?  The senior squad already barely turn out for their county I wouldn't want that to creep into the players coming through.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Some really peculiar fretting on here during the Test - yeah, England were below par in the first innings and Cook, Trott and Pietersen have disappointed. But they're proven Test batsmen and we have other proven Test batsmen through the side. Australia have a top four who simply aren't good enough for Test cricket, a number six who has balls but wouldn't have made their A side ten years ago and a captain who isn't as good at the role as people are making him out to be. This was plain after one Test, it's even more obvious now.

England sensibly only looking as far as the first session at OT but 5-0 is on the cards. We've never done it before and 2006/7 still hurts. More of the same please, I'm not wringing my hands over the state of Australian cricket just yet. Not our problem.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

On the Pattinson injury I think its a shame for Oz that one of the few players to show any real fight is now on his way home.  I watched the match all day on Saturday and one of the most notable things was how many overs the seamers bowled in the first two sessions.  It said two things to me, firstly Clarke had no faith is his spinner and secondly they are going to pick up injuries, at the time I assumed Harris would break down.

So it would appear that an aggressive young fast bowler who showed real determination with the bat has paid the price for a piss poor performance from the top seven and piss poor team selection.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> On the Pattinson injury I think its a shame for Oz that one of the few players to show any real fight is now on his way home.


Yeah, losing one of your best batsmen has got to hurt


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Australian batsmen I wouldn't like to see at OT, C-l-S and the Oval: Simon Katich, Phil Jacques, David Hussey

Thankfully none of them will be there


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Some really peculiar fretting on here during the Test - yeah, England were below par in the first innings and Cook, Trott and Pietersen have disappointed. But they're proven Test batsmen and we have other proven Test batsmen through the side. Australia have a top four who simply aren't good enough for Test cricket, a number six who has balls but wouldn't have made their A side ten years ago and a captain who isn't as good at the role as people are making him out to be. This was plain after one Test, it's even more obvious now.


 
I think the point being that most English fans would rather see us winning through excellent Cricket rather then having a dreadful opposition self-destruct.  Its worth reminding ourselves that in both innings on a very flat pitch we were 3 down for less then 35 runs.  You wouldn't need to dig out many stats to find you rarely win matches when that happens. 

The truth is we haven't fired at all really here yet, and England's batting has been a worry for a few years now, without the two ton's from Bell England could have lost both games.  We have to look beyond Australia and how we will compete against SA, scoring runs has been an issue of late and I would also argue that Swann is not in great form, but at his age is it form or decline?  Beating a terrible aussie team by a sackload does not make everything rosy in the garden by any means.




> England sensibly only looking as far as the first session at OT but 5-0 is on the cards. We've never done it before and 2006/7 still hurts. More of the same please, I'm not wringing my hands over the state of Australian cricket just yet. Not our problem.


 
I couldn't give a shit about Australian cricket either as long as we learn from their mistakes and test match cricket continues to thrive, if you believe both will happen then jolly good, I'm not so sure.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

btw, the Pattinson injury shows why enforcing follow ons is seen as dodgy ground these days. Australia having to bowl again just three hours after bowling England out obviously hasn't done him any favours.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

England's batting hasn't been a worry for a few years. Not really. It occasionally misfires, as do all teams - that's just natural variation: sometimes everyone fails on the same day. But look at the averages - six out of the top 7 average over 40, 5 of them average over 45, and 5 of them are established players with 1000s of runs each.

The no.6 spot has been a problem. But if your junior specialist batsman position is your problem spot, then you're doing a lot of things right.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Going back to those spinners avs - wickets in shield are now very result friendly due to the crazy points system.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I think the point being that most English fans would rather see us winning through excellent Cricket rather then having a dreadful opposition self-destruct. Its worth reminding ourselves that in both innings on a very flat pitch we were 3 down for less then 35 runs. You wouldn't need to dig out many stats to find you rarely win matches when that happens.
> 
> The truth is we haven't fired at all really here yet, and England's batting has been a worry for a few years now, without the two ton's from Bell England could have lost both games. We have to look beyond Australia and how we will compete against SA, scoring runs has been an issue of late and I would also argue that Swann is not in great form, but at his age is it form or decline? Beating a terrible aussie team by a sackload does not make everything rosy in the garden by any means.


Cook and KP could do with a bit of form. That's all - Cook's going to get runs before the end of the series so I'm not too worried, no. Root will be OK, Trott isn't a concern really. Two bad starts isn't a reason for panic stations and I think it's selling England short to put all the credit at the door of a very poor Australian team


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Actually - England's batting 'a worry for a few years now'?! Really?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Top 7 averages: 48,46,48,48,46,32,43.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

Yes, England have struggled over the last couple of years.  Firstly against SA last summer and then against a very average NZ side in the winter, yes there was a very good win in India but it was a different Indian side that then dismantled this poor aussie side.

I can't be bothered to go back through the records but how many times have we passed 400 in the last couple of years?

Cook is out of form, nothing more.  Trott will be fine and Bell is Bell.  My concern is the 3 other places in the top six, I have serious doubts about Bairstow full stop, I believe we are going to see a lot of difficult innings for Root at the top of the order and whether through form, injury or both we are going to have to get used to a post KP world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

NZ have two very good bowlers in Boult and Southee.

Against SA, the biggest problem was not being able to bowl the buggers out.


----------



## Santino (Jul 23, 2013)

England have a long-term problem against good quality spin.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Top 7 averages: 48,46,48,48,46,32,43.


 
Sure the averages look very pretty but I'm talking about recently.  As a counter here are the ICC rankings: http://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211270.html

Just one Englishman in the top 10 and that's at number 7.  Now I know rankings are a strange and often bizarre thing but they are an indicator of current form and recently England have not been amassing the sort of runs we were 3-4 years ago.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Root's going to be fine for one


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Santino said:


> England have a long-term problem against good quality spin.


Except when they don't - such as in India.

England crashed in UAE. Other than that, they've been pretty good in the last few years.


----------



## Santino (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Root's going to be fine for one


They need to knock the 'future captain of England' talk on the head for a bit though. Look how that worked out for Clarke.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> NZ have two very good bowlers in Boult and Southee.


 
Very good? Neither are in the top 10.



> Against SA, the biggest problem was not being able to bowl the buggers out.


 
Yup their batting is excellent.



Santino said:


> England have a long-term problem against good quality spin.


 
Yet there is so little of it around at the moment.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Root's going to be fine for one


 
Long term I agree with you, but I still believe he has a technical flaw in getting far enough forward, this will be a real problem for an opener.  However over time he will improve I just think that we are going to have to accept him struggling a bit for the next year or so.  Picking off a defeated aussie side on a flat pitch does not really prove anything especially as he should have been out the previous evening.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Long term I agree with you, but I still believe he has a technical flaw in getting far enough forward, this will be a real problem for an opener. However over time he will improve I just think that we are going to have to accept him struggling a bit for the next year or so. Picking off a defeated aussie side on a flat pitch does not really prove anything especially as he should have been out the previous evening.


This is silly. He was dropped. It happens. Graeme Smith was dropped on about 2 when he smashed a double hundred at Lord's. That doesn't negate what came after the drop. And Root barely played a false shot on the Saturday.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is silly. He was dropped. It happens. Graeme Smith was dropped on about 2 when he smashed a double hundred at Lord's. That doesn't negate what came after the drop. And Root barely played a false shot on the Saturday.


 
Silly?  Suggesting he has a technical flaw against the new ball?  Well his England career to date would suggest just that and you can see by just watching him that he struggles to get forward.  Of course everyone needs a bit of luck but to me he has a weakness there and I fully expect it to be exposed a fair bit over the next couple of years.  That doesn't me to say he won't score runs I just think he doesn't look as complete as Cook did when he came into the side.

It was a very good innings on Saturday but the context was a defeated aussie team with tired seam bowlers and 2 spinners neither of which were international class and a pretty decent flat pitch.  None of the other English batsman found it particularly difficult to bat on Saturday either.  The Bell knock in the 1st innings was the stand out performance, that was a match changing knock.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

What makes root really interesting is his ability to grind but equally to attack. When he's in head down mode the idea of him playing 20:20 seems ludicrous, yet he's actually a player with a lot of shots. He's got an uncommon ability that lad


----------



## Athos (Jul 23, 2013)

We're two nil up in an Ashes series, with a whitewash very much on the cards. And we're still moaning!  Yeah, things can be improved, but shouldn't we enjoy the moment a bit first?


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Cook was flawed at first. Nearly dropped after a couple of years

Anyway, best young Aussie batsman is currently Sam Robson. Of Middlesex and qualifies for England next year


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

Athos said:


> We're two nil up in an Ashes series, with a whitewash very much on the cards. And we're still moaning! Yeah, things can be improved, but shouldn't we enjoy the moment a bit first?


 
Sure, but surely the key is to guard against complacency?  This conversation started because of a discussion on the decline of Australian cricket and how to avoid a similar fate.  Whilst you are doing well is exactly the time to be discussing it because complacency has clearly been a massive factor for the aussies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

I agree about Bell, btw. It's kind of weird having to start thinking differently about him - 'don't worry, Belly'll save us...'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Silly? Suggesting he has a technical flaw against the new ball? Well his England career to date would suggest just that and you can see by just watching him that he struggles to get forward. Of course everyone needs a bit of luck but to me he has a weakness there and I fully expect it to be exposed a fair bit over the next couple of years. That doesn't me to say he won't score runs I just think he doesn't look as complete as Cook did when he came into the side.
> 
> It was a very good innings on Saturday but the context was a defeated aussie team with tired seam bowlers and 2 spinners neither of which were international class and a pretty decent flat pitch. None of the other English batsman found it particularly difficult to bat on Saturday either. The Bell knock in the 1st innings was the stand out performance, that was a match changing knock.


 
I think the comparison with Smith is somewhat apposite. Very different style of player (more Shane Watson than Joe Root), but equally one thought to have technical flaws, yet able to maintain an average of nearly 50. I wouldn't tinker too much with Root - he's making runs with his technique as it is, and he's a predominantly back-foot player. That's ok. So was Brian Lara.


----------



## Athos (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:
			
		

> Sure, but surely the key is to guard against complacency?  This conversation started because of a discussion on the decline of Australian cricket and how to avoid a similar fate.  Whilst you are doing well is exactly the time to be discussing it because complacency has clearly been a massive factor for the aussies.



Fair enough. Though I think there are bigger factors in the Aussie's decline than complacency.   Most notably the shift in emphasis away from test cricket, both from the administrators and players. Money I guess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

Random factors also play a part. Aus didn't become great because of genius administrators, and their decline is not entirely down to them either.


----------



## Athos (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Random factors also play a part. Aus didn't become great because of genius administrators, and their decline is not entirely down to them either.


It takes many things going right to become a success; it only takes a few things to go wrong to become a failure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

They should do more right things and less wrong things then.


----------



## Athos (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They should do more right things and less wrong things then.


 
For the game, I hope so.  Just maybe wait until this series has finished.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree about Bell, btw. It's kind of weird having to start thinking differently about him - 'don't worry, Belly'll save us...'


 
In the end, it's always technical ability that makes for a quality player at the top level.  That's why I would always stick with those with the best technique.  Stick with them, help them get their head right and it will pay dividends.  But a player without technique by their mid-20s will never acquire it.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

I was reading about them cutting 2nd teams at state level and how because they've only got a few sides anyway, it means the pool of players is getting ludicrously small, plus it means less opportunities for middle rank players who might develop later in their career but not be one of the first choices straight away.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I was reading about them cutting 2nd teams at state level and how because they've only got a few sides anyway, it means the pool of players is getting ludicrously small, plus it means less opportunities for middle rank players who might develop later in their career but not be one of the first choices straight away.


 

sorry, meant to reply to one of the 'what's wrong with aus posts above!


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Athos said:


> For the game, I hope so. Just maybe wait until this series has finished.


Actually, what with another eight Tests to come against us and then three against South Africa, I'm hoping to see them lose 17 in a row


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

kabbes said:


> In the end, it's always technical ability that makes for a quality player at the top level. That's why I would always stick with those with the best technique. Stick with them, help them get their head right and it will pay dividends. But a player without technique by their mid-20s will never acquire it.


 

Players with odd techniques can prosper though. You'd never tell a kid to play like Chanderpaul would you, yet it works for him.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I was reading about them cutting 2nd teams at state level and how because they've only got a few sides anyway, it means the pool of players is getting ludicrously small, plus it means less opportunities for middle rank players who might develop later in their career but not be one of the first choices straight away.


That and the fact they seemed happy to discard/overlook players who still had a couple of years left in them once the greats started retiring - Brad Hodge, Simon Katich, David Hussey etc etc. Even now they're refusing to pick their best spinner for some weird reason


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Players with odd techniques can prosper though. You'd never tell a kid to play like Chanderpaul would you, yet it works for him.


I was just about to post about him. One thing, though - for all the weird positions and shuffles, if you watch Chanderpaul, the bat comes down straight and at the point of impact, he is balanced. A certain P Hughes might take note.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Players with odd techniques can prosper though. You'd never tell a kid to play like Chanderpaul would you, yet it works for him.


 
Technique is what comes at the end of ability+work and hours playing - it's not what's at the start. Which is why watson is such a disgrace and there aren't many others knocking on the door with the last bit, because they're playing slog it and if you get out next batter up


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2013)

Chanderpaul had great technique, even if it was unorthodox.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was just about to post about him. One thing, though - for all the weird positions and shuffles, if you watch Chanderpaul, the bat comes down straight and at the point of impact, he is balanced. A certain P Hughes might take note.


 

and oddly, I was going to use Phil Hughes as the opposite of Chanderpaul as well!


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Technique is what comes at the end of ability+work and hours playing - it's not what's at the start. Which is why watson is such a disgrace and there aren't many others knocking on the door with the last bit, because they're playing slog it and if you get out next batter up


This is why England inventing 20/20 was such a great move. It's completely fucked Australia 

Best thing ever, even better than four day cricket, central contracts, two divisions etc etc


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> That and the fact they seemed happy to discard/overlook players who still had a couple of years left in them once the greats started retiring - Brad Hodge, Simon Katich, David Hussey etc etc. Even now they're refusing to pick their best spinner for some weird reason


 
There's obviously a lot of politics around Australian selection and has been for a while. It seems like some Aussies think that's largely down to Michael Clarke.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Chanderpaul had great technique, even if it was unorthodox.


 

That's my point, odd technique can prosper, I agree fully that players need technique, but it doesn't need to be MCC coaching manual technique. If they can defend against a range of bowling and have a couple of scoring shots then a lot of the rest of what makes a test batsman is mental in my view. Hughes and Watson just don't have it, they can't stay in. Which is why a far less talented player like say, Collingwood was a better test cricketer, which is also one of the main reasons why I love cricket.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There's obviously a lot of politics around Australian selection and has been for a while. It seems like some Aussies think that's largely down to Michael Clarke.


Weird innit. The net result is a team which Ian Salisbury and Derek Pringle would walk into


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Chanderpaul had great technique, even if it was unorthodox.


I think Graeme Smith is a better example. He's a very limited player. Ugly to watch him shovelling everything through the on side. Not a great technique, but one that he knows. He knows what he can do and what he can't do, and is disciplined enough to stick to what he can do.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2013)

I never mentioned coaching manual technique.  I said that good technique is the only thing, in the final analysis, that is going to create a player that you can rely on.  Good technique means footwork, balance, the way you play the bat, a bunch of other things.  The coaching manual approach is there to try to create a way to allow people to automatically have these things -- follow the manual and the rest will be right.  But it's the results not the method that matters.

There are plenty of players, however, that can function very well in first class non-test cricket without great technique.  Good heart, a good slog and good timing do the work instead.  This is great, but you get found at at the top level.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think Graeme Smith is a better example. He's a very limited player. Ugly to watch him shovelling everything through the on side. Not a great technique, but one that he knows. He knows what he can do and what he can't do, and is disciplined enough to stick to what he can do.


 
I have to admit not being able to argue one way or other with that, because I just haven't seen that much of him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I have to admit not being able to argue one way or other with that, because I just haven't seen that much of him.


Lucky. A Smith double-ton is a thing to endure. I agree with you in general, though - good technique means balance and a straight bat, essentially, at the point of hitting the ball. And there is a wide variety of methods you can use to get yourself into that position.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think Graeme Smith is a better example. He's a very limited player. Ugly to watch him shovelling everything through the on side. Not a great technique, but one that he knows. He knows what he can do and what he can't do, and is disciplined enough to stick to what he can do.


Discipline counts for a lot as well in order to correct persistent errors/problems. The anti-Smith, if you like, was Steve Waugh - all the shots early on in his career but recognised which ones were getting him out and stopped playing them. No more back foot drives or hooks but plenty more runs.

I like Peter Siddle fwiw. Just leaves everything outside off stump and is a pain in the arse really. Could do with more of that up top.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Weird innit. The net result is a team which Ian Salisbury and Derek Pringle would walk into


Ouch!

Captained by Roni Irani?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I never mentioned coaching manual technique. I said that good technique is the only thing, in the final analysis, that is going to create a player that you can rely on. Good technique means footwork, balance, the way you play the bat, a bunch of other things. The coaching manual approach is there to try to create a way to allow people to automatically have these things -- follow the manual and the rest will be right. But it's the results not the method that matters.
> 
> There are plenty of players, however, that can function very well in first class non-test cricket without great technique. Good heart, a good slog and good timing do the work instead. This is great, but you get found at at the top level.


 
They never caught trescothick.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lucky. A Smith double-ton is a thing to endure. .


 
I understand that there is a little corner of hell reserved for the truly evil people where they are forced to watch a Graeme Smith & Gary Kirsten opening stand of 500, over and over and over again.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Captained by Roni Irani?


Ronnie Irani would look like Gary Sobers next to Steve Smith


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I never mentioned coaching manual technique.


 

No, I realise that, but often when people talk about 'technique' they mean a player who plays lovely cover drives, rather than a player who has his _own_ technique. I suppose a better word really would be 'method' - Waugh, Chanderpaul, Smith, all players who developed a method.

Shane Watson is the prime example of a player with no method. Plays some lovely shots, no method behind it though.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Ronnie Irani would look like Gary Sobers next to Steve Smith


 

I'd love to see this Aussie side vs England about 1994ish. Would give 2005 and all that a run for its money I reckon.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 23, 2013)

Actually Ronnie Irani would have probably made a killing in the ipl and big bash had he been playing these days.  He could bowl a bit and bat a bit with some aggression.  Basically the most damning thing that can be said of 20/20 is that its raising and rewarding a generation or Ronnie Iranis.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Actually Ronnie Irani would have probably made a killing in the ipl and big bash had he been playing these days. He could bowl a bit and bat a bit with some aggression. Basically the most damning thing that can be said of 20/20 is that its raising and rewarding a generation or Ronnie Iranis.


 

When Ronnie Irani sees Graham Napier, he weeps and thinks 'what could have been'


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I'd love to see this Aussie side vs England about 1994ish. Would give 2005 and all that a run for its money I reckon.


England in 1994 had Atherton and Stewart mind


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

A game now:

Here are the career batting averages of the Australian team. But which averages belong to 'batsmen' and which to bowlers?

32.5
51.58
34.69
18.3
32.65
30.09
30.09
18
15.18
29
34.92


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> England in 1994 had Atherton and Stewart mind


 

and Thorpe...


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> and Thorpe...


Dropped Elliott on 23 at Headingley, allowing him to go on to 199 and sawing off Mike Smith's Test career before it ever began. So he can fuck off.

Good batsman mind


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> A game now:
> 
> Here are the career batting averages of the Australian team. But which averages belong to 'batsmen' and which to bowlers?
> 
> ...


Hard. I know about four are right.

Marks out of ten?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> A game now:
> 
> Here are the career batting averages of the Australian team. But which averages belong to 'batsmen' and which to bowlers?
> 
> ...


 
I'm guessing Clarke has 51.58.

And, clearly, none of the rest of them are batsmen.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Dropped Elliott on 23 at Headingley, allowing him to go on to 199 and sawing off Mike Smith's Test career before it ever began. So he can fuck off.
> 
> Good batsman mind


 

Just looking at the 1994 squad, probably also Tufnell, Fraser and Gough would class as at least passable test cricketers in any era, the rest are either never weres (Joey Benjamin - who could forget his one test match? Neil Fairbrother, genuinely great player in one day and county cricket, mighty test ave of 15...) or has beens (Gatting, Gooch.)

Craig White would fit right into this Aussie side... not quite good enough at either discipline! (To be fair, White sweated blood for England under Hussain, one of the players who got us playing tough cricket after years of being flakey)  

So, England 1994 have 6 players of test match class. 

This Aussie side has how many?


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> A game now:
> 
> Here are the career batting averages of the Australian team. But which averages belong to 'batsmen' and which to bowlers?


 
Test or F/class?


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Just looking at the 1994 squad, probably also Tufnell, Fraser and Gough would class as at least passable test cricketers in any era, the rest are either never weres (Joey Benjamin - who could forget his one test match? Neil Fairbrother, genuinely great player in one day and county cricket, mighty test ave of 15...) or has beens (Gatting, Gooch.)
> 
> Craig White would fit right into this Aussie side... not quite good enough at either discipline! (To be fair, White sweated blood for England under Hussain, one of the players who got us playing tough cricket after years of being flakey)
> 
> ...


 
Craig Shite was a different player under Hussain, I actually started liking him. In 1994 the talent was there but structure/preparation was lacking (and lagging behind Australia etc). This Australia team don't have much of the talent.


tangerinedream said:


> Test or F/class?


Test


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Gough was more than passable - if he was coming through now he'd be a better player then he turned out to be.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gough was more than passable - if he was coming through now he'd be a better player then he turned out to be.


 

Still averages better than Anderson irc.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hard. I know about four are right.
> 
> Marks out of ten?


10/11 - one of those didn't play at Lord's


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Still averages better than Anderson irc.


 

Sorry, this is poorly expressed - I mean, for all the hype about Jimmy, (which I do believe) - Darren Gough actually has better bowling average in test cricket.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Sorry, this is poorly expressed - I mean, for all the hype about Jimmy, (which I do believe) - Darren Gough actually has better bowling average in test cricket.


True, but that won't be the case in a year or two

Goughy would have been vastly better with central contracts etc etc


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

Australia A's top six in the first World Series final in 1994:
Blewett, Hayden, Martyn, Bevan, Langer, Ponting

Just throwing that in there


----------



## Idaho (Jul 23, 2013)

Never really rated Bevan.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Still averages better than Anderson irc.


 

Never a huge fan of Gough. He seemed to buy into a sense of having achieved when in comparison to Australians of the same era, he was underachieving. He never took a 10 fer in a match. Never took more than 6 an innings so never struck me as a strike bowler.

Can't remember exactly but sure some players could learn from Steve Waugh (who dropped the hook shot), Tendulkar (who dropped the cover drive) to reduce risk. If Watson can't be confident in a shot (and he keeps getting out to it) he needs to go in the nets..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Never a huge fan of Gough. He seemed to buy into a sense of having achieved when in comparison to Australians of the same era, he was underachieving. He never took a 10 fer in a match. Never took more than 6 an innings so never struck me as a strike bowler.


 
Maybe proper training an expectation management would deal with that. I think he'd get that now.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Can't remember exactly but sure some players could learn from Steve Waugh (who dropped the hook shot), Tendulkar (who dropped the cover drive) to reduce risk. If Watson can't be confident in a shot (and he keeps getting out to it) he needs to go in the nets..


 
If Watson hasn't worked that out by now, he isn't a test opener.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> If Watson hasn't worked that out by now, he isn't a test opener.


 
He hasn't worked that out. He is a test opener.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Dropped Elliott on 23 at Headingley, allowing him to go on to 199 and sawing off Mike Smith's Test career before it ever began. So he can fuck off.
> 
> Good batsman mind


 
....and thwarted Alex Tudors century. It was justice that he got dropped from the 2005 ashes side.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He hasn't worked that out. He is a test opener.


 

If the Australian selectors haven't worked out that he hasn't worked that out, then they should be out of work for failing to work out that he hasn't worked out something he should have worked out because if he doesn't, it's not going to work out for him at the top of the order. 







Works out, but doesn't work it out. 

Why don't they just play him at six and pick an actual opener...?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

a) they haven't got one b) the above spits the dummy


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Why don't they just play him at six and pick an actual opener...?


Because they haven't got one


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> a) they haven't got one b) the above spits the dummy


 

On switch hit podcast, Aussie journo I forget, Gerard Kimber (?) was saying he reckons Watson has no 'followers' in the dressing room, it's literally just him v Clarke. Why they so scared of him? Does he bring in a lot of revenue to CA as a pin up boy or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> On switch hit podcast, Aussie journo I forget, Gerard Kimber (?) was saying he reckons Watson has no 'followers' in the dressing room, it's literally just him v Clarke. Why they so scared of him? Does he bring in a lot of revenue to CA as a pin up boy or something?


 
That's fuckeedy fucked, Or, why so few background people asserting themselves, or why so many people following the winner.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Because they haven't got one


 

In this squad, no, but I can't believe that in the whole of Aussie cricket there isn't another player at least of the Chris Rogers type. 

They won't get anywhere till they try to become tough to beat. Watson's a walking wicket and because he scores quick, he goes quick, meaning that he who follows has to face a newer ball and thus is more vulnerable. He might get thirty, but he doesn't do the job of an opener. They'd be better off in some ways with an inferior player who lasted longer. 

fuck it, I'm going to apply to be chairman of the Aussie selectors. I've solved their spin dilemma, now I'm sorting the opener and taking pressure of the rest of the batting order.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> why so few background people asserting themselves


 

He (Jarrod Kimber - I looked it up) was also spitting feathers about the role that Micky Arthur was made to play, doing 'meet the coach' tours of the MCG and stuff like that (I think it was the MCG, one of the grounds anyway) instead of actually coaching the team, watching players etc.

His theory (as espoused above) is that CA have got greedy businessmen in charge who are more bothered with media management and sponsorship than cricket. Which ironically is partially responsible for a lousy product that people don't want to watch or sponsor.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> He (Jarrod Kimber - I looked it up) was also spitting feathers about the role that Micky Arthur was made to play, doing 'meet the coach' tours of the MCG and stuff like that (I think it was the MCG, one of the grounds anyway) instead of actually coaching the team, watching players etc.
> 
> His theory (as espoused above) is that CA have got greedy businessmen in charge who are more bothered with media management and sponsorship than cricket. Which ironically is partially responsible for a lousy product that people don't want to watch or sponsor.


 
Someone linked to a piece above that used an angry exchange of cricket/entertainment by CA.  This _can_ be managed well. They ain't.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> He (Jarrod Kimber - I looked it up) was also spitting feathers about the role that Micky Arthur was made to play, doing 'meet the coach' tours of the MCG and stuff like that (I think it was the MCG, one of the grounds anyway) instead of actually coaching the team, watching players etc.
> 
> His theory (as espoused above) is that CA have got greedy businessmen in charge who are more bothered with media management and sponsorship than cricket. Which ironically is partially responsible for a lousy product that people don't want to watch or sponsor.


 

It was a Kimber piece (I think) that pointed out Mickey Arthur when he was coach of WA who said the contracts should reward Shield players and not the Big Bash.. Kimber's sold his soul to the cricket devil. From cricketwithballs to sitting in the Media Centre at Lord's next to Nasser Hussain and the Daily Mail..


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> On switch hit podcast, Aussie journo I forget, Gerard Kimber (?) was saying he reckons Watson has no 'followers' in the dressing room, it's literally just him v Clarke. Why they so scared of him? Does he bring in a lot of revenue to CA as a pin up boy or something?


Jarrod Kimber. Very entertaining writer, wrote the following piece of small insights and observations:
*http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/654523.html*


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> It was a Kimber piece (I think) that pointed out Mickey Arthur when he was coach of WA who said the contracts should reward Shield players and not the Big Bash.. Kimber's sold his soul to the cricket devil. From cricketwithballs to sitting in the Media Centre at Lord's next to Nasser Hussain and the Daily Mail..


 

http://cricketwithballs.com/2013/07/21/australia-an-almost-value-for-money-team/

Interesting read that blog. Never come across it before. Also agree fully with the comment at the bottom about George Dobell - he is awful.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> http://cricketwithballs.com/2013/07/21/australia-an-almost-value-for-money-team/
> 
> Interesting read that blog. Never come across it before. Also agree fully with the comment at the bottom about George Dobell - he is awful.


yeah, read that hosted on cricinfo. He doesn't pull punches hey

Meanwhile, Ponting is unimpressed with the timing of CA's BBL hype:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/current/story/654537.html


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> Jarrod Kimber. Very entertaining writer, wrote the following piece of small insights and observations:
> *http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/654523.html*


 



> When Alastair Cook first fielded in the slips, it seemed like it was a recurring in-joke perpetrated by the England management. Obviously, Andy Flower has never joked, so what they were really doing was trying to force Cook into becoming a slip fielder. It was, for a couple of years, like trying to force an entire rhinoceros into a Happy Meal container.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> http://cricketwithballs.com/2013/07/21/australia-an-almost-value-for-money-team/
> 
> Interesting read that blog. Never come across it before. Also agree fully with the comment at the bottom about George Dobell - he is awful.


 
It's silly.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 23, 2013)

JTG said:


> yeah, read that hosted on cricinfo. He doesn't pull punches hey
> 
> Meanwhile, Ponting is unimpressed with the timing of CA's BBL hype:
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/current/story/654537.html


 

Yeah, Kimber was saying the same on the podcast. I think he described it as monstrously unsubtle or something like that.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's silly.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


>


 






According to pakpassion "Seems that the #escapegoat has ended up in Sri Lanka and is under the watchful care of Lasith Malinga"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Fantastic


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 24, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> If the Australian selectors haven't worked out that he hasn't worked that out, then they should be out of work for failing to work out that he hasn't worked out something he should have worked out because if he doesn't, it's not going to work out for him at the top of the order.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Watson and Rogers are netting in London whilst the rest of the squad has gone to Hove. I guess that means they're keeping them for the next Test. Sounds as if Haddin is gone, so if they go for major surgery the team may look like this (Faulkner is my long shot for Smith.. not sure they want a left armer though and the tail will be long..). A complete guess of course - I imagine Smith/Agar instead of Faulkner if OT is spinning?

Watson
Rogers
Khawaja
Clarke
Warner
Wade
Faulkner
Siddle
Harris
Lyon
Bird


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

I'd say Smith's place is one of the safer ones surely - he may not have much technique but he's a fighter. Wade's a worse WK than Iron Gloves Haddin as well


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

Tbh 30 runs down the order isn't going to make that much of a difference anyway (that was about watson, not smith).


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tbh 30 runs down the order isn't going to make that much of a difference anyway (that was about watson, not smith).



Yeah, the point about Watson is that he'll produce the same innings wherever he bats - but given the conspicuous lack of openers on the scene, that's where he goes in


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

JTG said:


> Wade's a worse WK than Iron Gloves Haddin as well


Really? 

But he's younger. And Haddin's been awful - he's got to go, I would think. Could keep him as a batsman, I suppose.

Whoever's dropped, it's a bit unfair: how come _he_ gets to stay?


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really?
> 
> But he's younger. And Haddin's been awful - he's got to go, I would think. Could keep him as a batsman, I suppose.
> 
> Whoever's dropped, it's a bit unfair: how come _he_ gets to stay?



Not seen Wade tbh but it is generally reckoned to be so


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

First mention of 5-0 from the England camp - Anderson says he wants revenge for 2006/7: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/654589.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

Glen Mcgrath was very perceptive this morning. He reckoned aus need to bowl better whilst also batting better. Food for thought.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 24, 2013)

David Warner coming back worries me slightly. He has an innings in him. Lyon can also bowl solidly so I'd fancy they might be a bit stronger - Agar was loose and I can't remember him creating much in the way of chances. They need to be a lot stronger mind. I know they only lost the first test by a few but pound for pound, their records don't stand up. Haddin as a batter mightn't be a terrible call as he's got some history but boy does it look desperate shuffling around these players with averages in the 30s.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Glen Mcgrath was very perceptive this morning. He reckoned aus need to bowl better whilst also batting better. Food for thought.



My favourite bit is where he reckons that the fact most of Australia's top seven have made 50s is encouraging but Cook and Pietersen scoring low - yet who have also both made 50s - is a point in Australia's favour. Just wait until one or both hit form Glennda...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2013)

Isn't Warner still failing badly with the A Tour over in Sri Lanka or wherever?

Anyway I can't see them making massive changes, obviously they'll be the enforced change for Pattinson which I guess will be Mitchell Starc as he did pretty well at Trent Bridge and looks a good prospect.  Lyon will come in for Agar (under the guise of injury to Agar but really because Agar was a poor selection in the first place).

The interesting one is Haddin, whilst he nearly won them the game at Trent Bridge he had a terrible match at Lords.  He got out to two very poor shots and his keeping was well below an acceptable standard.  I wouldn't be surprised if they changed him for Wade, I'd say that's a 50/50 shout.  The rest will surely remain unchanged.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

This is soooo like England in the 90s. The batsmen fail, so the bowlers get changed.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

The other bit where he's (potentially) wrong is that Australia have hit rock bottom. You only know that when you start moving up again - for England rock bottom turned out to be The Oval in 1999 (or maybe The Wanderers in 99/00) but we didn't know that until after the Windies series of summer 2000 and on our way to four series wins in a row. For Australia, who knows? It may feel like rock bottom but then again, Lord's may have been the point where they commenced drilling...


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is soooo like England in the 90s. The batsmen fail, so the bowlers get changed.



Or: the batsmen fail so they drop the best wicketkeeper in the world [/bitter Glos fan]


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

I was there at the Oval on the last day. Being patronised by NZ fans in the crowd. It felt pretty much like rock bottom. I think you can have a feeling when you've reached it, but you can have no way of knowing how long you'll be stuck down there.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is soooo like England in the 90s. The batsmen fail, so the bowlers get changed.


 
Well they've got to change Pattinson, they'll certainly keep Siddle and Harris if fit so its only really the spinner that's up for discussion and that really should be a forgone conclusion.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was there at the Oval on the last day. Being patronised by NZ fans in the crowd. It felt pretty much like rock bottom. I think you can have a feeling when you've reached it, but you can have no way of knowing how long you'll be stuck down there.



Last night I watched a youtube vid of Richie Benaud's last minutes of UK commentary at the Oval in 2005 and his standing ovation, remembering how I was there. Obviously not too long afterwards we were celebrating the regaining of the Ashes - six years from one to the other. It doesn't have to take TOO long eh


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2013)

JTG said:


> The other bit where he's (potentially) wrong is that Australia have hit rock bottom. You only know that when you start moving up again - for England rock bottom turned out to be The Oval in 1999 (or maybe The Wanderers in 99/00) but we didn't know that until after the Windies series of summer 2000 and on our way to four series wins in a row.


 
It was when Thorpe and Hussian saw England home in near darkness in Karachi in 2000 that I knew things were properly on the up.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

If the pattern of recovery from both English and Australian slumps is to continue, it won't be Clarke who gets them out of it. He's Kim Hughes, they need a complete grumpy hardcase in the mould of Border/Hussain to get them moving again


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> It was when Thorpe and Hussian saw England home in near darkness in Karachi in 2000 that I knew things were properly on the up.



Yeah, the Victory In The Dark (cheers Steve Bucknor for not standing for Moin Khan's nonsense) followed by the win in Sri Lanka the following spring still stands out as a great period in terms of sheer unexpected delight


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> It was when Thorpe and Hussian saw England home in near darkness in Karachi in 2000 that I knew things were properly on the up.


Yep. Felt like a real achievement, that.

Hussain's first achievement was to make England hard to beat. I think Aus are in a similar position. Try to win, of course, but a non-rain-assisted draw would be an achievement for them at this stage.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Of course, the Border solution would mean that they'll come over here with everyone expecting them to be cannon fodder again and they'll win 4-0 like in 1989  Just so long as we can squeeze in another half dozen consecutive wins before then


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2013)

News has reached me from an aussie mate that Wade's keeping off spinners is absolutely village, dropped catches and missed stumpings abound.  They reckon that if he does play it would be as a batsman only given Old Trafford will spin therefore the spinners will bowl a lot of overs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> News has reached me from an aussie mate that Wade's keeping off spinners is absolutely village, dropped catches and missed stumpings abound.


Should fit right in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> News has reached me from an aussie mate that Wade's keeping off spinners is absolutely village, dropped catches and missed stumpings abound. They reckon that if he does play it would be as a batsman only given Old Trafford will spin therefore the spinners will bowl a lot of overs.


 
Excellent, should bring some stability to the team


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> News has reached me from an aussie mate that Wade's keeping off spinners is absolutely village, dropped catches and missed stumpings abound. They reckon that if he does play it would be as a batsman only given Old Trafford will spin therefore the spinners will bowl a lot of overs.



Is he a complete cheating bastard in the tradition of Marsh, Healey etc?


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 24, 2013)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/australia-call-up-ashton-turner-sussex

They excel themselves with this pick.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/australia-call-up-ashton-turner-sussex
> 
> They excel themselves with this pick.



Wow. So they're still trying to pull rabbits out of hats then. They'd be better off calling up all the resident County Championship veteran Aussies (Katich, Klinger, Voges etc) and force Sam Robson to make a decision too.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2013)

That just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

First class debut. What's one up from lol?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

Don't get it. Lyon's clearly the best of a bad bunch. Play him with Smith as back-up. Job done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fist class debut. What's one up from lol?


Now now. He's taken 18 wickets in the Sussex *Premier* League at an average of almost under 40.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's one up from lol?


 
rofl


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

kabbes said:


> rofl


 
I think that'll do for now, but i suspect we'll have to come up something else as the series progresses.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 24, 2013)

How can they beat playing somebody that has played literally *nil* games at first class level?

I don't know, but it will be fun finding out.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2013)

What is going on with the aussies?  What is the purpose of this?  One injury and they are already calling up kids who have never played 1st class cricket.

Can we read anything into this?  Does this mean they are planning on playing 2 spinners in the next test?


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

This is all making me feel so much better about Martin McCague


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 24, 2013)

JTG said:


> The other bit where he's (potentially) wrong is that Australia have hit rock bottom. You only know that when you start moving up again - for England rock bottom turned out to be The Oval in 1999 (or maybe The Wanderers in 99/00) but we didn't know that until after the Windies series of summer 2000 and on our way to four series wins in a row. For Australia, who knows? It may feel like rock bottom but then again, Lord's may have been the point where they commenced drilling...


 
After the winter Ashes series they're off to play in South Africa. I'd say there's plenty of scope for it to get much worse.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Can we read anything into this?



Blind panic


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> After the winter Ashes series they're off to play in South Africa. I'd say there's plenty of scope for it to get much worse.



As stated yesterday, I am dreaming of 17 defeats in a row


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

kabbes said:


> How can they beat playing somebody that has played literally *nil* games at first class level?
> 
> I don't know, but it will be fun finding out.


 
Bring in an aussie rules ruckman?


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> After the winter Ashes series they're off to play in South Africa. I'd say there's plenty of scope for it to get much worse.



And never mind the SA series, if our top order find form then it gets much uglier before the end of summer


----------



## kabbes (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bring in an aussie rules ruckman?


 
We may yet have to fire up the roflcopter.

```
ROFL:ROFL:ROFL:ROFL
         _^___
 L    __/   [] \    
LOL===__        \ 
 L      \________]
         I   I
        --------/
```


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Let's just hope that CA's investigation into the mystery tweeter on their account and management of whatever their players' relatives say on social media say bears fruit so they can then turn their attention to the less serious matter of the appalling state of their Test side


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

I would say great aus humour but it's done by one of us (he did a great one on why aus should be optimistic as well)



> *Shane Watson*
> Class will seem him through and the cream always rises to the top. His current LBW problem is nowhere near as bad as the one Gooch had against Alderman in the 80s, and Gooch didn’t have the DRS to full back on.
> 
> He looks good, the cover drive is class and if he can get past 30 (or even 40) he will cash in with something like a 70 or 80. Might not sound much, but the logic is 80 is better than 30.
> ...


 


> *Phil Hughes*
> Technique is everything and Hughes now has it in spades. Forget the blip of Lords and hang on to the 80 not out at Trent Bridge.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

What does this mean?



> It has other forms, also worth highlighting now. One is: "It's gotta be fun." Well, yes, but it has to work first. When the first Test unexpectedly proved to be so exciting, everyone - including the players - took it to be an affirmation of the Lehmann gaytime ethic. But the second Test exposed the gulf between the teams, and suddenly, cricket was about as much fun as Shane Watson's gait.


 
Does it mean game time?


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Let's try and find some bright spots for any Australians reading this thread anyway
1) Not much chance of any further Katich/Clarke rows over singing the team victory song, even if they bring Katich back


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2013)

Katich can't come back. Retired from 1st class crick in aus, which means he can't play under CA rules.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

I did not know that


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2013)

Not being the comedy team in the Ashes any more makes me feel uneasy.  Still, at least we've got the pedaloe to look back on.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Weird thing is, some people see the Fredalo incident as a positive: "oooh that Flintoff, what a lad, we don't have players like that these days" No, we have professionals who don't see putting a shift in as optional. That's why we don't win series as sensational one offs these days


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What does this mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Does it mean game time?


 

gaytime as in 'jolly, fun, light hearted' - there is another meaning? 

I actually did read this like it was some kind of Enid Blyton type anachronism


----------



## Athos (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Glen Mcgrath was very perceptive this morning. He reckoned aus need to bowl better whilst also batting better. Food for thought.



Pah! I said pretty much the same thing yesterday. And you mocked.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 24, 2013)

Warner scores 193 against SA.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/australia-david-warner-ashes


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Warner scores 193 against SA.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/australia-david-warner-ashes


Slogger. Not bothered


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

JTG said:


> Weird thing is, some people see the Fredalo incident as a positive: "oooh that Flintoff, what a lad, we don't have players like that these days" No, we have professionals who don't see putting a shift in as optional. That's why we don't win series as sensational one offs these days


To be fair to Flintoff, he worked his arse off to get fit for the 09 Ashes. He's also the last England bowler who could consistently crank it up over 90 mph. This Aus side is flattering England at the moment - making the likes of Bresnan look good, giving Swann a stackload of wickets when he's only really about 90 percent. Beating India in India was great. Failing to beat (and let's face it, pretty lucky in the end not to be beaten by) NZ in NZ not so good. Last year was poor - beat an average WI in early season, lost to a good SA, drew with an average SL in SL, smashed by Pakistan when Pakistan have very weak batting. I would put England as second best in the world at the moment, but very sadly, that's more a reflection on the poor state of world cricket than the excellence of England. The paucity of high-quality quicks around the world is very sad. And there are not too many good spinners either - 3 really good ones, but no greats.

I'd think that there are a fair few England batsmen from the 90s who, poor as that team were, would rather fancy a go at the bowlers of today. It's really sad for me that Malinga doesn't play tests and that someone like Tait isn't tearing in at England this summer. Sure, he'd spray it, but he'd uproot the odd middle stump too. Where are the tearaway quicks? England's fastest is dropped as soon as he has an inconsistent test. Jeff Thomson was inconsistent. But by fuck he was quick, and real pace can get good batsmen out on good wickets.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

Meanwhile, Jersey storm on at the top of the World Cricket League Division Six with a comprehensive drubbing of Nigeria 

Vanuatu defeated Bahrain and Argentina edged home by one wicket with three balls to spare against Kuwait. Sounds like a thriller


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

And the Sussex Premier League? That's where it's at now.

Agree with you about Warner. I hope they pick him, tbh. Slips had better get ready.  Even if by some fluke he survives the new ball, he won't last long against Swann. He proved his worth against spin in India.


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the Sussex Premier League? That's where it's at now.
> 
> Agree with you about Warner. I hope they pick him, tbh. Slips had better get ready.


Caveman school of batting


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2013)

JTG said:


> Caveman school of batting


I have no problem with the style if it works. Sehwag made it work and could bat all day if he got in. 'hit the first ball for 4' was Sehwag's policy. I thought Warner might be that good at first, but, well, he isn't.


----------



## JTG (Jul 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have no problem with the style if it works. Sehwag made it work and could bat all day if he got in. 'hit the first ball for 4' was Sehwag's policy. I thought Warner might be that good at first, but, well, he isn't.


Sehwag had some art and style though. Hayden didn't, he may be a better comparison. Though Hayden had technique

Quite like this from Ian Bell:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/654459.html
Seems pretty down to earth and not getting carried away


----------



## gabi (Jul 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To be fair to Flintoff, he worked his arse off to get fit for the 09 Ashes. He's also the last England bowler who could consistently crank it up over 90 mph. This Aus side is flattering England at the moment - making the likes of Bresnan look good, giving Swann a stackload of wickets when he's only really about 90 percent. Beating India in India was great. Failing to beat (and let's face it, pretty lucky in the end not to be beaten by) NZ in NZ not so good. Last year was poor - beat an average WI in early season, lost to a good SA, drew with an average SL in SL, smashed by Pakistan when Pakistan have very weak batting. I would put England as second best in the world at the moment, but very sadly, that's more a reflection on the poor state of world cricket than the excellence of England. The paucity of high-quality quicks around the world is very sad. And there are not too many good spinners either - 3 really good ones, but no greats..



Ludicrously I think nz can actually claim to be a better side than oz at present. This series is a fucking letdown of the highest order. The kiwis were supposed to be the warm up act not the main event of the summer.


----------



## JTG (Jul 25, 2013)

gabi said:


> Ludicrously I think nz can actually claim to be a better side than oz at present. This series is a fucking letdown of the highest order. The kiwis were supposed to be the warm up act not the main event of the summer.


You'd be right. Organised, determined, with a plan. For a country who are supposedly more about the ODIs, they've shown admirable application to the five day game of late. Possibly all because NZ have always had to be organised and making full use of resources in order to get by - whereas Australia have found it rather easier so have forgotten how to scrap


----------



## JTG (Jul 25, 2013)

Here's a stat I found quoted:

Debutants in the last five years
England = 15 
South Africa = 15
Sri Lanka = 15
India = 20 
New Zealand = 20 
Pakistan = 24
Windies = 26
Australia = 33

Hopefully it's actually correct


----------



## JTG (Jul 25, 2013)

Clarke could do with some of this:


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 25, 2013)

*Technology has made umpiring tougher than ever, says Simon Taufel*




> "Decision-making in today's game is in my opinion tougher than when I started umpiring 22 years ago because more people see evidence that we may not get to see on the ground at the time," said Taufel. "Anyone who watches the game at the ground, on the giant replay screen or on TV, will assess each and every decision of the umpires and also make an overall judgment of their performance.
> "The decision of the umpire is scrutinised by all these cameras including slow motion, ultra-motion, Hot Spot front on, Hot Spot leg-side, Hot Spot off-side, ball tracking and prediction, Snicko, stump audio, the mat. There is no doubt we now have a lot more 'armchair' experts; everyone umpires the game by watching television.
> 
> "The invasive nature of this broadcasting has a double edge to it – it does put more pressure on players and umpires. Not too much now happens on a cricket field that is not captured by a camera, a microphone or piece of technology. This has the ability to bring out the best in the game and also the worst."


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 25, 2013)

Well, Taufel is quite right. Technology has shown us just how many decisions they were getting wrong, it has left no hiding room for incompetent or downright bias umpires to hide.

Officials in every sport are under incredible scrutiny and this is as it should be. No sport is immune to controversy over officials, indeed it is much worse in other sports (see numerous rants on the recent B&I Lions thread). Officials are richly rewarded for their work and given the importance of professional sport it is absolutely right that we should demand excellence from the officials as we do from the players.

What will we have next batsman moaning how technology has exposed their weak spots and made it harder for them to score runs?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 25, 2013)

Steve Bucknor used to reckon that if he made one mistake per test, he was doing well.

so that makes 2 umpiring mistakes per test. Bucknor just hoped his mistakes didn't affect things too much.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 25, 2013)

In the recent two tests there have been some poor decisions by umpires on the field.  However I've been disappointed with how many Australians have picked up on them as contributory factors to their downfall whilst conveniently forgetting the bad ones England have had (Agar stumped, Trott not out). 

The problem is the aussies are terrible at using the technology, with correct use of technology I can think of only two incidents that wouldn't have been corrected, Trott at Trent Bridge and Steve Smith's catch at Lords (I've not included the Agar stumping because that was borderline, out but borderline).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 25, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> The problem is the aussies are terrible at using the technology, with correct use of technology I can think of only two incidents that wouldn't have been corrected, Trott at Trent Bridge and Steve Smith's catch at Lords (I've not included the Agar stumping because that was borderline, out but borderline).


Yep, agree with that. One each.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 25, 2013)

What I don't understand is people pointing to a successful challenge as evidence of a problem with DRS, like when England won the first test.

Surely a successful challenge is a sign that DRS is working? Without it, the wrong decision would have been made.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 25, 2013)

kabbes said:


> What I don't understand is people pointing to a successful challenge as evidence of a problem with DRS, like when England won the first test.
> 
> Surely a successful challenge is a sign that DRS is working? Without it, the wrong decision would have been made.


 
Aye, its bonkers how many people don't seem to get it.


Actually I've thought of a third occasion when DRS screwed up and that was Agar's dismissal at Lords in the second innings.  Given not out on the field there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision yet overturned it was.  I'm pretty confident it was out but its like 'Umpires Call' with LBW there has to be a system of skewing it to the on-field decision.  We all heard a noise but there was no mark on hot-spot, simple decision to stay with the on-field umpire.  Its quite clear the umpires themselves don't fully understand DRS either and that is something that should be really easy to fix.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 25, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Aye, its bonkers how many people don't seem to get it.
> 
> 
> Actually I've thought of a third occasion when DRS screwed up and that was Agar's dismissal at Lords in the second innings. Given not out on the field there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision yet overturned it was. I'm pretty confident it was out but its like 'Umpires Call' with LBW there has to be a system of skewing it to the on-field decision. We all heard a noise but there was no mark on hot-spot, simple decision to stay with the on-field umpire. Its quite clear the umpires themselves don't fully understand DRS either and that is something that should be really easy to fix.


I don't agree. No mark on hotspot doesn't mean he didn't hit it. If he heard a definite noise as the ball passed bat that couldn't be explained by anything other than ball hitting bat, he should give it out. I think they should formalise that, because the reason Trott was given out in the first test was because the umpire didn't understand hot spot evidence. It's been demonstrated that edges don't always turn up on hot spot.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 25, 2013)

To put Australia into perspective, Japan women had a bit of a disaster today against Sri Lanka. All out for 21 in 18.1 overs and the score chased down in 1.4 overs.. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-womens-world-twenty20-qualfier-2013/engine/current/match/640935.html


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree. No mark on hotspot doesn't mean he didn't hit it. If he heard a definite noise as the ball passed bat that couldn't be explained by anything other than ball hitting bat, he should give it out. I think they should formalise that, because the reason Trott was given out in the first test was because the umpire didn't understand hot spot evidence. It's been demonstrated that edges don't always turn up on hot spot.


 
I think we may be in disagreement here.  I accept that hot spot is fallible and doesn't always pick up all edges but it is a useful tool as a mark on the bat is a clear sign of impact but no mark leaves things in the air a bit.  The noise could have been any number of things, it was likely to be the bat but I don't think a noise is enough to overturn a decision and I certainly didn't see any deviation.  As it happens snicko later showed that it probably was bat (even then some people thought it was after the ball passed the bat) but as I said before there was just to much doubt to overturn a decision.  Had the on-field decision been out then that also should have been upheld. 

I also firmly believe Agar didn't think he'd hit it so that also backs up what a I said a few pages ago that you don't always know when you've hit it.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 26, 2013)

I think that it's pretty clear from the way that batsmen react that they DON'T always know when they have hit it.  Old players think they always knew when they hit it, but they are begging the question.  They know they hit the ones they know they hit, but they don't know about the ones they didn't think that they hit!  So of course they now say that they always knew it, but this is only because they don't know any better!


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 26, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that it's pretty clear from the way that batsmen react that they DON'T always know when they have hit it. Old players think they always knew when they hit it, but they are begging the question. They know they hit the ones they know they hit, but they don't know about the ones they didn't think that they hit! So of course they now say that they always knew it, but this is only because they don't know any better!


 

Exactly - I'd guess with more rubber on handles these days, heavier bats, better gloves, that it's much harder to feel a feather nick than before


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 26, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that it's pretty clear from the way that batsmen react that they DON'T always know when they have hit it. Old players think they always knew when they hit it, but they are begging the question. They know they hit the ones they know they hit, but they don't know about the ones they didn't think that they hit! So of course they now say that they always knew it, but this is only because they don't know any better!


 
I also read one theory that modern bat design may have a bearing on it.

Traditional bats were quite thin and pressed very hard this enabled them to remain relatively light but also very durable. Modern bats are big thick things with deep edges, they are still as light but it enables them to be used pretty much straight away but they don't last very long. I don't think they are any better they just look good with this great big lump of wood in your hands.

The theory goes that the much thicker edges means that the batsman is less likely to know if they have feathered one. Its pure speculation but there may be something in it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that it's pretty clear from the way that batsmen react that they DON'T always know when they have hit it. Old players think they always knew when they hit it, but they are begging the question. They know they hit the ones they know they hit, but they don't know about the ones they didn't think that they hit! So of course they now say that they always knew it, but this is only because they don't know any better!


Yep. I think is more likely than the theory about modern bats, tbh.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 26, 2013)

Meanwhile the exploding clown car which is the Australian batting is having another go down at Hove, if they can't score runs down there they may as well give up.   With Warner due back into the country this weekend after scoring that 193 its hard to see how they can leave him out if Hughes and Smith fail today. 

In other news I discovered today that Phil Hughes has a 1st class average of nearly 45, that's pretty decent and probably explains why he keeps getting chances at test level and probably further underlines the current weakness in the shield.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2013)

We all laugh at Hughes, but he made a storming start to his test career in South Africa. Unlike, say, Cowan, he has talent.

Out of the current shower, I have more time for him than most. He turned down the Big Bash last year to concentrate on getting back into the test team. That compares very favourably with Morgan for England, who doesn't seem to give a shit about being a test player as long as he has his ipl contract.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 27, 2013)

Warner apparently involved in an on field spat with South Africa A batsman, Tsolekile that required umpire intervention..


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2013)

Afridi has just passed 400 sixes in all forms of international cricket, in the West Indies vs Pakistan t20 game. The 400th was hit especially hard.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23481370

Taylor, Tremlett and Panesar in the squad, no Finn. Obviously Taylor will play if Pietersen can't and Tremlett will have the Onions 'no chance' role. Are they likely to go with 2 spinners though?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 28, 2013)

I can't see us playing only 2 seamers, so picking Monty would mean losing a batsman.  Not going to happen - besides, we already have 2 spinners, Swann and Root.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 28, 2013)

I think Panesar is there as back up in case Swann isn't 100%. Tremlett depends on the wicket. If it's horses for courses he may well play (think Harmison at OT..)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2013)

Taylor with a century now in the warm up game.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2013)

Also Ashton Turner, who they brought in to make his first class debut, has just been given his first bowl in the 94th over with Sussex at 343/7. He didn't bat. What is the point in him playing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 28, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23481370
> 
> Taylor, Tremlett and Panesar in the squad, no Finn. Obviously Taylor will play if Pietersen can't and Tremlett will have the Onions 'no chance' role. Are they likely to go with 2 spinners though?


If he's fit, Tremlett should play. Saw him in the 2020 on Friday and he looked very good. Of course it was only 2020, but he looked a class apart. IMO he is a class above Bresnan.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he's fit, Tremlett should play. Saw him in the 2020 on Friday and he looked very good. Of course it was only 2020, but he looked a class apart. IMO he is a class above Bresnan.


 

I was there on Friday too and agree he looked good. I just don't see it happening though - the England selectors tend to stick rather than twist and that probably means Bresnan.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 28, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I was there on Friday too and agree he looked good. I just don't see it happening though - the England selectors tend to stick rather than twist and that probably means Bresnan.


I was impressed that he had the batsmen jumping around. I was at square leg, tbf, but even so, he's quite an intimidating sight steaming in.

Footnote to the earlier spirit of cricket talk - right at the end of that game, second-last over, I think it was, a catch was dropped on the boundary in front of us. The ball sailed through his hands over the boundary (fielder didn't look like he fancied it, tbh, and that moment lost Kent the game). It was a clear six, but the fielder didn't signal six and the umpire gave it as a four. Very shoddy. There were hundreds of us signalling six in the crowd.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Footnote to the earlier spirit of cricket talk - right at the end of that game, second-last over, I think it was, a catch was dropped on the boundary in front of us. The ball sailed through his hands over the boundary (fielder didn't look like he fancied it, tbh, and that moment lost Kent the game). It was a clear six, but the fielder didn't signal six and the umpire gave it as a four. Very shoddy. There were hundreds of us signalling six in the crowd.


 
We were on the other side pretty much directly opposite that and couldn't quite work out what had happened there. That makes sense now.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jul 29, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> To put Australia into perspective, Japan women had a bit of a disaster today against Sri Lanka. All out for 21 in 18.1 overs and the score chased down in 1.4 overs.. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-womens-world-twenty20-qualfier-2013/engine/current/match/640935.html


 
On the plus side they still scored more than Essex.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2013)

4 overs for Turner, didn't bat. Didn't take any catches or run anyone out.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 29, 2013)

Not sure they aussies really got anything out of that tour match. The reports coming out suggest Bird out-bowled Starc and Lyon was slow to start but got better as the match went on. So on the basis of that you'd say that Bird will replace Pattinson and Lyon will replace Agar. It is possible that they may go for two spinners as they have the third seam option in Watson, I doubt they will though.

I can't see England making any changes unless Pieterson isn't fit in time. Monty must have been called up because they had some concerns over Swann, England will never play two spinners as part of a 4 man attack in England. I remember it happening a decade or so ago and we promptly lost the toss and found ourselves bowling with Mark Butcher coming on as first change on the first morning of a test, crazy days.

I guess the big question will be whether the aussies will re-shuffle their batting line-up. Looking closer at that Aus A match that Warner scored 190 odd in he wasn't the only person to get runs and quite a lot of them, I'm guessing it was a bit of a road with a short boundary or something. Does that in itself warrant a re-call? I wouldn't but I suspect he will come in for Hughes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 29, 2013)

I'd think Bird and Lyon in for Pattinson and Agar. Wouldn't surprise me if they kept the same batting. There's nobody obvious for Warner to replace - Smith would be most vulnerable, I'd have thought, except that he can be the second spinner.

England might bring in Tremlett for Bresnan, perhaps. Or perhaps not - I've read reports that they're preparing Tremlett for the winter, so coming into the squad is the next step in that. Real bad luck for him - he finally breaks through into test cricket aged nearly 30 then promptly gets injured for a year and a half. I guess he'll treat each game as a bonus from now on.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 30, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Not sure they aussies really got anything out of that tour match. The reports coming out suggest Bird out-bowled Starc and Lyon was slow to start but got better as the match went on. So on the basis of that you'd say that Bird will replace Pattinson and Lyon will replace Agar. It is possible that they may go for two spinners as they have the third seam option in Watson, I doubt they will though.


Smith, Lyon and Agar seems a bit of an overkill. OK I know Smith isn't a main bowler but he's good enough that if the pitch does turn then he can provide some overs.



Teaboy said:


> I guess the big question will be whether the aussies will re-shuffle their batting line-up. Looking closer at that Aus A match that Warner scored 190 odd in he wasn't the only person to get runs and quite a lot of them, I'm guessing it was a bit of a road with a short boundary or something. Does that in itself warrant a re-call? I wouldn't but I suspect he will come in for Hughes.


Like you I think they might recall Warner, and like you I agree it would be a mistake. If they do then I wonder what they'll do with the order, Lehmann said he wanted Watson as an opener when he first came in.


----------



## gabi (Jul 30, 2013)

What a depressing series. As a cricket fan it makes me sad to see the Aussies so low. It's gonna be 5-0 if the weather holds.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> What a depressing series. As a cricket fan it makes me sad to see the Aussies so low. It's gonna be 5-0 if the weather holds.


 
Well we've only had two matches so far and for a bit of luck and some sort of basic strategy to deal with DRS this series could have been 1-1.  Whilst Lords was grim for the aussies I do think some of the obituaries being written are a bit premature.

Genuine question gabi but as a cricket fan were you equally depressed when England were regularly getting gubbed against Oz?  When we sent bowlers like Headley, Tudor and Caddick (who unbelievably averaged nearly 50 against OZ) to bowl against a top seven which contained the likes of Taylor, Slater, Langer, Waugh x2 and Healey.  When on pitches that were turning sideways Oz had Warne and Macgill and we had Peter Such or Richard Dawson.  When we had batsman like Butcher, Hick, Crawley  and Ramprakash who all averaged in the early 30's.

Or what about in 06/07 when an England team containing the likes of Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pieterson, Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison and Anderson were humbled 5-0? 

The question to be asked is not really about this series (India got gubbed here a couple of years ago and look at the direction their test team is heading now) but what does this say about the test concept, that is probably the worry here.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> What a depressing series. As a cricket fan it makes me sad to see the Aussies so low. It's gonna be 5-0 if the weather holds.


tbh, I can't believe how poor they've been. That first innings at HQ....dreadful


----------



## gabi (Jul 30, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Well we've only had two matches so far and for a bit of luck and some sort of basic strategy to deal with DRS this series could have been 1-1. Whilst Lords was grim for the aussies I do think some of the obituaries being written are a bit premature.
> 
> Genuine question gabi but as a cricket fan were you equally depressed when England were regularly getting gubbed against Oz? When we sent bowlers like Headley, Tudor and Caddick (who unbelievably averaged nearly 50 against OZ) to bowl against a top seven which contained the likes of Taylor, Slater, Langer, Waugh x2 and Healey. When on pitches that were turning sideways Oz had Warne and Macgill and we had Peter Such or Richard Dawson. When we had batsman like Butcher, Hick, Crawley and Ramprakash who all averaged in the early 30's.
> 
> ...


 

Interesting point. I suppose I didn't find it as sad when England were being humbled. But then they were being humbled by a truly great group of players. I don't think the current crop of English players bear comparison to that Aussie lineup tbh. That's how shit the current Aussie team is. They're being humiliated by a bunch of journeymen, with a couple of notable exceptions.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> Interesting point. I suppose I didn't find it as sad when England were being humbled. But then they were being humbled by a truly great group of players. I don't think the current crop of English players bear comparison to that Aussie lineup tbh. That's how shit the current Aussie team is. They're being humiliated by a bunch of journeymen, with a couple of notable exceptions.


 
I agree that this England team would have struggled against Ponting's team at their height and indeed Waugh's team and possibly Taylor's although I think that was more the Waugh team developing.  Journeymen is probably a bit harsh though when you look at the averages in our top seven, I mean our top four contains three players who average over 48 and the other one is just a kid starting out, that stands up against any team of any era.

I think my basic point here though is you must admit that part of your upset about this series is because you have a soft spot for Australia rather then simply being a neutral observer.


----------



## gabi (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm a kiwi, can't really say I have a soft spot for the ockers  I just enjoy a good contest. This isn't. 

There's huge competition in oz to attract youngsters to sport, and sadly I think cricket is becoming less popular there in recent times. Which is a loss to the game in general.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> Interesting point. I suppose I didn't find it as sad when England were being humbled. But then they were being humbled by a truly great group of players. I don't think the current crop of English players bear comparison to that Aussie lineup tbh. That's how shit the current Aussie team is. They're being humiliated by a bunch of journeymen, with a couple of notable exceptions.


 
I was more sad about the state of the last India team we played tbh. I find it hard to care about Australians, for obvious reasons.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 30, 2013)

Aston's still going up in the world....

*Ashton meets ousted Egypt leader Mohammed Morsi*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23500117


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> There's huge competition in oz to attract youngsters to sport, and sadly I think cricket is becoming less popular there in recent times. Which is a loss to the game in general.


 
Yeah and the aussies are shit at all those other sports as well at the moment, except aussie rules but who cares?

I think there is a general point to make about the one-sidedness of this series so far and I really don't think its as bad as some people are saying.  Even in the bad old days for England we used to regularly win the odd test against the aussies even if they were often after the series had been decided, we rarely got beaten 5-0.  This England side aren't that great and the aussies aren't that bad.  I fully expect the aussies to win at least one over here and possibly a couple over the winter.  Anyway the weather forecast for this next test suggests a draw maybe on the cards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 30, 2013)

I don't expect Aus to win any in this series now. Cook, Pietersen and Trott have barely been firing yet. And I don't see the Aus batting line-up suddenly finding its feet. The problem is in the personnel - they're just not good enough. Australia have decent bowlers in Harris and Siddle, but they're not in any way scary, and poor old Nathan Lyon's confidence can't be high after he was left out in preference for an untested 19 year old.


----------



## gabi (Jul 30, 2013)

Two kiwi bowlers would walk into this Aussie side and that ain't been the case since hadlee and chatfield


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> What a depressing series. As a cricket fan it makes me sad to see the Aussies so low. It's gonna be 5-0 if the weather holds.


The Aussies are going through a bad period and it is not a good spectacle ,the team will have no breathing space before the series down under


----------



## Combustible (Jul 31, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> The question to be asked is not really about this series (India got gubbed here a couple of years ago and look at the direction their test team is heading now) but what does this say about the test concept, that is probably the worry here.


 
It is quite clearly a problem when the 'pinnacle' of the sport (at least here and maybe in Australia) is based on a particular fixture between two teams. Because there is a good chance that at any given time the sides will not be evenly matched. So we have 10 Ashes test matches in a row now but South Africa only got 3 tests here last year (largely because of the Olympics).

It seems to me there should be a better mechanism for having the top teams playing 5 match series against each other in a reasonably short time scale. A World Test Championship is a good idea but much like 1 day cricket is unsatisfactory compared to 5 day cricket, one test is unsatisfactory compared to a 5 match series. It would perhaps be a logistical nightmare but it would surely be possible to have a more spread out test championship culminating in a 5 test series to decide the 'winner'.


----------



## Santino (Jul 31, 2013)

Combustible said:


> It is quite clearly a problem when the 'pinnacle' of the sport (at least here and maybe in Australia) is based on a particular fixture between two teams. Because there is a good chance that at any given time the sides will not be evenly matched. So we have 10 Ashes test matches in a row now but South Africa only got 3 tests here last year (largely because of the Olympics).
> 
> It seems to me there should be a better mechanism for having the top teams playing 5 match series against each other in a reasonably short time scale. A World Test Championship is a good idea but much like 1 day cricket is unsatisfactory compared to 5 day cricket, one test is unsatisfactory compared to a 5 match series. It would perhaps be a logistical nightmare but it would surely be possible to have a more spread out test championship culminating in a 5 test series to decide the 'winner'.


You could have a 3- or 4-year cycle that culminates with the top 4 teams playing a semi-final series (3 matches) and then a championship series (4 tests). You'd need a way to decide a drawn series though: extra days for the deciding Test? Visiting team only has to draw? A problem - do you bother playing all the last matches in a series if it's a dead rubber?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 31, 2013)

Oooh, forgot that round three starts tomorrow


----------



## Santino (Jul 31, 2013)

Fun question for you all: if Cook decides that captaincy is fucking up his batting, who should replace him?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 31, 2013)

Santino said:


> Fun question for you all: if Cook decides that captaincy is fucking up his batting, who should replace him?


 
Well its hardly ever bowlers so that really only leaves Trott, Bell or Prior.  I suppose it could be Swann but you get the idea its a bit too serious for him and he prefers to piss around rather then give serious interviews.  I'd say probably Bell as a fill in, Prior could do a job but I don't think Wicket Keepers make particularly good captains for several reasons.

You get the impression that long term planning and continuity are what the England set up is all about, as everyone knows there current plan seems to be Cook for maybe five odd years and then Root.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2013)

Santino said:


> A problem - do you bother playing all the last matches in a series if it's a dead rubber?


 
They'd have to for financial reasons if nothing else.


----------



## Santino (Jul 31, 2013)

Agree that Prior would be stand-in if Cook was injured, but I'm not sure they'd give it to him full-time.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 31, 2013)

Combustible said:


> So we have 10 Ashes test matches in a row now but South Africa only got 3 tests here last year (largely because of the Olympics).


 
Was it the Olympics or was it because the ECB and CA wanted to shoehorn a bizarre one day series into last summer?

Interesting opinion piece written here prior to the Champions Trophy about who controls cricket and what their priorities are:




> It's easy and lazy to point at India and suggest every single problem in the world of cricket leads back to them. But they have two able and willing accomplices who are happily making the big eight into a powerful three.
> Australia, England and India are forming a cabal.


 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/644299.html


----------



## kabbes (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't understand why the captain never seems to be a bowler.  To me, it seems more logical to pick a bowler, since the principle duty of a captain is making bowling decisions, including field settings.


----------



## Santino (Jul 31, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I don't understand why the captain never seems to be a bowler. To me, it seems more logical to pick a bowler, since the principle duty of a captain is making bowling decisions, including field settings.


I imagine the reasons include:

Fast bowlers are more likely to miss a game through injury (and being dropped for a bad game).
Bowlers are rubbish at judging when they themselves should bowl.
Historically of course, bowlers were seen as drudges who enabled the real players, batsmen, to show off their skills.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

Imran Khan was a successful captain. All-rounder, but principally a bowler. Bob Willis less so. Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff even less so.

But yes, they are few and far between. A few reasons I can think of: bowlers get injured more than batsmen, so will miss more matches; a bowler will not be able to be objective about when to bowl himself; fast bowlers tend to graze on the boundary between overs, not the best place to follow the game from.

Spin bowlers in particular tend to read the game well as they have to think batsmen out. There have been some notable spinner-captains: Benaud, Illingworth.

But it's all part of the lot of the bowler: the most important players in the team and rarely given the credit they deserve.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

Have a look at Clarke's problems with the inswinger over the last few years here - but also look at the aus score when he is out each time (some are one-dayers of course, but still...):


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

Santino said:


> Historically of course, bowlers were seen as drudges who enabled the real players, batsmen, to show off their skills.


Yes, and some of it may be a hangover from that. Batsmen tended to be the gentleman-amateurs while bowlers were the professionals. Bowling was, well, too much like hard work for a self-respecting gentleman to be expected to do.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2013)

I suppose also a bowler captain would be doing the two jobs simultaneously, making it harder to concentrate on either.

It does seem to just be established convention as much as anything else though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

Leaves a bit of a gap, perhaps. There are some great deliveries in there, tbf. The one from Asif in particular.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 31, 2013)

I think class plays a major role in this.

It's the poshos that get to be captain not the often lower class people bowling.

Yes, fast bowlers breakdown often but good quality spin bowlers aren't under such physical pressure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I think class plays a major role in this.
> 
> It's the poshos that get to be captain not the often lower class people bowling.
> 
> Yes, fast bowlers breakdown often but good quality spin bowlers aren't under such physical pressure.


Spinners are usually full of ideas about the game. I have been struck by how well Tufnell reads the game from his commentating. Under the clown face is a spin bowler who had to think his way to wickets.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Spinners are usually full of ideas about the game. I have been struck by how well Tufnell reads the game from his commentating. Under the clown face is a spin bowler who had to think his way to wickets.


 
You can't really imagine Tufnell as captain though.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look at Clarke's problems with the inswinger over the last few years here - but also look at the aus score when he is out each time (some are one-dayers of course, but still...):


 
Its interesting, mostly he seems to be playing the drive on the walk which leaves him open to the one that nips back.  He has pretty much the opposite problem than Watson has who plants the front foot.  I guess batting at 5 most of his career would have meant he often is at the crease when the ball is reversing but its a shot I'm sure he's worked on, he's only been out once so far this series to one that comes back and that was LBW.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

No, you can't...

But in terms of tactical nous, I don't think Cook or Strauss for England rate very highly at all. Cook's worth so far has been his ability to unite everyone behind him - they may not all respect each other, but they all respect Cook. In particular, he appears to have solved the Pietersen problem.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Its interesting, mostly he seems to be playing the drive on the walk which leaves him open to the one that nips back. He has pretty much the opposite problem than Watson has who plants the front foot. I guess batting at 5 most of his career would have meant he often is at the crease when the ball is reversing but its a shot I'm sure he's worked on, he's only been out once so far this series to one that comes back and that was LBW.


Another way of looking at that footage is that it takes a very good ball to get Clarke out.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 31, 2013)

Fast bowlers bowl themselves into the ground when captain, look at Flintoff in Oz.  They think they have to lead from the front so just keep hammering in, plus as others have said fast bowlers traditionally are rubbish fielders and you can't captain a team from deep fine leg. 

It is best that when in the field the captain focuses solely on captaining, that's why I don't like W/K has captain either.  If you are having a long day in the field you want to be focusing on how to get the batsman out not whether the ball is coming out of your hand correctly etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another way of looking at that footage is that it takes a very good ball to get Clarke out.


 
But look at the aus scores when he's out! Collapse after collapse after collapse - across both forms of the game. That's more what i was highlighting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

The very best captain of all, perhaps, didn't trouble himself too much with bowling or batting.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 31, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You can't really imagine Tufnell as captain though.


 
England couldn't of got much worse at the time.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 31, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I think class plays a major role in this.
> 
> It's the poshos that get to be captain not the often lower class people bowling.
> 
> Yes, fast bowlers breakdown often but good quality spin bowlers aren't under such physical pressure.


 
I suppose that at least that means we end up with a captain with sufficient classical education to understand what "maelstrom" means.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

Arthur thing over.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Arthur thing over.


 
'Here's some money, now piss off.'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 31, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'Here's some money, now piss off.'


Which, it seems to me, was exactly what he was after. He's damaged his own reputation, I think, in the way he went public with his grievances. But by showing that he would go public, he ensured this payoff to shut him up. Pretty sorry from all sides.

CA were incredibly naive, though, by calling him a scapegoat. 'We thank Mickey for all his efforts, but feel we need to move on.' is the form. Have they not seen how football does it.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 31, 2013)

I wish journo's would stop asking Clarke whether he still believes they can win the series.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23516909

I mean what else is he supposed to say? "Ah well look mate, we'll have a go but lets face it we're not fit to play the same game as the Australian teams of last two decades."


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't, i want them to do it more. Non-stop.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look at Clarke's problems with the inswinger over the last few years here - but also look at the aus score when he is out each time (some are one-dayers of course, but still...):


 

To be fair there were some beauties who'd have got most batsman out (the WI wicket at 2:15 was a gem) but yes, many of the others show how he struggles especially when it's a full in swinger that's perhaps far enough up for him to score from. He ends up not moving his front foot far enough, playing all round the ball and leaving a big gap between bat and pad for it to pass through. He also overbalances as a result and walks right through the shot and back to the dressing room.


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

Agar and Hughes dropped for Lyon and Warner, according to Simon Hughes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Watch them ROAR.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2013)

Pattinson, Agar and Hughes have the 1st, 3rd and 4th best batting averages for them so far this series.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Dropped their top scorer then


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Awesomely, the bowler with the best average and strike rate is Root.

So Aussie's best batsman is their bowler and England's best bowler is their batsman.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Hmmm a couple of outliers in those stats there.

Good toss to win this one, then again it'd be nice to have an early go at the aussie batsman see how much damage has been done mentally.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

Half ten start?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

No. Normal time.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No.



Oh


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Half ten start?


 
Don't think so, pretty sure not because they haven't had the toss yet.  It'll be 11am.

Shane Warne is on sky now, he is in much better shape then at any point in his playing career so can we deduce from this that playing cards is better for you then international sport?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Half ten start?


 
11:00 same as usual AFAIK.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Shane Warne is on sky now, he is in much better shape then at any point in his playing career so can we deduce from this that playing cards is better for you then international sport?


 
Is he?

 Maybe he just had some liposuction when he was getting his face done.


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Oh


Maybe England should claim an extra half hour before normal play in order to bowl the Aussies out by lunch.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Oz win the toss and bat.  Starc, Lyon and Warner in.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

The Vipbox stream is stuttering  is there another easy one that won't kill my computer?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> The Vipbox stream is stuttering  is there another easy one that won't kill my computer?


 
I'm at work so not on it at the moment, but nutjob tv (njtv.eu iirc) is usually OK.


----------



## gabi (Aug 1, 2013)

I use crictime and cricvid. Both reliable.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

A lot of messing around with the aussie batting order again.  Clarke up to 4 again, Smith up to 5 and Warner (an opener) in at 6.  It must be hard to prepare for the batsman when no one is assured of their place in the team but even if they do make the team they must be unsure where they will bat.

The opening partnership is crucial this morning I reckon, if England get an early wicket there could be real problems.


----------



## gabi (Aug 1, 2013)

First time I've really watched Rogers.. His technique is fucking terrible. Falls over every ball. Reminds me of Andrew jones who played for nz donkeys years ago. Scored loadsa runs mind you.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Yeah he's not got a classical style by any means, but he looks pretty compact this morning and he also looks calmer then Watson who is clearly nervous.  That being said its been a quiet start and the pitch looks like a great one to bat on.  No reason why the aussies can't make a big score here today.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah he's not got a classical style by any means, but he looks pretty compact this morning and he also looks calmer then Watson who is clearly nervous. That being said its been a quiet start and the pitch looks like a great one to bat on. No reason why the aussies can't make a big score here today.


 
I can think of 5 or 6.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Do you know what, just remembered, i need to go buy an onion for our tea.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

That Zebra is really annoying me.


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That Zebra is really annoying me.


Next time close your garden gate.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Want wicket.  Have been led to expect many wickets, want wicket now.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

kabbes said:
			
		

> Want wicket.  Have been led to expect many wickets, want wicket now.



Is this still their first innings? I thought they may have followed on.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 1, 2013)

Here we go again,great pics of Warnie groping Liz at the races whilst munted haha.Warner has batted at 6 before,hit a couple of 100s i think.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 1, 2013)

I love technology. Sitting listening to TMS watching the thai sunset with a beer.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Is this still their first innings? I thought they may have followed on.


 
fuck off


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Boycs can't resist a chance to revisit the War of the Roses, I see





​*Geoffrey Boycott, BBC Test Match Special*
"Lancashire have had three years since the last Test to prepare a pitch, but this has got patches all over it. The more they get hit and the drier it becomes the bounce will get lower, particularly with the old ball. Sorry, I don't see Wimbledon having patches all over it, or Lord's having patches all over it."​


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

Get Swann on.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Rogers 50?  Fuck off.


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Rogers 50? Fuck off.


Well, he'll play for the rest of the series now.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Aussies are racing along at the moment.  Theres been quite a few streaky ones through the slips but no catches yet.

Its shot a ball time from Rogers, this pitch looks like a belter.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

And the collapse begins


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Well at least he wasn't lbw this time.  Never looked comfortable all morning.


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

Into the tail.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

With Khawaja in we'll see spin soon, aussies I speak to reckon he's hopeless against the turning ball.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Well done on not getting an lbw watson!


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Well so much for OT spinning a lot this year, I know its only the first morning but nothing turned off straight.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Another daft review.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

What is warne on about. It bloody moved.


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2013)

What do people think about the increased use of reviews/appeals in the decision making process?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

That's another curious decision review.  I can't see why that was upheld, there was no evidence of a nick.  Very strange.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What is warne on about. It bloody moved.


 
I'm not so sure, it looked like it went with the spin.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 1, 2013)

Ha ha DRS lols


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

At this rate I can see CA joining India in fighting against DRS.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2013)

tbh, I can't see the point of the review system for nicks if that's out...


----------



## Mumbles274 (Aug 1, 2013)

Oh dear, can't see how that wasn't overturned, granted am watching on a rather ropey stream but there was no contact between bat and ball


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Snicko shows a second noise way after the ball had passed the bat, I wonder if that fooled the 3rd umpire?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

I seem to be the only one who though that was out. It looked like clear movement off the bat to me.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I seem to be the only one who though that was out. It looked like clear movement off the bat to me.


 
I thought that initially and I suspect that's what the 3rd umpire saw but on reflection I think it was just going with the spin, the seam didn't deviate as far as I could tell.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

I shall have to review it when I get back from lunch.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

See what happens when I go to lunch? Two wickets.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I shall have to review it when I get back from lunch.


 
Sorry you've already used one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 1, 2013)

Really hard luck on Khawaja, but in the absence of Snicko, I actually think that was not such a terrible 3rd umpire decision. On TMS, they weren't sure - they had to wait to see Snicko to confirm what they suspected. But if you only suspect that he didn't hit it, you shouldn't be overturning the decision.3rd ump should never be overturning correct decisions, like happened with Trott at TB, but the occasional non-overturning of incorrect decisions is acceptable, imo.

Roll on Snicko, imo, which is going to be used in Australia. And let's formalise it - nothing on Snicko and nothing else to show that Snicko is wrong, and it should be decided that that means he didn't hit it. In tennis, hawkeye's judgement is final, and I think this kind of authoritative piece of technology is needed for cricket. Snicko can be that - whatever Snicko shows, that's taken to be right.

Agnew gets it wrong again - sees this decision as proof that drs is rotten, overlooking the fact that without drs, that decision would have stood wrongly too. That decision also shows, I think, how you can't give each team just one drs appeal each.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 1, 2013)

yeah well,no hot spot,sound from bat brushing pad,clear as a bell.If i can see that from my lounge with a dozen largers inside of me then why cant the 3rd umpire see it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 1, 2013)

Problem is that no hot spot doesn't mean anything. I agree that it was a bad decision - he didn't hit it and was given out. If I were him, I'd feel pretty aggrieved.

I hate bad decisions, whoever gets them - hopefully they can get Snicko in and reduce them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 1, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> yeah well,no hot spot,sound from bat brushing pad,clear as a bell.If i can see that from my lounge with a dozen largers inside of me then why cant the 3rd umpire see it?


 
I agree that it wasn't out, but I'm not sure an aussie sat in his lounge with a dozen lagers inside him is the best judge, tbf. 

Can't remember who said it, but if you hit the ball in the middle of the bat, you won't get bad decisions against you. Struggling players get more rough decisions because they play and miss/get struck on the pads more often. Khawaja played two bad shots in a row - unlucky, but also not well played.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

The very 1st replay they showed from face on looked like deflection and a sound. It was only on further analysis that you could see that he didn't hit it, on TV they kept saying the noise was when he hit his pad which was true but there was also a second sound which snicko later picked up on but it was after the ball had passed the bat. I wonder what that noise was and I suspect without the benefit of snicko that put enough doubt in the 3rd umpire's mind to not over-rule.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

In-between some fairly decent balls we have bowled a lot of garbage. Rogers has played well but all he is doing is putting away the bad ball, of which there have been plenty.

One last thing about the Khawaja dismissal, in all the chat about DRS what has been missed is what a terrible shot it was.  Playing against the spin, away from his body, not at the pitch of the ball and even closing the face.

The shot is what should be worrying aussie fans, leave the DRS mess to administrators.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Get in


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2013)

Get out


----------



## Mumbles274 (Aug 1, 2013)

Shake it all about


----------



## Ungrateful (Aug 1, 2013)

Damn, another couple of wickets and we'll have to bowl at their good batsmen.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

Ungrateful said:


> Damn, another couple of wickets and we'll have to bowl at their good batsmen.


 
No, they've been dropped and injured.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Well that's one the aussies have got away with.  Fair enough on DRS but that wasn't a great on-field decision at all, it was hitting leg stump flush on.  I wonder how much we'll here about that one from the aussies.


----------



## gabi (Aug 1, 2013)

Clarke is beautiful to watch. Must be so frustrating for him.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2013)

On the BBC commentary: Jimmy Anderson as drawn by Graeme Swann:


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

What are all these noises after the ball passes the bat?

On the Khawaja dismissal and on this Steve Smith thing there has been some clear noises after snicko says the ball passed the bat, I can't think what they can be.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Aug 1, 2013)

The collective sound of the spectators tutting


----------



## Santino (Aug 1, 2013)

Somebody go and... rent... a shallot or something.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Another very poor on-field decision by Tony Hill, Smith totally plumb but not given.  Smith has been clearly out lbw twice now but somehow I get the feeling we are going to be discussing how unlucky Oz are with DRS.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 1, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Another very poor on-field decision by Tony Hill, Smith totally plumb but not given. Smith has been clearly out lbw twice now but somehow I get the feeling we are going to be discussing how unlucky Oz are with DRS.


 
The real story today isn't drs. It's the awful umpiring of Tony Hill. Both he and Erasmus are terrible umpires.

Dharmasena - 3rd ump today - is a far better onfield umpire than either of these two.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The real story today isn't drs. It's the awful umpiring of Tony Hill. Both he and Erasmus are terrible umpires.
> 
> Dharmasena - 3rd ump today - is a far better onfield umpire than either of these two.


 
As are Bowden and Rauf but they've been dropped.


----------



## gabi (Aug 1, 2013)

Why were they dropped?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 1, 2013)

Rauf's under investigation for corruption.

England made a mistake with their first review, which they've paid for. It looked out, but it also looked like it would be umpire's call.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Not good enough apparently. They were replaced by a brit and an aussie as a result the elite panel is now full of either english or aussie umpires which means we are stuck with the 4 who are not, the 3 in this test and Dar.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rauf's under investigation for corruption.


 
It was made clear that was not why he was dropped.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 1, 2013)

Why no Indian umps? Bit weird that there isn't a single one. Do they just get paid shitloads for the ipl?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 1, 2013)

Dunno.

Christ England have bowled some garbage today.  Looks like a 500+ pitch though.


----------



## gabi (Aug 1, 2013)

Bowden is a dick but a very good umpire. In saying that, 6 years ago I did meet a dude who claimed he had both rauf and Bowden in his pocket.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2013)

Good day for the aussies yesterday.  Clarke batted wonderfully I cant remember him giving a single chance up.  Rogers and Smith both batted well, Khawaja was a little unlucky but it was a poor shot and Watson looks scrambled at the moment.

England had one of those days, we bowled OK and went past the edge numerous times but didn't get much luck.  Smith was LBW twice the second time plumb and we used both referrals well but got unlucky.   

Obviously we'll need to see England bat on this pitch and it may deteriorate but at the moment it looks like a road, hardly any swing with new or old ball, nothing off the pitch and very little and slow spin.  How many years have LCC fans waited to see test match cricket? And now it looks like the Chief Exec has flown in a pitch from Colombo or somewhere.  The last 1st class game there doesn't bode well with both teams scoring 500 and shaking hands and that was on a used pitch.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Aug 2, 2013)

any working streams?

eta got one


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2013)

gabi said:


> Bowden is a dick but a very good umpire.


 
There is a good story about Bowden that after he had umpired the famous 2005 Ashes test at Edgbaston (the one which went right down to the wire before he gave Kasp out caught behind), he calmly collected the match ball and took it home as a souvenir. It was only later that it was pointed out to him that it would become quite a famous piece of memorabilia and belongs to the ECB and he should really return it. Fair play to him for having a go though.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The real story today isn't drs. It's the awful umpiring of Tony Hill. Both he and Erasmus are terrible umpires.
> 
> Dharmasena - 3rd ump today - is a far better onfield umpire than either of these two.


 
Why,if the top 8 of the 12 elite(arguably)test umpires in the world are either British or Australian arent they in the middle?Its becoming sort of fishy for me,would the bookies try anf hijack a test.I cant think of any other reason for the abysmal umpiring to date


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

Has Warner taken review lessons off twatto?


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 2, 2013)

What a gift


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 2, 2013)

Boycott said:
			
		

> "Absolutely stupid - that's a useless review. Why would he review that? Why would the captain review that? I saw Clarke sort of shrug and say 'let's try it'. Reviewing is not about trying it on - it's to overturn a genuinely bad decision."


Have the Aus team been watching too much tennis? That's how it's often used there, but they get three reviews a set!

Does seem mad to "have a go" when they're as precious as this. Though I still don't quite understand why the umpires can't use it the way rugby refs do - if there's a question in their mind, just take it upstairs for clarification. Is it just because there'd be too many instances throughout a game?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Though I still don't quite understand why the umpires can't use it the way rugby refs do - if there's a question in their mind, just take it upstairs for clarification. Is it just because there'd be too many instances throughout a game?


 
Yes, given the chance the umpires will review virtually everything that has been shown by run outs and no balls.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 2, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Have the Aus team been watching too much tennis? That's how it's often used there, but they get three reviews a set!
> 
> Does seem mad to "have a go" when they're as precious as this. Though I still don't quite understand why the umpires can't use it the way rugby refs do - if there's a question in their mind, just take it upstairs for clarification. Is it just because there'd be too many instances throughout a game?


 
There is a certain logic to it to be honest. It makes sense to value your batsmen's wickets more highly than your tailenders. There's not much value in getting to 8 or 9 down with a review left in case of a clearly wrong decision compared to even a chance of keeping in a batsman who might score a century. They might be getting it wrong at the moment but it does make sense with a bit of refining.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 2, 2013)

Apparently the ICC are trialling a Decision Review System Review Sysytem


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2013)

hm, it's only 20 quid to go on monday. vaguely tempted.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 2, 2013)

Goodbye Clarke! Finally!

Shame he didn't get his 200. Honest


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There is a certain logic to it to be honest. It makes sense to value your batsmen's wickets more highly than your tailenders. There's not much value in getting to 8 or 9 down with a review left in case of a clearly wrong decision compared to even a chance of keeping in a batsman who might score a century. They might be getting it wrong at the moment but it does make sense with a bit of refining.


 
Not when your captain is down the other end on 170 and its your last review.  Would have been amusing had Clarke got a rough decision when on 195 or something.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 2, 2013)

Declaration at 527/7. You'd think they'd need an early wicket or two to really pressure England and force the win. Interesting passage of play coming up.

Probably a lot earlier than Cook would have declared tbf.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2013)

Well the aussies have to win not would like to win.  If England had won the toss and batted like that the ashes would now be England's.  Pitch looks fine you just to apply yourself, lets see what England do.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2013)

Clarke's going to regret not holding out for 600.


----------



## SLK (Aug 2, 2013)

Santino said:


> Clarke's going to regret not holding out for 600.


 

I agree. I frankly don't think the target to not follow on is high enough, and the draw is favourite. I would have bat all day, get 650+ and then spent three days getting 20 wickets.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2013)

Santino said:


> Clarke's going to regret not holding out for 600.


 
You think England are going to knock up a quick 650 before skittling the aussies for 100?


----------



## SLK (Aug 2, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> You think England are going to knock up a quick 650 before skittling the aussies for 100?


 

No but if we get 350 Australia have to bat again and we're into Day 4.


----------



## SLK (Aug 2, 2013)

Having said that, I'd like there to be something riding on the Oval, since that's where I have my tickets ready for.


----------



## SLK (Aug 2, 2013)

If England are 70/4 at the close, I will hold my hands up to being wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

That a declaration out of desperation.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> You think England are going to knock up a quick 650 before skittling the aussies for 100?


Adelaide, dear boy, Adelaide.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2013)

Harris already out of puff?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 2, 2013)

The umpiring in this match does appear to have been pretty shite.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 2, 2013)

Just catching up.

lol at Warner


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 3, 2013)

The weather on Sunday and Monday will shaft the game.....and keep Aussie hands off the Ashes. Series over.


----------



## gabi (Aug 3, 2013)

Smashing em... My 4.00 bet has come down to 2.75.

Lol at at Bresnan. Cook's not a fan of a nightwatchman, clearly thats why he didnt review.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 3, 2013)

gabi said:


> Smashing em... My 4.00 bet has come down to 2.75.
> 
> Lol at at Bresnan. Cook's not a fan of a nightwatchman, clearly thats why he didnt review.


You got 4.00 for the aussie win? Wait for another England wicket and hedge it on a draw.


----------



## gabi (Aug 3, 2013)

i took the 4/1 bet after the first hour's play yeh. i agree a draw is the most likely outcome though on this wicket. altho the quality of the umpiring may well bring my bet into play


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 3, 2013)

I think some heads need to be banged together here.
Who decides to let the australians(sic) win one? O.k. the sponsors and t.v. need a bit of interest, but letting them win a test is plain madness.It was all going exactly how it should....Warne and Kevin Rudd crying on twitter, perfect.
Now this. You won't think it so charitable if they win another one.


----------



## gabi (Aug 3, 2013)

It's not charity. The poms have been totally outplayed. Typical English arrogance in that post.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 3, 2013)

Oh for gods sake. If you couldn't see that was tounge in cheek and me being pixy-ish, there's something wrong with you! Yeah, I really think they all get in a room and decide to 'let' them win
And another thing, how do you know I'm English?


----------



## Idaho (Aug 3, 2013)

gabi said:


> It's not charity. The poms have been totally outplayed. Typical English arrogance in that post.


We need to get skittled for under 350 for the judgement "outplayed" to be possible.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2013)

Outplayed? England have only just started to bat!  There's one opener and the night watchman out.  Let's hold fire on the outplayed at least until the teams have had an innings each!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2013)

Cricket forum rules before responding: think once, think twice, think _is it gabi?_


----------



## gabi (Aug 3, 2013)

Not a good day butchers. I really can't be arsed even attempting to be polite to such a surplus cunt. Just fuck off back to the job centre and stay there, yeh? I'm sure there's free wifi there these days so we can keep informed of your amazing exploits.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2013)

Classy stuff as ever gabi. You do bring such a lot to the cricket threads.


----------



## gabi (Aug 3, 2013)

Thanks butchers. I mean that.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 3, 2013)

I'm sat at the Eurotunnel waiting to do a booze run for my brothers wedding. Can no one do anything onion related for the next few hours please as I don't want my ECB app to beep at me. 

butchersapron re a post on another thread, he is marrying an aussie as well, loads flying over in the next week. Don't let me down boys


----------



## agricola (Aug 3, 2013)

the only bright point of that dismissal is the thought that Warner would have reviewed it


----------



## andysays (Aug 3, 2013)

beep, beep


----------



## Badgers (Aug 3, 2013)

Hmm. 

#oniongate


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 3, 2013)

Anyone got a stream link?


----------



## Idaho (Aug 3, 2013)

Onions took 7 wickets at lords.


----------



## pocketscience (Aug 3, 2013)

friedaweed said:


> Anyone got a stream link?


 
http://webfirstrow.eu/watch/193916/2/watch-skysports.html


----------



## Idaho (Aug 3, 2013)

Smith is on. To buffet or not to buffet, that is the question.


----------



## Santino (Aug 3, 2013)

That drinks break marked the mid-point of the Ashes.


----------



## Santino (Aug 3, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Onions took 7 wickets at lords.


And Finn took 4.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 3, 2013)

Santino said:


> That drinks break marked the mid-point of the Ashes.


 It's like Midsummer's Eve, but without hippies.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 3, 2013)

Wilf said:


> It's like Midsummer's Eve, but without hippies.


 
Nah, it was the Spring equinox. The end of the beginning


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 3, 2013)

Santino said:


> And Finn took 4.


 

Murtagh bowled best of all. Finn ran in hard and looked far smoother than earlier this season. Onions took some chatty wickets (the legside snaffle of Rayner for starters). Geoff Miller had a long chat with him yesterday morning


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 4, 2013)

Fuck's sake, Broad saves the follow on then loses his wicket


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2013)

Dangerous couple of session for aus now. Must be worried.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 4, 2013)

It's weird that at almost 200 behind with only two wickets left England aren't in a completely dire situation.

Test cricket is bizarre


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 4, 2013)

Make that one wicket left


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 4, 2013)

Enjoying this match. It could be a fantastic situation if Clarke decides to dangle a carrot and the rain holds off, but it sounds like it's going to be wet soon.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 4, 2013)

I am enjoying this match a lot too.
Maybe it just feels normal with England facing defeat  

Nice wicket there


----------



## Badgers (Aug 4, 2013)

Clarke Golden Duck would be SO good right now 

#dreamer


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 4, 2013)

Rain starting


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 4, 2013)

Heavy rain forecast for tomorrow too.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 4, 2013)

Still playing happily.


----------



## agricola (Aug 4, 2013)

off due to bad light

Clarke looks angrier than Warner's brothers' twitter mentor.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 4, 2013)

Australia got lucky, we were about to mop up the tail, and knock off the runs


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 4, 2013)




----------



## kabbes (Aug 4, 2013)

So were England outplayed? 350 from their innings is OK.  And Aus are 172/7,which is bloody awful. Aus batted well when the wicket was still easy to bat on, but, in retrospect, "outplayed" is not the right word.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 4, 2013)

kabbes said:


> So were England outplayed? 350 from their innings is OK. And Aus are 172/7,which is bloody awful. Aus batted well when the wicket was still easy to bat on, but, in retrospect, "outplayed" is not the right word.


I thought on days 2 and 3 England were outplayed (Eng bowlers loose day 2, Aus bowlers v.disciplined day 3).

You can't really take slogging to set a target in a test that is unlikely to see another 50 overs bowled as indicative of anything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2013)

kabbes said:


> So were England outplayed? 350 from their innings is OK. *And Aus are 172/7,which is bloody awful.* Aus batted well when the wicket was still easy to bat on, but, in retrospect, "outplayed" is not the right word.


This is complete balls. 172 at almost 5 an over.  The 'for 7' is irrelevant. So far, Aus have dominated by playing better. Churlish to say any different.

I like Clarke's captaincy. He judges things well, if a bit riskily. Hope there's a full day's play tomorrow to make England earn the win.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2013)

kabbes said:


> So were England outplayed? 350 from their innings is OK. And Aus are 172/7,which is bloody awful. Aus batted well when the wicket was still easy to bat on, but, in retrospect, "outplayed" is not the right word.


 
Well amongst other things Australia would have got 80-odd less runs had Smith been given out on one of the many times he got out. Add to that the fact that this doesn't seem to be anything you'd call a 'result pitch' and the Aussies winning the toss and getting the best of the weather while they were batting and I don't think you can say England have been outplayed. I missed most of the English wickets but it seems like a fairly normal mix of players being got out and players getting themselves out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2013)

So far, England have been outplayed. That's why they face batting through the final day to save the game. Come on.

And Smith got lucky. Well so did Broad in the first match. Both times it was because the opposing teams had used up their reviews. In England's case in this match, the first review was a mistake. It was close, yes, but it was leg-stump-ish. They should not have reviewed and paid the price. Smith was lucky - certainly, just as Broad was lucky. But were England unlucky? As unlucky as Aus were before them. And don't forget Khawaja being equally unlucky to cancel out England's second review against Smith. I hope England learn from that and stop reviewing borderline lbws - they rarely go in your favour.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2013)

We need Graham Onions IMO.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> We need Graham Onions IMO.


In this particular match, I think England needed Monty Panesar. They'll never ever do it, but imo there are occasions when playing Prior at six, Bresnan 7, Broad 8, Swann 9, Anderson and Panesar, is the right call. Both Broad and Swann average well over 20 - they should be trusted more where conditions merit. I love Swann, but he simply isn't as lethal when the ball is spinning back into the bat. That's where Monty would come in. And Monty has a very good record in England - 81 wickets at 28 (exactly the same average in England as Swann). I think people forget that sometimes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In this particular match, I think England needed Monty Panesar. They'll never ever do it, but imo there are occasions when playing Prior at six, Bresnan 7, Broad 8, Swann 9, Anderson and Panesar, is the right call. Both Broad and Swann average well over 20 - they should be trusted more where conditions merit. I love Swann, but he simply isn't as lethal when the ball is spinning back into the bat. That's where Monty would come in. And Monty has a very good record in England - 81 wickets at 28 (exactly the same average in England as Swann). I think people forget that sometimes.


 
I can see them picking two spinners, but five specialist bowlers? Can't remember the last time that happened, probably back when Freddie was at the peak of his powers.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like Clarke's captaincy. He judges things well, if a bit riskily. Hope there's a full day's play tomorrow to make England earn the win.


 
I am of the same mind. It is refreshing to see a captain take risks, Our last two have been/are terribly conservative. You can't really criticise Strauss for his record but I always wished he had a bit more about him sometimes. Absolutely the right choice and at the time I was appalled they over looked him twice, but yeah, not a man whose captaincy left you debating the safety of a declaration very often. Clarke, as a captain on the pitch, I enjoy.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can see them picking two spinners, but five specialist bowlers? Can't remember the last time that happened, probably back when Freddie was at the peak of his powers.


 
Picking Flintoff or Botham was like having 6 batsmen, a wicketkeeper and 5 bowlers.  Given the lack of real all-rounders at the moment, the extra bowler is definitely a batsman light.

Having said that, surprised Root didn't get more of a bowl.  We did have a second spinner available...


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

And we're off!


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

Cookie gone, review pending....


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2013)

ffs


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2013)

A wasted review too.  What on earth are they thinking?

England had played themselves into a drawing position here, but they are going to throw it away.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 5, 2013)

Guardian are reporting Andrew Strauss saying England team told they didn't need to come to the ground on time due to the rain - only arrived as Australia were out doing their warm up. Suggesting that explains the wonky start inc failed review.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Guardian are reporting Andrew Strauss saying England team told they didn't need to come to the ground on time due to the rain - only arrived as Australia were out doing their warm up. Suggesting that explains the wonky start inc failed review.


 

That seems very unlike Andy flower. not denying it, just seems strange. Vaughan was saying this morning that they'd definitely be in the indoor nets and preparing etc, didn't seem to cross his mind they might have a morning off.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2013)

This is going a bit wrong.  One hour, two wickets, bad news.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 5, 2013)

Not ideal is it. What's the weather forecast for the rest of the say?


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

3 down


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

review...


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

gone.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Good to see Warne being consistent  - saying he never hit it. They seem to be going predominantly on noise now. Not a good move.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Good to see Warne being consistent - saying he never hit it. They seem to be going predominantly on noise now. Not a good move.


 

I'm on TMS so no pictures, what did you make of it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I'm on TMS so no pictures, what did you make of it?


 
Never hit it, was a slight sound as ball passed bat but very quiet and a muffled sound, could be glove sliding down bat handle, anything really.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Never hit it, was a slight sound as ball passed bat but very quiet and a muffled sound, could be glove sliding down bat handle, anything really.


 

Ta, it sounded like KP wasn't happy.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Ta, it sounded like KP wasn't happy.


 
To put it mildly! I expect he'll be fined.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To put it mildly! I expect he'll be fined.


 

I think there is an increasing disquiet from the players about the use of the technology. Prior didn't sound happy about it the other night. You can understand why they are angry when they choose to review and lose the precious ability to review any further decisions. It's certainly easier to accept a split second mistake than someone mulling over something for a while then coming up with the wrong decision.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 5, 2013)

I thought we were supposed to be good


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I think there is an increasing disquiet from the players about the use of the technology. Prior didn't sound happy about it the other night. You can understand why they are angry when they choose to review and lose the precious ability to review any further decisions. It's certainly easier to accept a split second mistake than someone mulling over something for a while then coming up with the wrong decision.


 
presumably they're not going to change the current system mid-series, but is there a plan to review it afterwards?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To put it mildly! I expect he'll be fined.


 

What did he do? Was faffing with the hoover & missed it!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2013)

andysays said:


> presumably they're not going to change the current system mid-series, but is there a plan to review it afterwards?


 

Fuck it off. It's ruining the fuckin' game


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 5, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What did he do? Was faffing with the hoover & missed it!


 

Sounded like some angry head shaking and bat swishing from TMS, as I said above, I'm not watching it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What did he do? Was faffing with the hoover & missed it!


 
Lot of angry and _very_ clear effin' and jeffin' after the decision - fair bit before he reviewed it as well.


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck it off. It's ruining the fuckin' game


 
is that the official position of the International Cricket Council?


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 5, 2013)

Snicko looked fairly clear that he edged it.


----------



## Santino (Aug 5, 2013)

Why can't they use Hawkeye for catches? Would it be able to determine if the ball had deviated?


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2013)

They're chatting about this now on TMS. Seems like the only change they think is likely is one to the system of deciding when decisions are reviewed, rather than whether the tech continues to be used


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2013)

Pietersen was given out anyway -- DRS didn't make him any _more_ out.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 5, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Snicko looked fairly clear that he edged it.


How absurd is it that 3rd umpires are now effectively disregarding the technology that's they're supposed to be using (hotspot), so they can press their ear against the microphone whilst watching the screen to check for a noise coinciding with the ball passing the bat... (essentially a low-fi less reliable snicko)


----------



## Combustible (Aug 5, 2013)

Or the ICC could just pay for the third umpires to have decent television screens and train them how to use it properly.

Quite why the problems with DRS mean we should return to the even more unreliable, near guessing of the on field umpires for close decisions that we had in the past I don't know. The funny thing is that many of the people whinging about DRS seem to think it would be a suitable compromise to reduce the number of reviews to 1, when this would actually make the impact of the occasional incorrect DRS decision even more severe.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2013)

Pissing down now!


----------



## agricola (Aug 5, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Pissing down now!


 
Indeed, Tlaloc is smiling on English cricket.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

He could've waited til we were 8 or 9 down though.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 5, 2013)

that would be right,we were on the brink of a massive win and good old pommy summer rain,lousy shit weather on purpose you bastards


----------



## Santino (Aug 5, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> that would be right,we were on the brink of a massive win and good old pommy summer rain,lousy shit weather on purpose you bastards


Fair return for Old Trafford 2005. I reckon without the lost day we would have eventually prised McGrath from the crease.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

liquidlunch said:


> that would be right,we were on the brink of a massive win and good old pommy summer rain,lousy shit weather on purpose you bastards


 
Hang on, was pissing down here (a few hundred miles south of old traffod mind) for hours earlier, now there's not a cloud in the sky and the magpies are back out annoying me.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 5, 2013)

Play abandoned, England retain the Ashes


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2013)

In the final analysis, we took 14 wickets and the Aussies only took 13.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 5, 2013)

Play as been abandoned england win the ashes .And butchers why do magpies get a bad press


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2013)

Aussie got a nice set of 13 sessions to beat England, including being allowed to bat first on a perfect batting pitch and end it trying to bowl England out in perfect bowling conditions, but couldn't force a victory.  Not even that close really: 7 wickets still in hand.  Typical whinging wallabies, moaning on about the weather when they want to be examining their own play instead.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

No weather moaning from Clarke, i like him - all the things the aussies hate him for, they're meaningless.


----------



## Santino (Aug 5, 2013)

I can't remember which out of Clarke and Watson went to posh school.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Clarke didn't, and watson the noble did.

edit: must stop getting leaded, must lead more


----------



## Santino (Aug 5, 2013)

Once we're 3-0 up I might find some space in my heart to grudgingly respect him.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Santino said:


> Once we're 3-0 up I might find some space in my heart to grudgingly respect him.


 
Bit risky.


----------



## Santino (Aug 5, 2013)

Maybe I'll wait until he retires then. It's safer that way.

I'm due to mention Ponting's batting in a positive light in 2017.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Been away, will be away a while longer too so no in depth comment from me.

However. For now, never mind the circumstances - these:







Are ours in 14 days' play and for the third time in a row. Four times out of five.

Well done England. Now play better and we'll all have to settle for 9-0 

ETA: overall Australia now lead 31-30. Win at C-l-S and it's all square


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 6, 2013)

Whinge, whinge, whinge....

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/0...rs-in-the-rain-but-australia-can-still-smile/



> At the very least, we’ve put away the spectre of 5-0 and 10-0.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Bell and Root were in at stumps. Lucky escape for Australia tbh


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Whinge, whinge, whinge....
> 
> http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/0...rs-in-the-rain-but-australia-can-still-smile/


 
Some really stupid comments there, particularly the bit about starting late on the 5th day.  It'd pissed it down all the previous evening, night and it was still raining when everyone woke up.  Everyone thought there was no chance of any play yet the groundstaff managed to get the pitch ready to start at 11.30, quite extraordinary really.    And all the other crap about the umpires as well, as if 30 minutes the night before made any difference.

For whats its worth I suspect the aussies may have won had they had a full day, but so what?  The roles would probably have been reversed had England won what turned out to be a crucial toss.

All in all it seemed quite an apt way to retain the ashes given the downbeat and sometimes prosaic way the series has gone so far.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Some really stupid comments there, particularly the bit about starting late on the 5th day. It'd pissed it down all the previous evening, night and it was still raining when everyone woke up. Everyone thought there was no chance of any play yet the groundstaff managed to get the pitch ready to start at 11.30, quite extraordinary really. And all the other crap about the umpires as well, as if 30 minutes the night before made any difference.
> 
> For whats its worth I suspect the aussies may have won had they had a full day, but so what? The roles would probably have been reversed had England won what turned out to be a crucial toss.
> 
> All in all it seemed quite an apt way to retain the ashes given the downbeat and sometimes prosaic way the series has gone so far.


 
If the weather had been fine for five days, England would have found batting easier going in both their innings.  The whole test match would have been different.

It was the bad weather that gave the Aussies their chance of victory.  A chance they couldn't manage to make the most of.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

kabbes said:


> If the weather had been fine for five days, England would have found batting easier going in both their innings. The whole test match would have been different.
> 
> It was the bad weather that gave the Aussies their chance of victory. A chance they couldn't manage to make the most of.


'Adventurous' Michael Clarke getting both declarations wrong. Too soon first time around and too late second time out. Bell with a recent history of batting several hours for the draw. Interesting how I'm reading loads of stuff around the net about how 'unsatisfactory' the result was, Australia seem to be 2-1 up in the moral victory stakes etc etc

Ashes retained after 14 days' play out of the 25 scheduled. I'll take that


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Predictions for C-l-S:
England to once again make a 'disappointing' first innings score of 350+
Michael Clarke to do something adventurously ineffective
Australia's seam attack to show how good they may be at some indeterminate point in the future
Australia to take a decisive lead in the moral victory stakes
England to go 3-0 up


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2013)

I think Joe Root should be captain.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> 'Adventurous' Michael Clarke getting both declarations wrong. Too soon first time around and too late second time out. Bell with a recent history of batting several hours for the draw. Interesting how I'm reading loads of stuff around the net about how 'unsatisfactory' the result was, Australia seem to be 2-1 up in the moral victory stakes etc etc
> 
> Ashes retained after 14 days' play out of the 25 scheduled. I'll take that


 
The 1st declaration was the interesting one. A few people on here suggested that he would regret not going on for 600 and as it happens that would have meant England following on. Whether a tired aussie attack would have gone onto win the game is a moot point but they would have had a better chance. I've not seen a single mention in any article about that declaration.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

Indeed, 527 was kind of a nothing declaration.  It was too early to be able to force a follow on.  But it wasn't early enough to save the kind of time that would be needed.  Either declare at 600 or 450, basically.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm finding the ideas propagated around the media that Australia would definitely have won and that only the rain saved England a bit weird tbh. First, because England have very recent form for recovering from 30-3 and second because of Ian Ronald Bell.

I think it would have been a draw anyway, even with clear skies all afternoon/evening


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> I'm finding the ideas propagated around the media that Australia would definitely have won and that only the rain saved England a bit weird tbh. First, because England have very recent form for recovering from 30-3 and second because of Ian Ronald Bell.
> 
> I think it would have been a draw anyway, even with clear skies all afternoon/evening


 
Totally agree.  

Australia took fewer wickets in the game than England, as it happens.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2013)

Three sessions in which they took 3 wickets each session. Not likely-  possible, but not that possible.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> Predictions for C-l-S:
> England to once again make a 'disappointing' first innings score of 350+
> Michael Clarke to do something adventurously ineffective
> Australia's seam attack to show how good they may be at some indeterminate point in the future
> ...


 
To be fair the aussie seam attack has showed how good it is now, currently they are statistically the 3rd best pace attack to tour England since 2001. 

There is a lot of talk about Onions coming in but I can't see that happening unless they rest one of Anderson or Broad, it would just be out of character for how England usually set up.  Having sent James Taylor back they are still backing Bairstow but the more I see the more of him the more I think he should be practicing his glove work as often as possible because the only possible test future he has is successor to Prior.

As for the aussies, they'll probably make changes again if only in their batting order.  Sometimes its not how much you score but how you look when you're batting and how you get out, Watson looks shattered at the moment whereas Rogers and Warner do not.  Therefore I reckon Rogers and Warner will open with Watson dropping down to either 5 or 6, probably 5 to save him some face.  I guess the big question is will they get another test out of Harris, he has been known to breakdown mid-test before so with his importance to the side being clear and the ashes lost I think we may see Bird.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

Bairstow is not currently looking like a test batsman.  We need somebody else.  I still don't understand why Compton isn't opening, with Root playing at #6.  But then, nobody else seems to understand that either.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> I'm finding the ideas propagated around the media that Australia would definitely have won and that only the rain saved England a bit weird tbh. First, because England have very recent form for recovering from 30-3 and second because of Ian Ronald Bell.
> 
> I think it would have been a draw anyway, even with clear skies all afternoon/evening


 
I think had it stayed overcast but dry on Monday England would have struggled to force the draw.  It was fairly tough batting conditions to say the least and there were a lot of overs due to be bowled in the day.  Root was scratching around looking far from solid and one more wicket would have brought Bairstow to the crease.  That being said England do have a track record of saving these matches and it got a lot easier to bat once the ball got softer so it could have gone either way, the aussies were my favourites from that point though.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Nah. Ian Bell.

Argument over


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

That's a big "if" though -- for the day to remain perpetually on the verge of rain without actually raining.

The weather was what it was, and the result was rain.  If we are supposing it to have been otherwise, I'll suppose nice conditions for 5 full days.  It's always easy to suppose a circumstance heavily weighted to one side, and then conclude that the result is that the favoured side wins.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> Nah. Ian Bell.
> 
> Argument over


 
In your faces, Bell haters.  In.  Your.  Faces.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

kabbes said:


> That's a big "if" though -- for the day to remain perpetually on the verge of rain without actually raining.
> 
> The weather was what it was, and the result was rain. If we are supposing it to have been otherwise, I'll suppose nice conditions for 5 full days. It's always easy to suppose a circumstance heavily weighted to one side, and then conclude that the result is that the favoured side wins.


 
Weather aside it was a 5th day pitch and at the point when the rain came Oz were all over England.  More times then not with the kind of bowlers Oz have they would expect to bowl a team out on a 5th day pitch with 98 overs available to them, particularly as they had already knocked over England's 3 best (as per test averages) batsman.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Anyone else remember when England would clutch at straws - rain affected draws, the odd moral victory etc - and convince themselves things were turning round?

10 more years of this please


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Weather aside it was a 5th day pitch and at the point when the rain came Oz were all over England. More times then not with the kind of bowlers Oz have they would expect to bowl a team out on a 5th day pitch with 98 overs available to them, particularly as they had already knocked over England's 3 best (as per test averages) batsman.


Ian Bell


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

BTW, if England had done what they should have and picked Monty instead of Bresnan, we would definitely have won


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> Ian Bell


 
Was he going to bat at both ends?

Root (already dropped) scratching around?  Bairstow, does anyone believe he would have come in and batted calmly for 3 hours?  Then out of form Prior and the bowlers, albeit some handy stuff down the order.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Was he going to bat at both ends?
> 
> Root (already dropped) scratching around? Bairstow, does anyone believe he would have come in and batted calmly for 3 hours? Then out of form Prior and the bowlers, albeit some handy stuff down the order.


 
Root - 180-odd in his last Test
Broad/Prior - saved Auckland Test after Bell did most of the ground work

Easy


----------



## Santino (Aug 6, 2013)

Cricket!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2013)

When England play well, it's a thumping victory
When England play badly, it's a draw or a maginal England victory.

It's the art of winning.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

kabbes said:


> When England play well, it's a thumping victory
> When England play badly, it's a draw or a maginal England victory.
> 
> It's the art of winning.


The undeserving lucky bastards


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> Root - 180-odd in his last Test
> Broad/Prior - saved Auckland Test after Bell did most of the ground work
> 
> Easy


 
You could have also pointed out that SA batted for 2 days against this aussie team to force a draw at Melbourne.  In that match Faf du Plessis spent so long at the crease he qualified to play for Australia.

None of this changes the fact that on Monday the aussies were favourites and probably would have got across the line had the rain not came, we will never know and will never really care either as this match will not live long in the memory as I suspect this series will not.


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

'Fact' and 'probably' don't really work that convincingly together


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> Predictions for C-l-S:
> England to once again make a 'disappointing' first innings score of 350+
> Michael Clarke to do something adventurously ineffective
> Australia's seam attack to show how good they may be at some indeterminate point in the future
> ...


 
Forgot to say - Australia fans to turn up wearing exactly the same clothing as each other in their dozens. Just like their sheep stealing ancestors did in the penal colonies


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 6, 2013)

JTG said:


> BTW, if England had done what they should have and picked Monty instead of Bresnan, we would definitely have won


Monty _and_ Bresnan. I'll keep on saying this, just as I did last year. Bresnan/Broad/Swann = 3 very good number 8s. They make a perfectly solid 7-8-9 batting combination. I don't like Bresnan as part of a four-man bowling attack, but I see his place as part of a five-man attack.

Basically, three semi-allrounders = one fully fledged one plus two tailenders. Use it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 6, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> You could have also pointed out that SA batted for 2 days against this aussie team to force a draw at Melbourne. In that match Faf du Plessis spent so long at the crease he qualified to play for Australia.
> 
> None of this changes the fact that on Monday the aussies were favourites and probably would have got across the line had the rain not came, we will never know and will never really care either as this match will not live long in the memory as I suspect this series will not.


Seven wickets away from victory is far too far away for any team to claim moral victory. And to be fair to Clarke, he hasn't. I'd have preferred it if the rain had held off and England had been made to work for their draw, but that wasn't to be.

Onwards we go. But I'm starting to become a bit frustrated by England's conservative approach. Aus aren't good enough. But SA were last year, and won well. I'd like to see an England management more keen on making improvements to a team that is good but could be better. I know this is going to sound like heresy, but give me the choice between Aus's pace attack and England's, and I'd quite fancy Aus at the moment. If you take them in order, you've got (from best to worst) Anderson/ Broad/ Bresnan vs Harris/Siddle/Starc. Hmmm. My preferred combination from the two would be Anderson/Harris/Siddle.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 6, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> There is a lot of talk about Onions coming in but I can't see that happening unless they rest one of Anderson or Broad, it would just be out of character for how England usually set up.


Might be out of character, but it's the best thing to do. Onions is - again - having a storming county season. Best bowler in county cricket last year. Right up there again this year. If you're West Indies in your pomp, you can afford to leave out such players. But Broad and Bresnan have modest records over the last year. Both of them should be under pressure from top performers in CC, imo. This happened to Ryan Sidebottom before - ignored for a long time while performing in CC, and did very well when given his test chance. I'll be disappointed if both Broad and Bresnan play in Durham.


----------



## Santino (Aug 7, 2013)

I'll just leave this link here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Panesar-fined-for-urinating-on-bouncers.html


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2013)

Oh Monty.


----------



## JTG (Aug 7, 2013)

England keep picking the wrong bowling attack

Bresnan should have played at TB instead of Finn
Finn should have played at Lord's instead of Bresnan
Panesar should have played at OT instead of somebody or other

Not confident that they'll pick Onions this week (as they should do)


----------



## Santino (Aug 7, 2013)

At least we know now that if he comes in as nightwatchman, Monty won't be afraid of a couple of bouncers.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

There has been quite a lot of chat coming out of Sussex before this about how unimpressed they have been with Monty's attitude.  It seems he is trying to tick the last remaining box to achieve full cult status, the box entitled nightclub brawl and wasted talent.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

JTG said:


> England keep picking the wrong bowling attack
> 
> Bresnan should have played at TB instead of Finn
> Finn should have played at Lord's instead of Bresnan
> ...


 
Its strange that for almost all of Flower's tenure we have been very consistent with selection except last time in Oz where we had a couple of horses for courses selections and they worked, but now we are back to not bothering again.

On Panesar for OT that was never going to happen.  It didn't turn that much and given we lost the toss it would have been a right mess with spinners having to come on 1st and 2nd change.  The only way they could have got a 2nd spinner in was to drop a batsman and given we were 2 up in the series and just needing a drop that was never going to happen.


----------



## JTG (Aug 7, 2013)

Reports from Channel Nine that batsmen on both sides are using a silicon tape on their bats to cheat hotspot...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2013)

JTG said:


> Reports from Channel Nine...


 







?


----------



## JTG (Aug 7, 2013)

The Australian one. Even more ridiculous and implausible


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## Santino (Aug 7, 2013)

If they are using tape, then they are a bit silly asking the DRS to overturn LBW dismissals on the basis of a nick.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 7, 2013)

Santino said:


> If they are using tape, then they are a bit silly asking the DRS to overturn LBW dismissals on the basis of a nick.


 

Absolutely.. no edge for a catch but no edge for an lbw. It's a win/lose situation (more so if Swann is bowling most of the overs..)


----------



## JTG (Aug 7, 2013)

Santino said:


> I'll just leave this link here:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Panesar-fined-for-urinating-on-bouncers.html


Gives a whole new meaning to the Sprinkler dance


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

There's also been some chat about Vaseline on the bat edge and stuff, I just can't believe it really.  But it does seem strange how useless hot spot has been in this series, its never been perfect but this time around it seems to be very ineffective.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

I didn't realise they had named Pieterson personally in this garbage about silicone tape. Besides the point made above about how hot spot could save you as many times as condem you there is also the point that both teams would have to know the other is cheating and not say anything. No tape is completely invisible so they would check the other team. Complete rubbish and I suspect those making this stuff up will be getting a letter from M'learned friends.


Comment from twitter



> Shane Watson busily applying silicon tape to his pads.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 7, 2013)

This series is hardly a celebration of all that is good about cricket. Seems to be either a whinge or bitchfest.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> This series is hardly a celebration of all that is good about cricket. Seems to be either a whinge or bitchfest.


 
2-0
Ashes retained in quickest possible time.
Bell averaging over 70.

Seems like a celebration to me.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

Aussie press alleging cheating by English batsman because they have been stuffed in a record time.  Yeah there are some things to giggle about.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 7, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 2-0
> Ashes retained in quickest possible time.
> Bell averaging over 70.
> 
> Seems like a celebration to me.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting that Onions was put up for the press conference today.  He had to spend the whole time talking about silicone tape but interesting all the same.


----------



## Santino (Aug 7, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Interesting that Onions was put up for the press conference today. He had to spend the whole time talking about silicone tape but interesting all the same.


He really know his stuff.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

KP said:
			
		

> "How stupid would I be to try to hide a nick when it could save me on an lbw appeal, like in the first innings where Hot Spot showed I nicked it."


 
A very good point.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 7, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> A very good point.


It did occur to me too, but I suppose it would be a case of weighing up how many times it would save you from being caught as opposed to being a hindrance with lbw. If the former heavily outweighs the latter, I can see sportsmen doing it.

Not saying that they _are_ doing it, of course.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> It did occur to me too, but I suppose it would be a case of weighing up how many times it would save you from being caught as opposed to being a hindrance with lbw. If the former heavily outweighs the latter, I can see sportsmen doing it.
> 
> Not saying that they _are_ doing it, of course.


 
LBW appeals are usually about the ball being inside the off stump line and/or hitting the stumps rather than nicks, but still using the tape is a gamble on two fronts if it might get you in trouble _and _it might get you out when you wouldn't have been.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 7, 2013)

Aye, fair point.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> LBW appeals are usually about the ball being inside the off stump line and/or hitting the stumps rather than nicks, but still using the tape is a gamble on two fronts if it might get you in trouble _and _it might get you out when you wouldn't have been.


 
Yeah you are more likely to get out to an ouside edge and be saved by an inside edge so if you were playing the odds you could just tape up the outside. 

Thing is firstly I think its a load of bollocks and I don't think anyone would do it, besides I doubt it'd even work. 

Secondly I think the accusations have come from within the aussie squad, its clearly not the umpires as all they had to do is check the bats.  No, its from an Oz media source and the only player they name is Pieterson, also look at Clarke's comments, well suss if you ask me. 

And thirdly its not even against the laws, people have been using tape on bats for years; both edges to my bat are covered in fibre tape to reinforce them. 

What an absolute crock of shit this story is.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

If anything the convicts should be penalised for shit stirring.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> If anything the convicts should be penalised for shit stirring.


 
Quote from Clarke:



> "It's hard for me to talk for other players, but I've never heard any type of conversation like that in the Australian change room,"


 
Translates as:



> Its not us guv, but you'd better check out the other lot


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 7, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Thing is firstly I think its a load of bollocks and I don't think anyone would do it, besides I doubt it'd even work.
> .


Not saying it's been done, but if it worked, I don't doubt that batsmen would do it - even be _required_ to do it on team orders. As you said, you just tape the outside edge, leaving the inside for the lbw nicks.

Ah the Spirit of Cricket TM

Anyway, just scrap hotspot. It's shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 7, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> There has been quite a lot of chat coming out of Sussex before this about how unimpressed they have been with Monty's attitude. It seems he is trying to tick the last remaining box to achieve full cult status, the box entitled nightclub brawl and wasted talent.


That surprises me. He's had an ordinary season this year, but previously he's been brilliant for them - the top spinner in the county Championship for a couple of years. He'll happily bowl all day. The reports about him stopping the ball with his foot because of a bad shoulder seem pretty harsh tbh. That was standard form for most fast bowlers all of the time back in the day. David Gower did the same thing when his shoulder went, and he continued to play test cricket.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 7, 2013)

Poor poor Monty what has become of you.


----------



## JTG (Aug 7, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Poor poor Monty what has become of you.


What a shower


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## JTG (Aug 7, 2013)

It never rains but it pours eh


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 8, 2013)

So today's news is the ECB demanding and "explanation and apology" from Channel 9 which is not surprising really.  The more I think about the more convinced I am that this is a smear campaign which has come directly from the aussie changing room, very shoddy stuff.

The other news is Jackson Bird has replaced Agar as the 12th man, I think they'll be resting Harris for C-L-S and then play him at the Oval.  The ashes are lost and they need him for the winter, he is injury prone and not a young man by any means.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 8, 2013)

The series isn't lost yet, though. I'd play Harris if he rolls up fit. As you say, he's massively injury prone anyway, so anything could happen to him by the winter. I'd see the best way to handle Harris as playing him whenever he is fit and seeing each game he plays as a bonus. He's already lost a little bit of the zip he had in the last Ashes - he's on his way down as a fast bowler now, so get what you can when you can.

What gets me with Harris is where he was in his 20s. Very odd for a genuine quick to rock up in Tests at the age of 30.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> So today's news is the ECB demanding and "explanation and apology" from Channel 9 which is not surprising really. The more I think about the more convinced I am that this is a smear campaign which has come directly from the aussie changing room, very shoddy stuff.


 
This was a comment on cricinfo:



> Looking at the posters I think I am about the only one who actually watched the show when it was discussed & even posted to a couple of the English posters who routinely post sensible posts. Let's clear up a few misnomers, #1, Pieterson's name was NEVER mentioned. The discussion NEVER mentioned anything about batsman putting anything on bats & #3 The discussion was about bat technology & the new process being trialled that may impact the deadening of heat on the bat that may affect hot=spot. The discussion went on how this was not the intention of the process but they found that it may affect the heat as a result of the new process. How this escalated to batsman taping bats to beat hot-spot is a prime example of media beat-up. What a joke.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The series isn't lost yet, though. I'd play Harris if he rolls up fit. As you say, he's massively injury prone anyway, so anything could happen to him by the winter. I'd see the best way to handle Harris as playing him whenever he is fit and seeing each game he plays as a bonus. He's already lost a little bit of the zip he had in the last Ashes - he's on his way down as a fast bowler now, so get what you can when you can.


 
Would you not be worried that playing him in back to back tests markedly increases the chance of him breaking down and if he does that could have a baring on the next series which must be now far more important for Oz?



> What gets me with Harris is where he was in his 20s. Very odd for a genuine quick to rock up in Tests at the age of 30.


 
Injured most of the time.



butchersapron said:


> This was a comment on cricinfo:


 
Well that puts a new light on it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 8, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Would you not be worried that playing him in back to back tests markedly increases the chance of him breaking down and if he does that could have a baring on the next series which must be now far more important for Oz?


 
Well, they have this 'red zone' process of assessment now, don't they. Thing is, I'd put Ryan Harris permanently in the red zone, back-to-back tests or not. TBH if I were an Aus selector, I would be permanently worried that he'll break down.

I do like his attitude. He plays through a lot of pain with his fucked knees, and he's decided he'll sacrifice everything else for the chance of playing as many test matches as possible. He could easily have refused tests in favour of the IPL, but didn't take that easy option. Good on him for that.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well, they have this 'red zone' process of assessment now, don't they. Thing is, I'd put Ryan Harris permanently in the red zone, back-to-back tests or not. TBH if I were an Aus selector, I would be permanently worried that he'll break down.
> 
> I do like his attitude. He plays through a lot of pain with his fucked knees, and he's decided he'll sacrifice everything else for the chance of playing as many test matches as possible. He could easily have refused tests in favour of the IPL, but didn't take that easy option. Good on him for that.


 
Both Siddle and Harris are fine bowlers whose attitude appears to be spot on.  The problem is Oz have had a few games in the last few years where one of their quicks has broken down, I'm sure Harris did against England and I know Pattinson did against SA when Du Plessis set up camp.  Unless you have quality spin bowler you cannot win those games, I have an inkling that Harris may be rested and England may rest Anderson for Onions.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 8, 2013)

Teaboy fwiw my hunch is its come from the makers of hot spot not wanting their technology to be canned. obv the aussies have an interest in keeping this up


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 8, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Both Siddle and Harris are fine bowlers whose attitude appears to be spot on. The problem is Oz have had a few games in the last few years where one of their quicks has broken down, I'm sure Harris did against England and I know Pattinson did against SA when Du Plessis set up camp. Unless you have quality spin bowler you cannot win those games, I have an inkling that Harris may be rested and England may rest Anderson for Onions.


Maybe. If so, this puts in serious question the whole idea of back-to-back test matches. If fast bowlers can't cope with the demands, there shouldn't be back-to-back tests ever. Like football, the more money there is in the game, the more the game's integrity is compromised in order to get even more money put into the game. It's an ugly spiral.

But this isn't a dead rubber. If Anderson is rested and England lose, they will rightly be criticised very loudly for it.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 8, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Teaboy fwiw my hunch is its come from the makers of hot spot not wanting their technology to be canned. obv the aussies have an interest in keeping this up


 
Story here suggests you may be right:

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/sports/hot-spot-inventor-raises-concerns-with-icc-report/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 8, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 2-0
> Ashes retained in quickest possible time.
> Bell averaging over 70.
> 
> Seems like a celebration to me.


 

If i cared more about results than the sanctity of the game, i'd agree. For me i just keep hearing about DRS this and DRS that. Even wrong umpiring decisions got far less coverage than this in the past. I say that as i refuse to watch it whilst DRS is being used. Not a protest, i just cant bring myself to watch it any more. The more it goes on the more it shows there was nothing wrong with the game in the first place imo.

edit: in fact for the benefit of the game in the long term i hope it ruins this series and mistakes continue to be made. Sooner this shite leaves the beautiful game the better.


----------



## Combustible (Aug 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyway, just scrap hotspot. It's shit.


 
Why? The problem is it seems to be it is often used in isolation. If there is a mark on hotspot it is pretty clear the ball hit the bat and the batsman. People and particularly umpires just need to get the idea out of their head that no mark on hotspot does not mean that it did not hit the bat so the third umpire should then judge as best they can from flight and snicko whilst watching it on a big bright television screen. And they should just come to a decision which will be correct far more often then the near guess of the umpire in these situations.  And if you wanted to build in some sort of umpire's call/benefit of the doubt for particularly close decisions that would also be fine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> If i cared more about results than the sanctity of the game, i'd agree. For me i just keep hearing about DRS this and DRS that. Even wrong umpiring decisions got far less coverage than this in the past. I say that as i refuse to watch it whilst DRS is being used. Not a protest, i just cant bring myself to watch it any more. The more it goes on the more it shows there was nothing wrong with the game in the first place imo.
> 
> edit: in fact for the benefit of the game in the long term i hope it ruins this series and mistakes continue to be made. Sooner this shite leaves the beautiful game the better.


I don't think it has ruined the series. It's been used ineptly, but it has still resulted in more correct decisions. The only travesty was the Trott dismissal, where a correct decision was overturned. The umpiring in this series has been shocking. Without drs, we would have heard plenty about the terrible umpiring. Some people have short memories, I think. There was plenty said about umpiring mistakes pre-drs.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2013)

I think people need to decide whether or not they think it is a good thing for incorrect decisions to be overturned. If so, you need some kind if review system, and there will be occasions where decisions are marginal and do not get overturned.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 9, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think people need to decide whether or not they think it is a good thing for incorrect decisions to be overturned. If so, you need some kind if review system, and there will be occasions where decisions are marginal and do not get overturned.


 

For me it's still an improvement, but they need to look at what it can and can't do and clarify that a little. If the system isn't up to making certain decisions or the evidence isn't there then you go back to the onfield decision (the lbw decision system isn't perfect but everybody understands its limitations and uses it appropriately). I think there's been a few cases of 'best guess' from the 3rd umpire this series which isn't supposed to be their role. For all the complaints though there haven't been that many decisions that have been wrongly overturned which is what really shouldn't happen at all.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

Has anyone heard the word on the Aussies' bowling line-up?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 9, 2013)

Bird in, probably for Starc apparently. England unchanged. 

England to bat first.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

So Bird is the word.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Might be a decent toss to lose...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Might be a decent toss to lose...


 

England certainly made the first two they won look like that, at first anyway. If they can avoid losing early wickets they should be OK but they've not been too good at that so far.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> England certainly made the first two they won look like that, at first anyway. If they can avoid losing early wickets they should be OK but they've not been too good at that so far.


Aussie batting ineptitude saved them in the first two tests. Against someone like South Africa, they'd have been in big trouble after the first day.

I rate the Australian fast bowling attack more highly than England's. The difference between the two teams so far has mostly been Swann. I'm a bit disappointed Onions hasn't come in for Bresnan this time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think it has ruined the series. It's been used ineptly, but it has still resulted in more correct decisions. The only travesty was the Trott dismissal, where a correct decision was overturned. The umpiring in this series has been shocking. Without drs, we would have heard plenty about the terrible umpiring. Some people have short memories, I think. There was plenty said about umpiring mistakes pre-drs.


 
All the recent fuss about DRS is a red herring compared to the actual umpiring in the series, like you say it's just not been good enough for an international sporting contest.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

made it past 30 without losing a wicket


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan U said:


> made it past 30 without losing a wicket


 
Don't jinx it!


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2013)

Siddle's a vegan


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Don't jinx it!


 
You had to jinx it.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

fucks sake


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

kabbes said:


> You had to jinx it.


Well, at least they definitely won't all be out for 70-odd.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2013)

Screw you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Another awful decision from Hill.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 9, 2013)

Feel sorry for Onions, deserves to play instead of Bresnan.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Feel sorry for Onions, deserves to play instead of Bresnan.


 

But will he go on the lash sexually harass some women, get chucked out of a club, piss on some bouncers then run and cower in a pizza restaurant?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2013)

Bloody hell cricket is dull.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Bloody hell cricket is dull.


You mean, cricket's vast potential for drama, tension and excitement is dependent on the possibility and actuality of very dull passages of play.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

Santino said:


> Well, at least they definitely won't all be out for 70-odd.


 
See?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2013)

Revenge for the smear campaign?


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

I don't think it's tempting fate to say that England are nailed on for 600 here.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2013)

Santino said:


> I don't think it's tempting fate to say that England are nailed on for 600 here.


 

Jinxed!


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

Whoa. My powers are strong.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 9, 2013)

watching this is my excuse for drinking heavily tonight,cheers


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

fucks sake


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Done by the one that didn't spin. Did he go a bit hard at it?


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2013)

This is all Root's fault.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Pah! A good start is falling apart a bit. Need to get 350 here, I think.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2013)

Crumble...


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

Aussie tails up.

4th test now our top order can't bat for shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Aussie tails up.
> 
> 4th test now our top order can't bat for shit.


Not quite as bad as before, but Cook seems to have forgotten how to go on past 50. Shame to see Trott go as he was looking really good. Pietersen looked like his stay was going to be brief. Cook, well, it was a valuable 50 even if it's disappointing he couldn't go on. Not a disaster yet.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite as bad as before, but Cook seems to have forgotten how to go on past 50. Shame to see Trott go as he was looking really good. Pietersen looked like his stay was going to be brief. Cook, well, it was a valuable 50 even if it's disappointing he couldn't go on. Not a disaster yet.


 

its not a disaster, no. but really it's not the form of world beaters either.


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 9, 2013)

the more i drink,the better it gets,can see a big night coming on


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Important session coming up. If Australia win it, England will have bollocksed up batting first again.


----------



## JimW (Aug 9, 2013)

Well, that's a great start to the session


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2013)

Santino said:


> I don't think it's tempting fate to say that England are nailed on for 600 here.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2013)

Well, this has all got more interesting!


----------



## liquidlunch (Aug 9, 2013)

more booze


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 9, 2013)

fucking hell, been dipping in and out. That's 5 fucking appalling dismissals. Who the fuck gets out leaving the ball on 51?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2013)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Fuck me, liquidlunch must be plastered by now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

3/1 in the last 10 overs. England have lost their way completely here.

Bairstow has not scored in over an hour!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

And now he's out sweeping. Very poor from Bairstow there. Bad thinking throughout the innings. Trying to hit a big shot. Why wasn't he looking for singles over the last hour?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

Root at 6 Compton at 2. Simple.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2013)

I still think this has been England's day.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 9, 2013)

a spinner of Nathan Lyon's quality. 4-36 on Day 1.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Root at 6 Compton at 2. Simple.


Yep. I have to agree with that. Root doesn't look comfortable opening. Bairstow just doesn't look comfortable full stop.

Or Carberry even. Doesn't have to be Compton. (I know you wouldn't agree - but Carberry brings brilliant fielding with him too.)

But how do they reverse their decision with Root? It will look like a slight on him now to drop him to the junior batsman position.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Credit to Clarke, though. Good captaincy to squeeze them like that. He reads the game well, I think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Broad can do it. Little push, scamper through for a single. Bairstow was unable to do that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

But then he slogs a wide one straight up in the air. Will England get to 200?

1990s are back in fashion, clearly.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 9, 2013)

Best batsman of the day - stand up Jimmy Anderson


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 9, 2013)

numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 out to a right-arm off-spinner bowling around the wicket is embarrassing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 out to a right-arm off-spinner bowling around the wicket is embarrassing.


One trying to turn it around the corner to milk a single, the next to a stiff-armed prod, and the last two to attempts to hit boundaries. I agree - it's very poor. At least Trott was looking to score in a sensible way and was already well in. It was a mistake but not bad thinking. Pietersen's was poor - he should have been covering the possibility of no spin given how little it was turning anyway - but at least that was also a mistake, not bad thinking. Bell and Bairstow both get one of these 

Bell should be told to put the dancing down the pitch away until he's in, imo. Bairstow looked like he'd just lost it totally. He looks lost out there. I'm just as worried about Prior, who can't score at the moment. They ended up relying on a bit of slogging from the tail after the middle order failed so abysmally. But maybe 250-260 might not be disastrous.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

it's ok guys, they are just trying to keep it competitive for me at The Oval.

erm.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Bairstow must surely be playing for his place second innings. And his place on the plane in the winter. He might just be doing a Morgan here and playing himself out of the team and way down the pecking order.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

You'd think, yes. Would you drop Trott if he carries on? 

He was unlucky today but it's a poor return so far. Iirc Cook is the only person to make over 50 apart from Bell and KP all series.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan U said:


> You'd think, yes. Would you drop Trott if he carries on?
> 
> He was unlucky today but it's a poor return so far. Iirc Cook is the only person to make over 50 apart from Bell and KP all series.


No. Trott looked really good before he got out. I was watching at the time and his wicket came out of the blue - looked set for a big score. I saw some of Bairstow's innings and he looked awful - and got out to an awful shot that betrayed awful thinking. At no point did he look set for anything other than imminent failure.

Cook's out of form, but fighting. His slowness had method to it. Bairstow's didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

What are bairstow's stats since he was picked?


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

I've seen none of this on tv I must admit, been following on cricinfo and TMS. 

Was pretty wtf at no runs for an hour and then out to a shocker for bairstow. 

I agree re Trott btw but have heard people questioning his place. We will need him on form in Oz no doubt


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

500 runs at an average of 30. They're the stats of an Australian batsman, or maybe a kiwi.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan U said:


> He was unlucky today but it's a poor return so far. Iirc Cook is the only person to make over 50 apart from Bell and KP all series.


 
Root got a big century. Also Trott, Bairstow and Broad all have 1 half century. 

But apart from them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan U said:


> I've seen none of this on tv I must admit, been following on cricinfo and TMS.
> 
> Was pretty wtf at no runs for an hour and then out to a shocker for bairstow.
> 
> I agree re Trott btw but have heard people questioning his place. We will need him on form in Oz no doubt


Trott was gutted when he got out. He was clearly feeling very good out there. It was a soft dismissal too. But his day will come again - much as I'm loathe to admit it, he has proven test class and that hasn't disappeared.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

Compton would have 52, 87 etc and more to the point, he'd have taken their strike bowlers and their new ball out so kp can bat aggressively.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 9, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Root got a big century. Also Trott, Bairstow and Broad all have 1 half century.
> 
> But apart from them.



Where the fuck did I read that.

Ffs.. Forgetting about Root is a bit of a shocker


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

In this series, Bairstow has 175 at 29. That's marginally better than Trott, but it's not just how many, it's how. Like I said, Trott looked good today. Bairstow didn't, and was part of the passage of play in which England totally lost their way. Prior is also totally out of touch, but at least has a proven record behind him.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

Any longer stats? I think he's as much a test player as Morgan is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Where the fuck did I read that.
> 
> Ffs.. Forgetting about Root is a bit of a shocker


Problem is that Root's only scored 78 runs in the rest of the series. He's a bit of a worry too, tbh. England's top order is misfiring badly at the moment.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any longer stats? I think he's as much a test player as Morgan is.


Yes, the longer stat is 500 runs at 30. Which is exactly the same average as Morgan. I think the comparison is pretty apposite here. Bairstow's into his 12th match. Morgan played in 16.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

I think root should be captain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think root should be captain.




He's FEC at the moment. Like Atherton was.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, the longer stat is 500 runs at 30. Which is exactly the same average as Morgan. I think the comparison is pretty apposite here. Bairstow's into his 12th match. Morgan played in 16.


 
Cheers, surprised both are so high. Compton is probably 7 or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's FEC at the moment. Like Atherton was.


 
He is, it's disgusting - and it was happening before he was ever even picked for a test.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers, surprised both are so high. Compton is probably 7 or something.


9 - 4 in India, 3 in NZ, 2 in England. You're not going to get any argument from me here. Dropping Bairstow, keeping Compton opening and moving Root to 6 was the right call.

Even Boycott was saying today that Root wasn't ready to open yet. This fixation with getting him opening is weird, though. I go to someone like Hussey, who was an opener before his test career for many years, and made a massive success of 5/6.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Compton would have 52, 87 etc and more to the point, he'd have taken their strike bowlers and their new ball out so kp can bat aggressively.


 

I can't agree more about Compton. He's an opener, a proper one. Even when he fails, he does a job by sticking around. The job of the opener is to take the new ball and Compton proved he could do that very well. Root hasn't proved it and Bairstow hasn't been worth it at 6. I can't see them reverting though.

Did I hear today that Watson will bat at 6 for the Aussies? I think if he does, they've finally stumbled on a fairly decent line up. It's the one I'd pick from that squad anyway.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 10, 2013)

So, the hotspot inventor wants to ban protective coatings on bats. This guy is a clueless muppet who has obviously never held a cricket bat. Especially if he thinks there is something mysterious about the coating only covering half the bat. 



> Brennan claimed that "the majority of bats had some form of protective coating … strangely enough, this protective coating would cover only half the edge of the bat" and urged the ICC to ban all such coatings.



I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> But will he go on the lash sexually harass some women, get chucked out of a club, piss on some bouncers then run and cower in a pizza restaurant?


 

Even less chance of Onions doing that than Monty. Oh hang on.. actually I would say no chance at all. Good lad. Not bowling well enough (which is still bowling well) to force his way in to the team.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 10, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I can't agree more about Compton. He's an opener, a proper one. Even when he fails, he does a job by sticking around. The job of the opener is to take the new ball and Compton proved he could do that very well. Root hasn't proved it and Bairstow hasn't been worth it at 6. I can't see them reverting though.


 
Compton has too much of the Ramprakash mindset to succeed. I don't know how well that fits into a Dressing Room with Swann in it.

Only Bell has made proper runs so far this series (ignoring KP and Clarke tons), which must be sparing everyone's collective blushes. It's like Pakistan 2010 again


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 10, 2013)

Excellent from Jimmy there, clearly keen to get at the Aussies


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Compton has too much of the Ramprakash mindset to succeed.


Bairstow's reminding me of Ramprakash at the moment. To be fair to Compton, he's already hit as many centuries as Ramprakash did.

I'd have no problem with them dropping Compton if they hadn't told him to go away and find form, but they did and he did. That was dishonest from the selectors, who were clearly hoping that he _wouldn't_ find that form. Bad show.

Anyhoo. 238 is a shit total on this wicket. 4 wickets to the spinner is about 3 too many, and they're about 100 short of a decent score.

I agree with the comparison with Pakistan of 2010. One of those very rare occasions where the team with the better bowling attack lost the series. Let's hope Aus's batsmen keep on letting their bowlers down like Pak did.


----------



## JimW (Aug 10, 2013)

A massive no runs added there!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bairstow's reminding me of Ramprakash at the moment. To be fair to Compton, he's already hit as many centuries as Ramprakash did.
> 
> I'd have no problem with them dropping Compton if they hadn't told him to go away and find form, but they did and he did. That was dishonest from the selectors, who were clearly hoping that he _wouldn't_ find that form. Bad show.


 
Isn't that always what players are told when they're dropped? It's generally how it's reported anyway, and I've always seen it as 'keep playing and do as well as you can and we'll see' not 'score x runs and you'll be back in the team.'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Isn't that always what players are told when they're dropped? It's generally how it's reported anyway, and I've always seen it as 'keep playing and do as well as you can and we'll see' not 'score x runs and you'll be back in the team.'


But he went away and found form before he was dropped. That's the difference here - he wasn't officially dropped until the first test squad was announced.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 10, 2013)

Off you fuck then Warner


----------



## JimW (Aug 10, 2013)

this is more like it. That 238 looking massive now


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 10, 2013)

Well this is going better than expected. We'll be enforcing the follow on before lunch at this rate.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 10, 2013)

This looks better


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 10, 2013)

Oooh...

...another bizarre decision


----------



## JimW (Aug 10, 2013)

Reviews all round.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2013)

And here's me on a shed roof covered in ivy and angry spiders.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2013)

Crap umpiring from Hill yet again. The ball moved away from the stumps - it had to be pad doing that, not bat. And it looked out lbw.

*offers Tony Hill his glasses*

Also, why the hell does Hill need Aleem Dar to come down and tell him the rules? This is one situation where the system is unsatisfactory in the extreme. Hill thought it had hit the inside edge and deviated towards the stumps, whereas in fact it hit the pad and deviated enough away from the stumps to miss them. He didn't even consider lbw, and you have to ask about his competence. 'umpire's call' on hitting the wickets is rubbish really. I have seen Aleem Dar once say 'if he didn't hit it, check for lb' for a bat-pad catch, but Hill couldn't do that in this case because he totally mis-saw the incident. Here, he should be saying to the 3rd umpire 'well, I totally got that one wrong, so you make the decision'.

Biased cheats like Shakoor Rana aside, I think Tony Hill might be the worst umpire I've ever seen in tests.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2013)

Great stuff from Broad. V. unlucky only to have 2.


----------



## JimW (Aug 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Great stuff from Broad. V. unlucky only to have 2.


 
And there's the big one for him!


----------



## agricola (Aug 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Great stuff from Broad. V. unlucky only to have 2.



Clarke suckered now as well!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2013)

Every single time i go to cut some ivy down. I am in proper form today.


----------



## D'wards (Aug 10, 2013)

Anyone know any streams? Virgin seem to have blocked firstrow


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2013)

Hughes not playing, so Clarke thought he'd play his role?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2013)

cricfree.tv is good.

Rogers leading a charmed life atm.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 10, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Anyone know any streams? Virgin seem to have blocked firstrow


 

http://nutjob.eu/ss2tv.html


----------



## D'wards (Aug 10, 2013)

Cheers fellows


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2013)

lbw on way


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 10, 2013)

205 for 5


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2013)

Excellent start for England, now just can't let the tail wag too much.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 11, 2013)

5 runs to get 3 wickets - can end this innings in the lead!


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2013)

Ohhh.. Botham had fun last night.. what an AMAZING life. Can we please hear more about Sir Ian? Pretty please? Coz its always soooo fascinating. Cunt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2013)

Lead of 32, not bad considering Australia's position at the start of play. Now can they click batting - I still fell Australia will win this match.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2013)

If you replaced Tony Hill with an automated decision generator, giving its decisions on appeals entirely at random, would it do any worse?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 11, 2013)

Right, can we _please_ do something with the bat now? Pretty please?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 11, 2013)

Can we say "Root uprooted" for that one? Sounds like a good ball rather than poor from the batsman.

Take away the 180 and he's got a very poor average though...


----------



## Athos (Aug 11, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:
			
		

> Can we say "Root uprooted" for that one? Sounds like a good ball rather than poor from the batsman.
> 
> Take away the 180 and he's got a very poor average though...



13. And that's with a rain assisted not out.

Stat courtesy of BBC.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

Cracking ball from Harris tbf.


----------



## Athos (Aug 11, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Cracking ball from Harris tbf.



Fair enough. But he's still no test match opener. Not yet, anyway - can't see off the new ball. Let him find his feet at six, and let Compton open. He's found the form they told him to look for, after all. And drop Bairstow, of course.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 11, 2013)

Terrible. We are gonna get nailed in oz if we continue to bat like this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2013)

Two very soft dismissals.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 11, 2013)

Wasn't this summer supposed to be a walk in the park? Ffs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Wasn't this summer supposed to be a walk in the park? Ffs.


Before the series started, I thought it would be tight, with one or two Aus batsmen coming off and their seamers doing well. It's happened that way every match except Lord's.

We shouldn't get too greedy here, imo. Any kind of series win - even just squeaking it 2-1 is a great result.

That said, England's top three this series have been a huge disappointment - including Root, tbh. Harris is a great bowler - but they've gifted him two out of three.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 11, 2013)

Yeah agreed. Some of the pundits got very carried away. Australia will always fight and we are making it easy for them imo with our batting. 

Let's hope this partnership can put some runs on.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

All goings tits up. 155 for 4. ffs


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 11, 2013)

Net 123 for 4.  A lead of 300 looks a long way - Bairstow, Prior, Bresnan, Broad and Swann all need to contribute, Bell needs to make this a ton.  Big one would be nice.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> All goings tits up. 155 for 4. ffs


You'd think Australia would struggle to chase 200 so England are still on top here.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

Fingers crossed. Nice to see Bairstow attacking the spin!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

Bad fucking light? At least offer it to the batsmen for crying out fucking loud!!!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

2 mins later they're back on lol 

What has this fucking game become?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 11, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Bad fucking light? At least offer it to the batsmen for crying out fucking loud!!!


 

They changed the rules so they don't do that anymore. Which is sort of sensible except now the umpires seem to haul them off all the time.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

Hauled off for 2 minutes. Load of bollocks.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

Bell on his arse!  Brutal bouncer from Harris


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 11, 2013)

Oh Bairstow  

15 minutes to close, just see it out.  Useful 28 in context, but a stupid wicket and a specialist test batsman can't survive on 28s.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 11, 2013)

Bresnan night watchman???


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2013)

Can we recall Collingwood?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)

Go Ian Bell!  Cracking tonne.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2013)

Ian BELL


----------



## Dan U (Aug 11, 2013)

kabbes just came I think

Good one Bell. This series would be a bit different without his runs


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 11, 2013)

Man of the series so far without question.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2013)

Ian fucking Ronald fucking Bell


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 11, 2013)

Santino said:


> Ian fucking Ronald fucking Bell


itshtm


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2013)

Do I even need to in your faces Bell haters say it?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 11, 2013)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Do I even need to in your faces Bell haters say it?


I am now prepared to rank Bell alongside Graham Thorpe as an England no. 5. Satisfied?

More than that, I think Bell must stay at 5 now. Just as Thorpe had to stay at 5. It's the 'bollocks we're in trouble, someone needs to dig us out of this' position. And Bell has earned it.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 11, 2013)

Bell's influence will live long - whenever anyone looks like they need dropping people will say, aaaaaah, Ian Bell, for about the next 25 years. He's become a fabulous player, as good as any I've ever seen.... as long as there isn't a decent spinner in the opposition.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Bell's influence will live long - whenever anyone looks like they need dropping people will say, aaaaaah, Ian Bell, for about the next 25 years. He's become a fabulous player, as good as any I've ever seen.... as long as there isn't a decent spinner in the opposition.


He always had the technique. Now he has the gumption. Not sure what's changed. Doubt he could tell you himself what's changed. Perhaps it was that innings in NZ that finally showed him that he could do it when everyone around him was failing. Doesn't matter really. Doesn't matter one jot - success doesn't really need to be analysed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2013)

Brilliant test match this. At the end of pretty much every session, you've been able to say 'next session's crucial', and it's still no different. Brilliant day for England in the end, and I'd like to put Broad's spells yesterday into some perspective. Yes, it's a seaming pitch, but he's seamed it more effectively than anyone. Big credit to him for that. He was unplayable for a bit yesterday. Rogers couldn't get anywhere near it for a while.

Also - if Onions had been playing, he'd have done what Broad did too, I reckon. Blunder not playing him, irrespective of the result.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2013)

Fascinating stuff alright. Broad is infuriating -- sometimes an utter matchwinner, sometimes hopeless. Difficult to drop. How can you drop somebody that can scythe through an opposition? And yet difficult to pick. How can you pick somebody that normally doesn't do much?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

England's day, kept the lead to under 50 then after a rubbish start managed to get a lead of 200. Probably just slightly ahead now IMO but Australia still very much in the game.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Over on the BBC text commentary people are talking about batting 'till tea for a lead of about 350.

Really...?


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Any news on whether Watson can bat and/or bowl?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> England's day, kept the lead to under 50 then after a rubbish start managed to get a lead of 200. Probably just slightly ahead now IMO but Australia still very much in the game.


Yep, England's day, turning a strong position for Aus into an equally strong position for Eng. But still anyone's game. 'Sporting' wickets like this one often produce great games.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Fascinating stuff alright. Broad is infuriating -- sometimes an utter matchwinner, sometimes hopeless. Difficult to drop. How can you drop somebody that can scythe through an opposition? And yet difficult to pick. How can you pick somebody that normally doesn't do much?


 
He also seems to have his best games when the rest of the attack is struggling to get anywhere.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Over on the BBC text commentary people are talking about batting 'till tea for a lead of about 350.
> 
> Really...?


Well it would be nice... Bowl em out for 100 after tea as well.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 12, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Over on the BBC text commentary people are talking about batting 'till tea for a lead of about 350.
> 
> Really...?


 
More likely out before lunch with a lead of 250. Who knows though in this game, it's not impossible.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 12, 2013)

Santino said:


> Any news on whether Watson can bat and/or bowl?


 
No one going to do the punch line?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

I thought I'd let that one go


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

I keep missing why Watson won't get a runner?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

No runners allowed in test cricket anymore.

ETA all international cricket now I think.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Ah, fair enough. Seems a bit mean, but I suppose it was to stop fake injuries or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Ah, fair enough. Seems a bit mean, but I suppose it was to stop fake injuries or something?


 
Things like Graeme Smith asking for one because he has cramps because he's batted so long.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

I suppose it was to take the power out of captains' hands, as has been done with bad light now. Sort of spoils the fun.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

New ball moving all over the place, Bresnan would do well to see a few overs off it.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Belly bowled all ends up.  Great innings lad.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Oh Matt Prior...

Harris on a hattrick.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Fuck 

219 not enough IMO


----------



## Dan U (Aug 12, 2013)

bloody hell


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Need at least 250.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Harris showing why he's such a good bowler though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

If he gets it right again, Broad will be unplayable on this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

Playing shots now. Right tactic, I think. They're going to get out sooner rather than later anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Might not be a bad idea for Swan and Broad to play a few shots, if they try and stay in they could just get a good one and be out cheaply.

EDIT snap


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Harris 65 wickets in 15 matches at ~22, top notch bowler


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Intent from Bresnan and Broad, going at anything short or wide. Good plan, the draw isn't really in play (weather dependent), i'd rather the remaining batsmen added a quick-fire 50 than grind it out. Broad and Anderson with a new ball in these conditions could be fun.

ETA snap also...


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Looking like an exciting last day  hopefully the last few England batsman can squeeze another 30-40 runs quickly


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Now we're cooking.  24 in 14 balls.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Just keep this up until tea and set them 550.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Forget Harris, I am the most lethal in these conditions.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Broad gone, another vicious short ball.

Stuart, take note for (probably) about 1/2 hour from now...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Or not...


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

England will need Anderson to get back into form, can't afford to bowl any tripe.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

So that's a lead of 243?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

249...


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Come on Bres


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Some good boundaries from the tail end. Just a few more overs like this would give England a fair chance.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Loving this.  This passage of play doesn't feel like a test at all, it's great cricket - Harris vs everyone, everyone vs Bird.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Bresnan's batted Bird off


----------



## Dan U (Aug 12, 2013)

big innings from Bres


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:
			
		

> Loving this.  This passage of play doesn't feel like a test at all, it's great cricket - Harris vs everyone, everyone vs Bird.



Yup 

Bresnan may sneak a cheeky 50 at this rate.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

My stream booked 

Runs slowing down a little bit now.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

So hard to say what a chaseable target is on this wicket, but this last half hour shows that you have to use the new ball well, any tripe and the ball will go to the boundary.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Slowed down, but a 13 from Broad, 14 so far from Swann and 45!!! from big Tim, these are some really useful lower order runs.  Although you could argue that Bresnan is above Prior on merit


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

First class matches at Durham - only 3 300+ totals successfully chased.  Not exactly the best sample statistically speaking, but rule of thumb.

Lyon on, Clarke looking to stifle the runs a bit more?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> First class matches at Durham - only 3 300+ totals successfully chased.


This year?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Bresnan stuck on 45


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Damn, shame Bresnan could make his half century.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> This year?


 
Nope, all time.

Oh Tim, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Well played sir.  Jimmy, swing the bat - might still be that 300+ yet.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Nope, all time.


Really, wow. 

And a drop, haha


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

DROPPED!!!!!

Lol at Steve Smith.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

Excellent comedy stylings by smith there


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Really, wow.
> 
> And a drop, haha


 
Only opened mid 90s though.

Excellent clown catch from Smith.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

lead of 294 now, be nice to get 300 just for psychological factor


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

twentythreedom said:
			
		

> Excellent comedy stylings by smith there



 

Swann now doing some clattering too  should make the 300 now.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Swann's enjoying this.  298 the lead...


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Only opened mid 90s though.
> 
> Excellent clown catch from Smith.


I know, but even so I think that's pretty surprising

299 for Aus to win.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

299


----------



## JimW (Aug 12, 2013)

Badgers said:


> ...should make the 300 now.


 
 hush your mouth

Good late show!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

JimW said:
			
		

> hush your mouth
> 
> Good late show!



Off to buy an onion


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

I think the biggest surprise of all is that hotspot actually picked up that edge.

Great middle/lower order runs from Bairstow, Bresnan and Swann.  The usual brilliant from Bell.

If it swings for Anderson and Broad can get the same hostile and uneven bounce that Harris did, 299 should be enough.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2013)

Well 299 looks good, but Australia still in with a chance IMO, especially if the English bowlers don't get it right here before lunch and Warner gives them some stick.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

Who thought we'd get to a lead of 298?  Particularly after Bell and Prior departed in the space of two balls, with the lead still down in the low 200s!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

AGAIN I kinda want it to go right to the wire. Also kinda  want England to smash it.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Come on Jimmy.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Bresnan stuck on 45





Zapp Brannigan said:


> Oh Tim, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!





Badgers said:


> 299


 

Still, not a bad target. Here we go...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Heard the bat from here there i think. Edit: maybe not!


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Optimistic


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Hold on...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

drat


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Nope.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Lunchtime again. Oh well, time to put the chicken in the oven.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

So, predicitions?

Let's hear your thoughts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

England to win by 8 runs some time around lunch tomorrow.\

One of the bowlers to drop a catch in the deep with about 20-30 still needed.

It's tradition.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Come on, get a wicket you cunts.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

Fucksake Hill


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Get Swann on ffs


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

We're getting battered! Need to start taking wickets, and soon.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

I popped out to the shops. Come back to find they are 60+ for no wicket AND hitting sixes


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Swann like a contest like this, where someone tries to take him on.  Wicket soon!


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

This is pissing me off now


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

Balls. Bresnan and co have shown the Aussies how to play on this.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

...and i'm back in the room. Right, what needs doing?


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Compton would have had 2 wickets by now.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

He'll have to make do with a winning 47 at Glamorgan tonight.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

What's happened to the bounce that Harris was getting?  Ball doing nothing, Harris' figures looking more impressive by the minute.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Longest opening wicket of the series.

I don't think England have got past 50


----------



## gabi (Aug 12, 2013)

Aussies heavy favourites with the bookies now. thank fuck. i stuck a somewhat drunken 20 quid on them before the first days play, wasnt looking so hot at stumps last night.


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 12, 2013)

Is Twatto batting or injured?


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 12, 2013)

Boom


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Just did the washing up, did I miss anything?

I claim that wicket.  Still got to pair socks and hang up shirts, so I can offer you 2 more wickets.  Use them now, or wait until 8 or 9 down tomorrow with the run chase well and truly on?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

One wicket down and they are a third of the way


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

They'll have a wobble soon. I reckon Bresnan needs to prove his worth over Onions.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> They'll have a wobble soon. I reckon Bresnan needs to prove his worth over Onions.



You give us all faith man.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> They'll have a wobble soon. I reckon Bresnan needs to prove his worth over Onions.


He can need to all he likes, it's whether he fucking does or not that matters.


----------



## D'wards (Aug 12, 2013)

Ah well, at least it makes for an exciting Oval test. To retain the ashes 2-2 with a draw we should have lost will be not so hot


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

This is a disaster. Half way in no time.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Stop panicking - again


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Off. You. Fuck


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

About bloody time. Butchers, can you go away and then come back again, again, please


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Still got to get through the rest of them for about 130.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

Get in


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

And another!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)

C'mon!!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Marvellous


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 12, 2013)

Finish it tonight!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

FINISH HIM


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Review


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

Watson LBW?


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 12, 2013)

Another gift


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

here they fell


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)

Awesome!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

(i'm on the somerset game btw - no wickets tonight are mine)


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Ted Striker said:
			
		

> Another gift



Watson? 
LBW? 
Review?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Do he actually know the rule?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

again


----------



## eatmorecheese (Aug 12, 2013)

Collapsing!


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

CRUSH THEM!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)




----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 12, 2013)

5 for 13!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

All this within an hour.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 12, 2013)

(((Day 5 ticket holders)))


----------



## Dan U (Aug 12, 2013)

Amazing. Trying to put the baby to bed but he's gotta wait a bit


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Getting bored now. Not been a wicket for ages


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

This is brutal


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)

Get in!


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Extra half hour.  Broad smells blood...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Hard not to.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Ted Striker said:
			
		

> (((Day 5 ticket holders)))



They might get ten minutes or so?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)

Dig that fucker out!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Suxckwer


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

FINISH THEM!!!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Arrrrrghhhh 

Last (scheduled) over


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 12, 2013)

Bowl Trott not Root


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 12, 2013)

Prior


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

Gah


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 12, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Prior


 
Shite throw though.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 12, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Shite throw though.


 

It would have hit the stumps. If Prior was behind the stumps, then wicket


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)




----------



## fen_boy (Aug 12, 2013)

(((gabi's £20))))


----------



## Dan U (Aug 12, 2013)

And the series... Fantastic


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 12, 2013)

Stuart Broad, take a bow son.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

3 - 0 IN YOUR TWATTY FACE


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

As predicted some weeks ago, England progress serenely to a unassailable lead in this series.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Now, _out the pancickers._ I wonder if they were the same _cooky declared too late_ panickers?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> It would have hit the stumps. If Prior was behind the stumps, then wicket


Just waiting to give Broady his 6-fer. 

Fabulous stuff. First Anderson, then Swann, now Broad takes a 10-fer in the match. Each victory featuring a 10-fer from one of the three main bowlers.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Now, _out the pancickers._ I wonder if they were the same _cooky declared too late_ panickers?


Put your pitchfork down, and return to your village match.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Their batting can't stand up without Clarke doing big runs. Which means you an only win tests when the other batsmen all fail. Which rarely happens. When was their last win?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Santino said:


> Put your pitchfork down, and return to your village match.


 
Innings break.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 12, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> It would have hit the stumps. If Prior was behind the stumps, then wicket


 
Yeah but a lot of keepers now take the ball in front so they get it faster and break the wicket with a swing. Needs a good throw though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

56-9


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Yes! The Business Development Director of Durham CCC. I'd love to meet him.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 12, 2013)

Nope...not a thing on Twitter from Kevin Rudd or Shane Warne. Odd that
Still, let's talk about what a cunt Ian Botham is shall we?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2013)

Broad's trending though 

What's Beefy done now then?


----------



## Athos (Aug 12, 2013)

What a session. Went to the bookies at about six, when they were about three wickets down, and stayed til the end. My dinner will be in the dog. (Metaphorically speaking of course: I don't expect my wife to cook for me, nor do I have a dog.)  Have tickets for next Friday - third day at the Oval. Should be a party.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 12, 2013)

Right, I will actually forgive him for the shoelaces timewasting idiocy now.


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 12, 2013)

Proper good ashes win this. Even when the crims looked like they were showing form we spanked them
Pity the punter's not about to enjoy it


----------



## Athos (Aug 12, 2013)

Ted Striker said:
			
		

> Right, I will actually forgive him for the shoelaces timewasting idiocy now.



He's still a dick. But he's our match-winning dick.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 12, 2013)

gabi said:


> Aussies heavy favourites with the bookies now. thank fuck. i stuck a somewhat drunken 20 quid on them before the first days play, wasnt looking so hot at stumps last night.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Think once, think twice, _think, is it gabi?_


----------



## Athos (Aug 12, 2013)

In one hour this afternoon, I saw them drift from 1/6 to 6/1. Beautiful.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Think once, think twice, think, is it gabi?



As usual his fail is all our win


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> In one hour this afternoon, I saw them drift from 1/6 ...


 
What were they giving for an England win at that point?


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 12, 2013)

gabi said:


> Ohhh.. Botham had fun last night.. what an AMAZING life. Can we please hear more about Sir Ian? Pretty please? Coz its always soooo fascinating. Cunt.


----------



## Athos (Aug 12, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> What were they giving for an England win at that point?



9/2, I think. And 50/1 the draw.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

gabi said:


> Aussies heavy favourites with the bookies now. thank fuck. i stuck a somewhat drunken 20 quid on them before the first days play, wasnt looking so hot at stumps last night.


 
Should have shoved your 20 quid straight in the bin.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

I left the cricket at 6.30pm as nothing too dramatic was going to happen, was it?


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

Been away (again).

Well done Ian Bell. Yet again he scores a century when nobody else can, England maintain their record of never losing when Belly bags a ton. 6,500 Test runs down, four Ashes wins and 20 centuries, give him some fucking credit you idiots


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Now, _out the pancickers._ I wonder if they were the same _cooky declared too late_ panickers?


It's obligatory when England win to find ways in which they might not have done had other things happen and then string the side up for these imaginary events


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> It's obligatory when England win to find ways in which they might not have done had other things happen and then string the side up for these imaginary events


 
The last one was used to suggest ROOT should be captain.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The last one was used to suggest ROOT should be captain.


Headline on cricinfo Ian Chappell article:


> Clarke doesn't fear defeat
> *Ian Chappell:* Australia's captain sets aggressive fields and isn't afraid to take a gamble, unlike Alastair Cook, who is typically conservative


Good thing he isn't afraid of something that happens all the time eh

3-0. It'll be 4-0. The worst 4-0 ever according to some


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Remember when they conservatively beat India 4-0?


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 12, 2013)

I fucking love Test cricket. This is what it's all about


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

We'e done it with only one batsmen as well.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> We'e done it with only one batsmen as well.


One and a half - KP's done some work

btw - those people who carped on about Trott's scoring rate: fucking well done everyone. He's now half the batsman at twice the strike rate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

I have the feeling that Trott's not far away from a big score. I'm more worried by Cook, whose scores have resembled those of one S. Watson in this series so far. Odd to be winning the series 3-0 and for there to be quite a few question marks about the batting. I'm guessing they'll go into the Oval unchanged again, so one final chance this summer for some players to find form.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 12, 2013)

Heard the result while playing 5-a-side.

What. The. Fuck?!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have the feeling that Trott's not far away from a big score. I'm more worried by Cook, whose scores have resembled those of one S. Watson in this series so far. Odd to be winning the series 3-0 and for there to be quite a few question marks about the batting. I'm guessing they'll go into the Oval unchanged again, so one final chance this summer for some players to find form.


 
Or what?

There's on role in question and they'll think they got away with it.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

Has to be said, this over-reliance on Jimmy Anderson is really concerning me 

Great to think of the scars being inflicted on young Aussies right now. May they last a generation


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Has to be said, this over-reliance on Jimmy Anderson is really concerning me
> 
> Great to think of the scars being inflicted on young Aussies right now. May they last a generation


 
Reverse scars too - what are their bowlers going to thin they have to do? Bat and score 150 as well?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

Bairstow's fortunate to be underperforming in a winning team, imo, as the winning is keeping him his place. So he gets another go. If he fails again, it's hard to make a case for him starting in Brisbane. I reckon Compton's done for - rightly or wrongly, my guess is that he's played his last international. There's other young talent around - Taylor, Chopra. Chopra's my long shot for touring Aus, and could get a go if Root keeps misfiring at the top.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Compton is only 30 - he ain't done yet. Not after this mess. Ideal for for him, as is over there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reverse scars too - what are their bowlers going to thin they have to do? Bat and score 150 as well?


Harris looked pissed off today.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

Here's a funny thought: Bell is unquestionably the man of the series, but has not had a single man of the match.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Here's a funny thought: Bell is unquestionably the man of the series, but has not had a single man of the match.


The bowlers have been taking it in turns getting the 10-fers.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

Bell now has scored as many test centuries as Gooch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Bell now has scored as many test centuries as Gooch.


Yes, and another innings of character and substance. How many times must we say it before you forgive? I've put him alongside Thorpe as an England no.5. I can do no more.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

Today makes the Old Trafford washout even more disappointing - seeing how Australia were planning to lose that one was intriguing to say the least


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Here's a funny thought: Bell is unquestionably the man of the series, but has not had a single man of the match.


 
He's got one more test to sweat it out. In terms of performances it's been an odd series - or has is? Two big centuries a few 5s but not much else. Or am i remembering it wrong so i always remember the Gough hat-trick?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Today makes the Old Trafford washout even more disappointing - seeing how Australia were planning to lose that one was intriguing to say the least


 
They were working on some new variations i heard.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

Three of the top nine English century-makers of all time in one team.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They were working on some new variations i heard.


Some kind of unreadable mystery cock up, probably coached by Ray Illingworth and David lloyd


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Three of the top nine English century-makers of all time in one team.


What's slightly odd about that list is that many countries have players way out in front of all of them.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

Some amazing stats in this list

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/engla...t_hundreds_career.html?class=1;id=1;type=team

Boycott: 108 tests, 193 innings, 23 not outs. Incredible stats for an opener -- carrying his bat in 12% of his innings! No wonder he averaged 48 and is joint 3rd in number of centuries.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

Hmmm. He often talks about getting that *. Not one to throw the bat in the cause of a quick run chase. How many other players have been deliberately run out by a teammate in a test match for scoring too slowly?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. He often talks about getting that *. Not one to throw the bat in the cause of a quick run chase. How many other players have been deliberately run out by a teammate in a test match for scoring too slowly?


 
On the debut at the other end.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, and another innings of character and substance. How many times must we say it before you forgive? I've put him alongside Thorpe as an England no.5. I can do no more.


 
Bell is now a much better player than Thorpe ever was. If you wanted a half century Thorpe was your man. But Bell has scored more half centuries, more centuries and has a higher highest score. Thorpe scored a few more runs but Bell's still got a couple of years left in him. Hopefully Ronald has found his voice and will continue to blossom for a while yet.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

btw, Broad now needs just 150-odd runs to make it to the 2000 run/200 wicket Test double. Only 16 players on that list at the moment


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Bell is now a much better player than Thorpe ever was. If you wanted a half century Thorpe was your man. But Bell has scored more half centuries, more centuries and has a higher highest score. Thorpe scored a few more runs but Bell's still got a couple of years left in him. Hopefully Ronald has found his voice and will continue to blossom for a while yet.


More than a couple, he's only 31!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> btw, Broad now needs just 150-odd runs to make it to the 2000 run/200 wicket Test double. Only 16 players on that list at the moment


 
That can't be right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Bell is now a much better player than Thorpe ever was. If you wanted a half century Thorpe was your man. But Bell has scored more half centuries, more centuries and has a higher highest score. Thorpe scored a few more runs but Bell's still got a couple of years left in him. Hopefully Ronald has found his voice and will continue to blossom for a while yet.


Not sure about that. Thorpe scored a lot of runs when it mattered. In the darkness in Lahore, of course, but many other times too. And if he came in with the score on 300-3, he'd most likely not get many. His worth to the team was a bit better than the raw stats (which aren't bad). He's a bit like Viv Richards like that - Richards also rarely scored many when it didn't really matter.

Thorpe also played in a very poor team, so they needed him a fair bit. This England team has played like the teams Thorpe played in this series, with the top order stuttering and uncertain. That's what makes what Bell's done so impressive - he's gone and done it when everyone around him has failed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> btw, Broad now needs just 150-odd runs to make it to the 2000 run/200 wicket Test double. Only 16 players on that list at the moment


 
Got a link?


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That can't be right.


Benaud, Sobers, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Chris Cairns, Kumble, Warne, Vaas, Sean Pollock, Kallis, Vettori, Harbhajan, Flintoff


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Got a link?


1000/100, you'll have to dig the 2000/200 people out yourself

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282786.html


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Benaud, Sobers, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Chris Cairns, Kumble, Warne, Vaas, Sean Pollock, Kallis, Vettori, Harbhajan, Flintoff


What list is this again? I may have thought it was something else.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

_I can't even remember Thorpe's face!!_


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What list is this again? I may have thought it was something else.


2000 runs & 200 wickets in Tests


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Benaud, Sobers, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Chris Cairns, Kumble, Warne, Vaas, Sean Pollock, Kallis, Vettori, Harbhajan, Flintoff


 
Just two genuine batting allrounders in that list. Will Watto ever make it?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure about that. Thorpe scored a lot of runs when it mattered. In the darkness in Lahore, of course, but many other times too. And if he came in with the score on 300-3, he'd most likely not get many. His worth to the team was a bit better than the raw stats (which aren't bad). He's a bit like Viv Richards like that - Richards also rarely scored many when it didn't really matter.
> 
> Thorpe also played in a very poor team, so they needed him a fair bit. This England team has played like the teams Thorpe played in this series, with the top order stuttering and uncertain. That's what makes what Bell's done so impressive - he's gone and done it when everyone around him has failed.


 
Alex. Tudor.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just two genuine batting allrounders in that list. Will Watto ever make it?


Leg Before Watson will never make it as a Test cricketer, no


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Alex. Tudor.


Hmmm. Yes. I was watching when that happened. Odd. Very odd.


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Alex. Tudor.


Was shit anyway, fuck him. Just another overhyped Surrey show pony


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> 2000 runs & 200 wickets in Tests


 
That's it? I thought you mean some odd thing about their averages. That's an astonishing list. I should stop now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Was shit anyway, fuck him. Just another overhyped Surrey show pony


Harsh!

The story goes that Tudor told Thorpe not to worry about his hundred. But Thorpe was the senior man out there. It was odd for him not to ignore it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2013)

JTG said:


> Was shit anyway, fuck him. Just another overhyped Surrey show pony


 
_racist!!!1!_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

JTG said:


> Leg Before Watson will never make it as a Test cricketer, no


Part-time bowler who can bat a bit.

Invaluable. The embodiment of the spirit of the team, one might say.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Part-time bowler who can bat a bit.
> 
> Invaluable. The embodiment of the spirit of the team, one might say.


Well exactly. The whole side only bowls part time and can bat just a bit


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

Incidentally, I feel we're missing the all important state of the moral victory-ometer. How far ahead are Australia atm?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just two genuine batting allrounders in that list. Will Watto ever make it?


 
Which two you mean?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which two you mean?


Sobers and Kallis.

Shane Watson's been trying to style himself as a very, very, very poor man's version of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which two you mean?


 
What's Botham and the rest then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's Botham and the rest then?


Bowling allrounders. Some of them not even that. Warne was a useful tailender.

Sobers and Kallis both top-five batsmen averaging over 50. Nobody else in that list ever batted above 6 and all average under 40, I think. Everyone else: bowler first, batsman second. Sobers and Kallis the other way round.

That is mostly an artefact of the stats - it's easier to score 2000 runs than to take 200 wickets. But it is also a reflection of the rarity of genuine batting allrounders - top order batsmen who are also proper bowlers, not part-timers. Beyond Sobers and Kallis, it's hard to think of any other notable ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

It's amazing that the 15 best all rounders ever aren't good enough for lbj. They should have taken more or been used higher up the order or fucking something


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 13, 2013)

Great win, already rubbed a bunch of Aussies noses in it. 

Really want the win at The Oval so that we can grid Australia down. I would have played Onions here but I have to admit Bresnan has played really well this match, it will ultimately depend on what the Oval wicket is like but I'd be inclined to keep him in the team. The rest of the team I wouldn't change, I know some of the batting has been a little off but with the Ashes retained and the series won I think the selectors can (and probably will) afford to say to Root and Baristow - show us why we have had faith in you.

Australia should make two changes IMO, I think Hughes (who was dropped prematurely this time) should replace Khawaja and Starc should come back in for Byrd. Though I guess depending on Watson's fitness they could play both Hughes and Khawaja, TBH that might be a better idea even if he is fit.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's amazing that the 15 best all rounders ever aren't good enough for lbj. They should have taken more or been used higher up the order or fucking something


Apologies to lbj. Stupid aggressive post to make. Not needed. Sorry.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2013)

Never cuss Botham.


----------



## agricola (Aug 13, 2013)

I do like the way this Cricinfo review of the match begins:



> LLLLLLDL.
> 
> That's not the name of an obscure Welsh town, that's Australia's record in Tests since the start of this year's tour of India.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

We need a summary of the latest McGrath/Warne nonsense. One of the highlights of the series has been reading the excuses of these clowns


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 13, 2013)

Tbf, McGrath has been irritatingly Ok from what I've heard?

Warne has been on a mission to remove him from my ultimate sporting idol pedestal for the last 5 years. A man I used to worship has turned into a uber twat


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure about that. Thorpe scored a lot of runs when it mattered. In the darkness in Lahore, of course, but many other times too. And if he came in with the score on 300-3, he'd most likely not get many. His worth to the team was a bit better than the raw stats (which aren't bad). He's a bit like Viv Richards like that - Richards also rarely scored many when it didn't really matter.
> 
> Thorpe also played in a very poor team, so they needed him a fair bit. This England team has played like the teams Thorpe played in this series, with the top order stuttering and uncertain. That's what makes what Bell's done so impressive - he's gone and done it when everyone around him has failed.


Thorpe's average is substantially higher than any of his contemporaries, which I think it's definitely worth something. Weird to think you used to able to play 100+ tests for England averaging well under 40. Graeme managed to play 65 tests averaging 31 ffs.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> Tbf, McGrath has been irritatingly Ok from what I've heard?
> 
> Warne has been on a mission to remove him from my ultimate sporting idol pedestal for the last 5 years. A man I used to worship has turned into a uber twat


McGrath: "Australia's attack is more versatile" 
Were you not aware of Warne's personality 'issues' when he was playing then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

JTG said:


> McGrath: "Australia's attack is more versatile"
> Were you not aware of Warne's personality 'issues' when he was playing then?


 
McGrath is nice but very dull. Warne has his moments of logic defiance, but at least he has something to say.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 13, 2013)

The only tv commentary I have seen was yesterday at the end and I swear Warne did a cod west indian 'yeah man' and I cringed hard. Even harder than when I last saw his face.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

Dan U said:


> The only tv commentary I have seen was yesterday at the end and I swear Warne did a cod west indian 'yeah man' and I cringed hard. Even harder than when I last saw his face.


He gets younger by the day. From accounts by people I know who work at Lord's, Warne's pretty generous with his time behind the scenes. It's not all bad with him at all.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

agricola said:


> I do like the way this Cricinfo review of the match begins:


My favourite bit of that article is how it points out that Hussey handed responsibility for leading the victory song to Lyon when he retired. Seven months on, Lyon has yet to have the chance to lead it.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 13, 2013)

I quite like Shane Warne tbh. He's obviously a massive wanker, but somehow OK with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

On Warne being a nice bloke, we have a young leggie called Max Waller down here. Warne met him in the interval of the Oval Ahes test in 2009 and they did one of those spin masterclasses things. Since then he's kept in contact well above and beyond what's required and has put himself out many times when in the country to offer Maxy some help and advice.


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 13, 2013)

Massively overdone the botox mind, scary to look at when he tries to make an expression


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

I blame Hugh Grant. Imagine that though, being a 19 year old leg spinner and going, _sorry, got to take that, it's warnie again._


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

He's an idiot. An idiot who's nice to people, but an idiot all the same.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 13, 2013)

Warne is saying some stupid things on Sky but its because he is clearly hurting at what is going on. Its easy to be the loveable rouge who plays hard on and off the field when you are winning, but he has nothing now that it is always going wrong. He is also very close to the aussie team and particularly close to the coach so when explaining defeats all he can do is blame the umpires and bad luck.

It must be sad for him when he is defending players with mediocre averages and trying to find positives but its a position every English cricket fan knows well.

The flip side of it is that in some ways what he is saying is true, Oz came within a whisper of winning at Trent Bridge, they were well on top at Old Trafford and for long periods of this last test they looked favourites. Apart from the odd innings both bowling attacks have nullified the opposition top order and its been Bell and Swann that have been the difference. So from that perspective I can see where he is coming from, but the other way to look at it is that England have been average and are still thumping them, the aussie batting is woefully short of class and grit and there best players are all the wrong side of 30 and injury prone.  Its hard to see where they go from here.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

The worst thing for aus would have been to have won one of these tests. That would just extend the 'we're so close to being ok' mentality for another two series at least.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2013)

Test matches fluctuate.  It's why the game is so brilliant.  They key to being winners is to win, not to claim that at some points you were ahead.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2013)

So we're playing badly and still winning?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2013)

"We were winning until they scored those lucky four goals in the last ten minutes.  Grr."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

Yes, the real story is that England spluttered, with half their team out of form in any given match, and still Aus couldn't beat them. Their bowling's fine. Their batting is abysmal - Khawaja/Hughes, Smith, Watson: half their top six has simply not been up to it.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The worst thing for aus would have been to have won one of these tests. That would just extend the 'we're so close to being ok' mentality for another two series at least.


tbh I think they're still there anyway. The mantra of "14 runs, rain, on top for the first three days - just a couple of players away from being a good side" etc etc is music to my ears this morning


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So we're playing badly and still winning?


From an Aus perspective, I'd say that 'we (aus) are playing a team that is operating well below its potential and still losing'.

Just enough England players are playing well in each match for them to win.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

Usman Khawaja is the worst player of off spin in the world


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2013)

The narrative whilst the match was going on in Durham was frequently that Aus were mighty and England failing. But the truth was that Australia's first innings consisted of one bloke getting 110 and the rest getting 160 between them (remove the top two and the other nine got 92 between them!). And Australia's second innings consisted of one bloke getting 71 and the rest getting 153 between them (remove the top two and the other nine got 104 between them).

To slice it another way, remove Rogers and the other ten batsmen scored 335 in two innings between them -- an average of 17 per innings each. Only two other players scored more than 30 in either innings. Rogers stopped Australia looking absolutely bloody dreadful.

England looked shaky as hell but at least they had six players with innings of 30+. Only Root and Bairstow out of the top six didn't manage it, the other four contributed usefully.

I think that the narrative of Australia being on top developed purely because England batted first and 230 looked like a poor score. Turns out that 230 was sub-par but not so disastrous.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 13, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that the narrative of Australia being on top developed purely because England batted first and 230 looked like a poor score. Turns out that 230 was sub-par but not so disastrous.


 
Agreed. At the end of the first and second days you'd probably say Australia had a slight edge but certainly weren't dominating, at the end of the third day I'd have said England were slightly in front if anything.


----------



## Santino (Aug 13, 2013)

Australia would have had the edge if the teams were of roughly equal capabilities.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2013)

At the end of the fourth day, well, it only took four days, eh?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2013)

If I have access to funds (unlikely) I might cough up for a 4th day ticket at the Oval. That is all.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 13, 2013)

Scyld Berry in the Torygraph has written more nonsense - this time about Khawaja (has been removed from the online edition)


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2013)

Australia's experiment with their what now?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

Well spotted Paul. WteffinfF?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, the real story is that England spluttered, with half their team out of form in any given match, and still Aus couldn't beat them. Their bowling's fine. Their batting is abysmal - Khawaja/Hughes, Smith, Watson: half their top six has simply not been up to it.


 
Watson has been terrible, too much ODIs?, too little homework?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 13, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Watson has been terrible, too much ODIs?, too little homework?


 

He's just not that good tbh. He averages 27 for the series - his career average is 34.5 so he's off form but not desperately so.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 13, 2013)

If we're lucky, we'll see his half century at the Oval. 

He's on 48 career Test LBW dismissals


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

Really? That is _fantastic_


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Scyld Berry in the Torygraph has written more nonsense - this time about Khawaja (has been removed from the online edition)


wow


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

From someone who used to edit Wisden - someone it can be sure is listened to.


----------



## JTG (Aug 13, 2013)

_Don't pick them Asians, they're rubbish_


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 13, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Scyld Berry in the Torygraph has written more nonsense - this time about Khawaja (has been removed from the online edition)


What a cunt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2013)

Wow. I'm quite staggered they printed that. Might look into ways to fuck him over tomorrow. There must be ways.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

That has to be a _you are fucked mate -fuck off_ - situation.


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow. I'm quite staggered they printed that. Might look into ways to fuck him over tomorrow. There must be ways.


You could start by confronting him about it on Twitter.


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2013)

The (UK) Cricinfo homepage now has a dedicated Ian Bell link at the top, along side links on the Ashes and County Cricket.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 14, 2013)

Scyld Berry article picked up by the Grauniad - Torygraph declining to comment http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/14/daily-telegraph-ashes-cricket-article On the plus side, the comment was complained about by Torygraph readership initially


----------



## Idaho (Aug 14, 2013)

Onions broken a finger. Not that the oval would have been his natural home.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> Scyld Berry in the Torygraph has written more nonsense - this time about Khawaja (has been removed from the online edition)


 
Particularly horrid in light of recent revelations about Australia's policy for handling asylum seekers. Fucking shameful that such rubbish could get printed in a 'quality' national newspaper.


----------



## paulhackett (Aug 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Particularly horrid in light of recent revelations about Australia's policy for handling asylum seekers. Fucking shameful that such rubbish could get printed in a 'quality' national newspaper.


 
He's written a response here.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ge-the-uniquely-placed-Australia-batsman.html His wife is Indian and he's done a lot of work for charity. So that's OK then.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> He's written a response here.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ge-the-uniquely-placed-Australia-batsman.html His wife is Indian and he's done a lot of work for charity. So that's OK then.


 
That is...astonishing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2013)

paulhackett said:


> He's written a response here.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ge-the-uniquely-placed-Australia-batsman.html His wife is Indian and he's done a lot of work for charity. So that's OK then.


 
Would've been more convincing had he not mentioned his wife, but I get where he's coming from. I think I originally read the article in the picture as he 'should' be shelved, and consequently that it was right and proper to avoid picking Asian players in future, but looking at it again it seems more like an expression of regret at something he sees as an unfortunate inevitability.

He didn't mention Sajid Mahmood among English Asian cricketers though, I know he never had much of an international career but I liked him. His first test match was a blinder IIRC.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

You get where this old non-racist racist fool is coming from? 





> It has been immensely gratifying to see inner-city players appreciating the opportunity to play on decent pitches, having grown up playing on council-owned park pitches where a bouncer is likely to shoot along the ground. It cost me a lot of time and money – and it was very worthwhile.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> He didn't mention Sajid Mahmood among English Asian cricketers though, I know he never had much of an international career but I liked him. His first test match was a blinder IIRC.


Form deserted him the last couple of years. Released by Lancs.

There is a big discussion to be had about the disappearance of black and Asian players from the county circuit. But this isn't the place for Scyld Berry to be discussing that. An apology of some kind would have been nice, rather than that apologia: 'I'm sorry you misunderstood me' seems to be the gist of it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Would've been more convincing had he not mentioned his wife, but I get where he's coming from. I think I originally read the article in the picture as he 'should' be shelved, and consequently that it was right and proper to avoid picking Asian players in future, but looking at it again it seems more like an expression of regret at something he sees as an unfortunate inevitability.


It reads to me like he is someone who can't see beyond race as the prism through which to view things. He mentions Panesar, Patel and Bopara, but is there any real analysis that shows that any of those three has been treated differently because of their Asian background? I don't think there is. Panesar has become a figure of fun because of his comically bad fielding - just as Phil Tufnell was once upon a time. It's a bit unfortunate in a way, but also a bit inevitable. I don't see Patel particularly as a figure of fun - and if anything he got a pretty good crack at Test cricket considering he's no better than a part-time bowler and his batting isn't great. And Bopara? Well, he was tipped for great things but didn't come off. Whose fault is that?

And Nasser Hussain doesn't count because his mum's white (he said 'English', but I'm guessing he meant 'white')? Is that how these things are worked out?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

He's not a proper paki.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It reads to me like he is someone who can't see beyond race as the prism through which to view things. He mentions Panesar, Patel and Bopara, but is there any real analysis that shows that any of those three has been treated differently because of their Asian background? I don't think there is. Panesar has become a figure of fun because of his comically bad fielding - just as Phil Tufnell was once upon a time. It's a bit unfortunate in a way, but also a bit inevitable. I don't see Patel particularly as a figure of fun - and if anything he got a pretty good crack at Test cricket considering he's no better than a part-time bowler and his batting isn't great. And Bopara? Well, he was tipped for great things but didn't come off. Whose fault is that?
> 
> And Nasser Hussain doesn't count because his mum's white (he said 'English', but I'm guessing he meant 'white')? Is that how these things are worked out?


 
Patel's main problem seems to be not bothering to sort out his own fitness. Never saw him as a figure of fun myself.


----------



## Santino (Aug 15, 2013)

Bresnan out for the foreseeable with a stress fracture of the back.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 15, 2013)

Where was Onions at the time?


----------



## Santino (Aug 15, 2013)

He's broken a finger anyway.

Tremlett must be favourite to step in. Any other seamers but Finn kicking around for 12th Man?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2013)

Compton?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 15, 2013)

On the Guardian Ashes podcast they were suggesting dropping Anderson, I think to prevent burn out (or at least lessen the already present effects) and keep him safe for the winter. Can't remember who they suggested bringing in in his place though.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 15, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> On the Guardian Ashes podcast they were suggesting dropping Anderson, I think to prevent burn out (or at least lessen the already present effects) and keep him safe for the winter. Can't remember who they suggested bringing in in his place though.


 

Ben Stokes is a name that's been put forward a bit this summer, and he's playing for the Lions tomorrow. I guess all the bowlers in that team will think they've got a chance with Bresnan and Onions out.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 15, 2013)

Tremlett, Finn and Woakes are the names i've seen mentioned.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 15, 2013)

It's got to be Tremlett. If they don't pick him we're fucked in a couple of ways.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 16, 2013)

Woakes? Why? He's rubbish.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 16, 2013)

Saw that interview with Clarke - "we only lost by 75 runs, so we can take some positives from that" - wtf??


----------



## Santino (Aug 16, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Saw that interview with Clarke - "we only lost by 75 runs, so we can take some positives from that" - wtf??


It's progress from 2010-11 when they lost by an innings three times.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 16, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It's got to be Tremlett. If they don't pick him we're fucked in a couple of ways.


 
Possibly. His stats this season are not convincing (19 wickets at just shy of 40), given his age and the injury he has come back from he is at that crucial stage of whether he is working his way back to form and fitness or perhaps he is finished. England will clearly want him for the winter so given the match is a dead rubber they may just chuck him in to see how he gets on.

My gut feeling is that they will go with Finn, he is the future of England seam bowling and was treated a bit harshly when dropped after having to bowl on a beach at Trent Bridge. The Oval will suit Finn a lot more but the aussies will target him.  As a left field choice they may give Boyd Rankin a go.

With the injury to Bresnan I can't see them resting Anderson now, perhaps if Bresnan was fit but not now.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 18, 2013)

I'm blind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2013)

Looks like Monty's history, then. Woakes and Kerrigan in but unlikely to play. Finn also in, so will probably go to Aus. I'll be surprised if Tremlett for Bresnan isn't the only change. Bairstow set to complete the series - the results have kept him his place, a courtesy never extended to bowlers.

I see Gary Ballance is being tipped as a possible Bairstow replacement. Another player coming through the Southern Africa–Harrow School system. England make big noises about their 'chance to shine' scheme, even using it as one of the many justifications for the Sky sell-out, but where are the results from it? Has a single player come through to England consideration along that path?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 18, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Woakes? Why? He's rubbish.


 

TBH I thought that having only seen him in England one-dayers but his First Class record is actually much better - 37.67 batting and 25.48 bowling.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> TBH I thought that having only seen him in England one-dayers but his First Class record is actually much better - 37.67 batting and 25.48 bowling.


JTG is going to hate me for saying this, but might he be one of those medium-pacers like Jon Lewis/Mike Smith who do well on slightly dodgy seaming county wickets against weaker county batsmen but would struggle to trouble test players on test wickets?

To be effective at test level at medium pace, you need to be able to turn the ball around corners, as Mohammad Asif did.

That said, perhaps he would make the ideal fifth bowler batting at number 7?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> JTG is going to hate me for saying this, but might he be one of those medium-pacers like Jon Lewis/Mike Smith who do well on slightly dodgy seaming county wickets against weaker county batsmen but would struggle to trouble test players on test wickets?
> 
> To be effective at test level at medium pace, you need to be able to turn the ball around corners, as Mohammad Asif did.
> 
> That said, perhaps he would make the ideal fifth bowler batting at number 7?


 

Could be. He's obviously got some ability but whether he can step up to test level I've no idea. 

Or he could be England's Watson.


----------



## JTG (Aug 20, 2013)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish about Smudge and Lewey 

Jesse Ryder has been given a retrospective six month ban for drug use, expires in October. Short ban because he was able to prove he took it as part of a weight loss thing and thought he was in the clear, though he didn't check with the relevant authorities first, which makes him a moron. Which we already knew to be fair

In happier news, I've just read that Australia are now guaranteed to lose more Tests than they win this year, the first time they've had a losing record since 1988


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 20, 2013)

Speaking of players in a mess, Monty P released by Sussex. No detail on it, but he's clearly in a right state. Making positive statements about wanting to come back, though. Anyone know what has gone wrong for him?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2013)

Yeah, split up with wife, got in with that hamilton-brown twat, getting drunk all the time as a result. Essex picked him up for season now.


----------



## JTG (Aug 20, 2013)

Hamilton-Brown himself seems to have his own issues, what with his mate Tom Maynard dying and R H-B leaving Surrey as a result


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2013)

He had his issues before that as well. I doubt what happened helped in anyway - or him being caught up in this monty pissing on bouncers thing either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 20, 2013)

Good speech by Rahul Dravid on the future of cricket.

Much of it is stating the obvious - need for relative pay for longer form to go up, need to structure the schedule around tests. I agree that day-night tests are worth a go where the climate allows. (ie, not England). And it's an interesting idea to have first class structures help each other.  Above all, the recognition at the end of a 'family' of cricket - it's no good for the rich members of the family (India, Eng, Aus) to just power off away from the poorer members.

Unfortunately, I think his point that players need to play four-day cricket to develop properly as t20 players is wishful thinking. The best way to get good at t20 is to play t20.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 20, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good speech by Rahul Dravid on the future of cricket.
> 
> Much of it is stating the obvious - need for relative pay for longer form to go up, need to structure the schedule around tests. I agree that day-night tests are worth a go where the climate allows. (ie, not England). And it's an interesting idea to have first class structures help each other. Above all, the recognition at the end of a 'family' of cricket - it's no good for the rich members of the family (India, Eng, Aus) to just power off away from the poorer members.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think his point that players need to play four-day cricket to develop properly as t20 players is wishful thinking. The best way to get good at t20 is to play t20.


I know the weather can be a bummer, but we did get in a fair amount of play only one test  being affected by rain


----------



## JTG (Aug 20, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I know the weather can be a bummer, but we did get in a fair amount of play only one test being affected by rain


It's more that evening dew can be a problem surely?


----------



## JTG (Aug 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, split up with wife, got in with that hamilton-brown twat, getting drunk all the time as a result. Essex picked him up for season now.


Selvey wrote something thoughtful and compassionate about Monty in the Graun. He's correct imho, hopefully Monty will go to Australia.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> Selvey wrote something thoughtful and compassionate about Monty in the Graun. He's correct imho, hopefully Monty will go to Australia.


 
This piece? It was treading around a number of issues, and i think managed to do it ok. Having a wobble is part of life. Some do it earlier, some do it later- this is clearly a life thing rather than anything else. I trust the england team to be able to deal with this properly now.


----------



## JTG (Aug 20, 2013)

Certainly better than before anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2013)

Hard to do worse.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Friday is the 45th anniversary of Basil D'Oliveira's 158 at the Oval against Australia. The one that outed Colin Cowdrey as a complete shit


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

Well spotted. Never forget.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Also, three months today, the Ashes will begin in Brisbane


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> Also, three months today, the Ashes will begin in Brisbane


 
Pure silliness, frankly.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

It's good to squeeze in as many Asheses as possible while England are the stronger team.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Pure silliness, frankly.


indeed


Santino said:


> It's good to squeeze in as many Asheses as possible while England are the stronger team.


indeed


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

England might be in trouble today... Australia have _reshuffled their batting order_.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> England might be in trouble today... Australia have _reshuffled their batting order_.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Anyway, another win please. Takes us to second in the ICC rankings and I was reminded by Cricinfo the other day that England didn't win a single Test against Australia between December 1986 and September 1993. I want a bash at inflicting a run like that on them.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Lehmann being disingenuous re: Broad. Pressure's getting to him already

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/663879.html

Again - he didn't 'edge to slip', he edged it to Iron Gloves Haddin, who deflected it to slip. Bit of a difference and it reeks of sour grapes coming from a tough old Aussie pro from their golden generation

Obviously the only person who's going to be 'crying and going home' is Lehmann


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

Woakes and Kerrigan playing?


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

No thanks


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Woakes and Kerrigan playing?


 
Are they? Seems unlikely tbh.

ETA: Apparently so - they've been given caps.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

Prepare for disappointment.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Weird, frankly


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

Bairstow out apparently.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Surprising.

In other news, Twatto's hair has been passed fit for the Test, though his front leg is still a bit too large


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

How much are the likes of Selvey being used by their mates in the England camp (Saker for instance) to publish duff info about England selections? All the chat has been of Tremlett etc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Aus going with a five-man pace attack.

Woakes ahead of Tremlett is weird but allows the second spinner, I guess.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

Australia win toss and bat.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aus going with a five-man pace attack.


 
Yeah, they definitely needed to strengthen the bowling


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Australia win toss and bat.


 
This should hopefully work out well, as I'm nipping up the pub from 12-1 and want to see wickets...


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

The Octagon said:


> This should hopefully work out well, as I'm nipping up the pub from 12-1 and want to see wickets...


Watson's in at three
Smith's in at five past


----------



## Dan U (Aug 21, 2013)

So woke up today with the chronic shits and a car that wouldn't start and had to be got to the garage as we are going to shambala at the weekend. 

Tickets gone to waste. If anyone can get to me - I live near Dorking but have no transport - and then up to the oval you are welcome to 2 tickets in the OCS stand.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

Dan U said:


> So woke up today with the chronic shits and a car that wouldn't start and had to be got to the garage as we are going to shambala at the weekend.
> 
> Tickets gone to waste. If anyone can get to me - I live near Dorking but have no transport - and then up to the oval you are welcome to 2 tickets in the OCS stand.


 

I can cycle down and give you a seaty.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

Kerrigan? Wallah?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

Ha! Warner oot!


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2013)

Just tuned in, maybe it's my magic day, take that Warner!


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Cheerio Dave


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

Almost into the tail.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

I hope Broad is spitting feathers over Lehmans comments.

What on earth was he thinking on winding up a mercurial fast bowler?!


----------



## Dan U (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I can cycle down and give you a seaty.



Hhmm don't fancy my chances of that sadly


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Twatto. Number three. Ha de har har


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Into the allrounders now.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

Tuffers


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Dan U said:


> So woke up today with the chronic shits and a car that wouldn't start and had to be got to the garage as we are going to shambala at the weekend.
> 
> Tickets gone to waste. If anyone can get to me - I live near Dorking but have no transport - and then up to the oval you are welcome to 2 tickets in the OCS stand.


 
Now you tell me 

Sorry to hear about your woes though


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

I don't want to know about Botham's fucking socks


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> I don't want to know about Botham's fucking socks


 
Lies.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Lies.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

I am somewhat confused.  Is there anything whatsoever in LBW's batting history to suggest that he has what it takes to be a #3 batsman?  Isn't #3 supposed to be the pivotal position?  Who wants to pivot around Twatto?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I am somewhat confused. Is there anything whatsoever in LBW's batting history to suggest that he has what it takes to be a #3 batsman? Isn't #3 supposed to be the pivotal position? Who wants to pivot around Twatto?


 
He's there because Clarke doesn't trust any of the openers, the middle order and increasingly, himself. It's a chuck him in there and see if the shit sticks to the wall thing.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Who wants to pivot around Twatto?


Do you mind? I've just eaten


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

(OT: did anyone esle read this astonishing piece over the weekend?)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

> Anderson to Watson, no run, full on the stumps, Watson shapes to play to leg and misses


 
 He still hasn't worked it out. Play straight, silly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Anderson equal with Willis for wickets now, I believe.


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Tuffers


 
What did he do? I missed it.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (OT: did anyone esle read this astonishing piece over the weekend?)


skim read. Wow


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anderson equal with Willis for wickets now, I believe.


yep. Joint second with only Botham ahead


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Looks like it's a dry turner. Just as well Aus picked the extra seamer.


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anderson equal with Willis for wickets now, I believe.


 
Yep, they noted that on the radio commentary when he took Warner.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 21, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Now you tell me
> 
> Sorry to hear about your woes though



Yeah I thought of you tbh but left making the decision as late as possible for obvious reasons.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Yeah I thought of you tbh but left making the decision as late as possible for obvious reasons.


 
Nah, you did the right thing.  Besides, I had some stuff I had to take care of at work this morning.  Couldn't really leave it.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Looks like it's a dry turner. Just as well Aus picked the extra seamer.


The ghost of Nathan Hauritz


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

The Octagon said:


> What did he do? I missed it.


 

Just gabbling bollocks.


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Just gabbling bollocks.


 
Was that the bit about his holiday in Rome?


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Can't be long before Darren the Racist starts picking himself at three tbh


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

JimW said:


> Was that the bit about his holiday in Rome?


 

Yep.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

Twatto's in the 30s shouldn't be long now.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Well this is not the best start for Woakes' test career.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

Bairstow treated poorly imo.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Well this is not the best start for Woakes' test career.


 

Even though Tremlett was not in the best shape he would of been far more of a handful that Woakes.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

I am reserving judgment. Suffice to say I am sceptical of the team selection


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> I am reserving judgment. Suffice to say I am sceptical of the team selection


 

What's your view on 2 spinners at the Oval?


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2013)

Be horrible if the selection somehow contributes to Watson finally getting past his wicket-chucking ways.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 21, 2013)

Yeah let's pretend it's the 1990s and stick a one day bits and pieces player in a test match


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

No Onions at Durham. No Tremlett at the Oval.

Fuck it. I'd even have a heart broken pissed up Monty + out of shape Tremlett for Woakes and Kerrigan


----------



## Idaho (Aug 21, 2013)

We desperately need gabi to put a bet on Australia.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Fuck it. *I'd even have a heart broken pissed up Monty* + out of shape Tremlett for Woakes and Kerrigan


 
One's stock can go up when one is not playing sometimes. One over and off for Kerrigan. Rough. Sorry, two overs and off. t20 figures at the moment.

Woakes + Kerrigan: 7 overs for 58 runs.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> What's your view on 2 spinners at the Oval?


As good an idea as two spinners at Old Trafford would have been

More perplexed about Woakes tbh. Not saying they're wrong per se. Just...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

Barmy decision to play 2 spinners.

Woakes is decent player at county level, still young and with much to improve on. Wouldnt take too much notice about his bowling today. Kerrigan - good bowler but got hammered by Watson in the Lions game. To bring him on when Watson had just got warmed up against Woakes was


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 21, 2013)

For all the 'we really want to win' (and I'm sure they do want to) it's obviously a dead rubber selection isn't it. If they needed to win to win the ashes they wouldn't be taking the chance on these two.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

Joe Root in this series:

16 overs
3 wickets
11.33 Average
2.22 runs an over


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> For all the 'we really want to win' (and I'm sure they do want to) it's obviously a dead rubber selection isn't it. If they needed to win to win the ashes they wouldn't be taking the chance on these two.


 
They should pick a team to win, not play a dead rubber selection - which you are right, appears to be what they have done. Why pick Kerrigan on an Oval wicket?! Seriously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> They should pick a team to win, not play a dead rubber selection - which you are right, appears to be what they have done. Why pick Kerrigan on an Oval wicket?! Seriously.


The home of Laker and Lock? Madness.

If you think it's going to take turn, playing a left-right finger-spinning combination is totally right.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> For all the 'we really want to win' (and I'm sure they do want to) it's obviously a dead rubber selection isn't it. If they needed to win to win the ashes they wouldn't be taking the chance on these two.


Possibly some Michael Clarke style 'innovation' going on


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The home of Laker and Lock? Madness.
> 
> If you think it's going to take turn, playing a left-right finger-spinning combination is totally right.


Agree with that tbf. As I say, more concerned about Woakes.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Watson 80/Rogers 21. WTF fuck?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The home of Laker and Lock? Madness.
> 
> If you think it's going to take turn, playing a left-right finger-spinning combination is totally right.


 

It's 2013. The Oval is not as bouncy as it was once but it's still not a spinners pitch. As Vaughan said they happily play 3 seamers in India but go for 2 spinners at the Oval!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

I'm only following on the internet, but it seemed that Anderson was troubling Watson and was taken off a couple of overs early.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It's 2013. The Oval is not as bouncy as it was once but it's still not a spinners pitch. As Vaughan said they happily play 3 seamers in India but go for 2 spinners at the Oval!


Tbf, they very unhappily played three seamers in India. And UAE.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tbf, they very unhappily played three seamers in India. And UAE.


One of my gripes about Flower's selections is that he hasn't picked two spinners when it would have been advantageous. Examples above plus OT this year


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 21, 2013)

3 spinners.  We're playing 3 spinners.


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

100 pages for my thread (if you're viewing 30 posts per page)

Bat raised, helmet off, guard taken again


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> 3 spinners. We're playing 3 spinners.


Not convinced they're yet viewing Root as a full time bowling option


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> One of my gripes about Flower's selections is that he hasn't picked two spinners when it would have been advantageous. Examples above plus OT this year


Yep. Mine too. Repeating the mistake of UAE in India was criminal.

Root's a part-timer, and is also an off-spinner. You need a left-armer to partner Swann if you are going to commit to a spin attack.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> Not convinced they're yet viewing Root as a full time bowling option


 
Woakes is playing today because of his batting.  Someone somewhere has seen something in this pitch that demands 2 spinners; we're not likely to play with just 2 seamers so 1 bowler has to be an all-rounder.

The whole lineup is lopsided and it all stems from NOT seeing Root as a bowling option.  Not necessarily "full time", but he's useful if and when a pitch does turn out to be a turner.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The home of Laker and Lock? Madness.
> 
> If you think it's going to take turn, playing a left-right finger-spinning combination is totally right.


 
If we were playing on uncovered pitches 6o years ago i'd agree. They might know something we don't, but it seems barmy.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm only following on the internet, but it seemed that Anderson was troubling Watson and was taken off a couple of overs early.


 
Bookies favourite for a hundred you see?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> If we were playing on uncovered pitches 6o years ago i'd agree. They might know something we don't, but it seems barmy.


The covered-ness of the wickets is a good point. But it is a dry pitch that's already turning. Doesn't seem so barmy to me - if you have the second spinner that's up to it. Monty's up to it, but he's the only proven performer other than Swann.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

I've been thinking that a useful tool when watching Test cricket sometimes would be a Duckworth-Lewis-type calculator to help work out the likely range of scores from any given position. E.g, from 150-4, what is the typical score likely to be? You'd need to account for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th innings separately of course. I think to give a useful picture I'd want to know a) the mean total achieved from this position, b) the spread of totals across, say, the middle half of all such innings, c) maybe the mean total or both the top and bottom deciles from this position.

kabbes


----------



## JTG (Aug 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> I've been thinking that a useful tool when watching Test cricket sometimes would be a Duckworth-Lewis-type calculator to help work out the likely range of scores from any given position. E.g, from 150-4, what is the typical score likely to be? You'd need to account for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th innings separately of course. I think to give a useful picture I'd want to know a) the mean total achieved from this position, b) the spread of totals across, say, the middle half of all such innings, c) maybe the mean total or both the top and bottom deciles from this position.
> 
> kabbes


Pitch/venue/conditions


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> I've been thinking that a useful tool when watching Test cricket sometimes would be a Duckworth-Lewis-type calculator to help work out the likely range of scores from any given position. E.g, from 150-4, what is the typical score likely to be? You'd need to account for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th innings separately of course. I think to give a useful picture I'd want to know a) the mean total achieved from this position, b) the spread of totals across, say, the middle half of all such innings, c) maybe the mean total or both the top and bottom deciles from this position.
> 
> kabbes


 
Yes, that would be good.

You'd need all the data from all the matches to start to produce that. Do you have all the data, by any chance? Have you checked your desk recently?

ETA: of course, if I _did_ do that, I'd be much more likely to use it to place bets than to share it with the world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Watson hit. Give him another one!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

This has slowed right down since lunch.  Pin down LBWatson!


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Watson hit. Give him another one!


 

Keep it nasty.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Keep it nasty.


Couple of short ones then pin him lb.

Don't get the absence of Anderson.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 21, 2013)

Cheerio Clarke


----------



## Dan U (Aug 21, 2013)

Makes a change for someone else to get him out


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

100 for LBW.  To be fair, he's played a hell of an attacking innings.


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2013)

And maybe his luck really has turned with that drop, the fucker


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2013)

Dropped!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dropped!


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dropped!


 

By who??


----------



## Dan U (Aug 21, 2013)

Cook


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Cook's not been a safe pair of hands in this series, if my memory serves.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Cook's not been a safe pair of hands in this series, if my memory serves.


And what about his catching?

Aha ha ha, ha ha.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> And what about his catching?
> 
> Aha ha ha, ha ha.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 21, 2013)

Oof.. Looking good for Australia. But add two wickets... 

The dog ball often gets the wicket.. So here's Kerrigan.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 21, 2013)

Problem is if the wicket does get worse England bat last. Makes this 1st innings all the more important.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2013)

Operation: Papering Over The Cracks going to plan.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 21, 2013)

Finally....


----------



## Athos (Aug 21, 2013)

Watson gone.


----------



## MrSki (Aug 21, 2013)

Thank Derek it was not a No ball!!


----------



## Athos (Aug 21, 2013)

Couple more wickets tonight and it's England's day.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 21, 2013)

Athos said:
			
		

> Watson gone.



I think Watson has been putting tape on his pads


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I think Watson has been putting tape on his pads


 
Wonder if he realised you can be out caught as well, hence the poor attempt at a leave?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 22, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> For all the 'we really want to win' (and I'm sure they do want to) it's obviously a dead rubber selection isn't it. If they needed to win to win the ashes they wouldn't be taking the chance on these two.


Yep, stupid decision. Should have ground the Aussies down.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 22, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Yep, stupid decision. Should have ground the Aussies down.


 
I can see the sense in chancing it with one of them tbh. The best team to win the game would probably have included Tremlett but you need to give young players a chance sometime and it does make sense to use a game like this to give someone a go. But putting them both in leaves them very, very exposed if it doesn't work.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 22, 2013)

Raining buckets here right now.  Is it much different at the Oval?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 22, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Raining buckets here right now. Is it much different at the Oval?


 
In Hackney the rain has stopped.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 22, 2013)

Only light drizzle in SW9 now.


----------



## Santino (Aug 22, 2013)

Twitter says it is raining in Kennington.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 22, 2013)

Yeah  we are not far down the road and it started again. Has slowed again but the skies are grey.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 22, 2013)

Forecast looks fairly fucked today.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 22, 2013)

Bairstow just scored a fifty at Nottingham.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2013)

Re: selection, I don't think it was boldness that led to the mistake of Woakes/Kerrigan. I think it was the opposite. It's the same thinking that led to Patel rather than Panesar being chosen as the second spinner in the first test in India. They are prepared to compromise the bowling to ensure that Prior bats at 7. And yet 6 has been a very unproductive position ever since the departure of Collingwood.

And despite the disaster that was Kerrigan yesterday, imo the real mistake in selection was Woakes. Released the pressure built up by Anderson/Broad in the first 10 overs.


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2013)

Outbreak of class analysis from Atherton on TMS, worrying that only public school kids will be playing in the future.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 22, 2013)

Vaughan not Atherton Jim


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Vaughan not Atherton Jim


 
Ooh cheers - I'm shit at past players


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 22, 2013)

Vaughan was educated at a comprehensive (according to wikipedia anyway)


----------



## kabbes (Aug 22, 2013)

Bright sunshine here now, so who knows?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Vaughan was educated at a comprehensive (according to wikipedia anyway)


In recent decades, the vast majority of England players have been from state schools. Bit of a damning indictment of the private system, given the advantages it has. But Vaughan is right if he is pointing out that the balance is changing - more players are from private schools now than was the case even just a few years ago. And that's a damning indictment of the idea that Sky money-funded schemes like 'Chance to shine' are any good. Vaughan and many others like him came through their local club system rather than playing at school.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 22, 2013)

Not sure that's the case with this current England team though. Excluding the South Africans i'd guess only Bell and Cook are from private schools?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 22, 2013)

Although from personal experience in league cricket is suffering a real shortage of players for many teams. They are struggling to find the numbers, especially village based teams where gentrification has meant the traditional base of players has been replaced by 4x4 driving tossers who want nothing to do with the village other than drive in and out of it.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 22, 2013)

I love listening to the cricket on the Radio. There's something very relaxing about it. Makes my afternoon's at work fly by.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Not sure that's the case with this current England team though. Excluding the South Africans i'd guess only Bell and Cook are from private schools?


 
Root is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2013)

mwgdrwg said:


> I love listening to the cricket on the Radio. There's something very relaxing about it. Makes my afternoon's at work fly by.


TMS is anachronistic, infuriating, self-indulgent, and bloody marvellous.


----------



## Santino (Aug 22, 2013)

Broad and Cook both privately educated.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Prior went to same school as Laurie Penny.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2013)

Root had a cricket scholarship. So quite possibly not much value added by the private school itself.

But yes, the numbers are higher now. In Nasser Hussain's team there was usually just the one - Nasser himself.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Prior went to same school as Laurie Penny.


 
The wicket-keepingest boy in a wicket-keeping school.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The wicket-keepingest boy in a wicket-keeping school.


 
Certainly gave him an air of confidence.


----------



## Santino (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Prior went to same school as Laurie Penny.


Chris Tremlett went to the same sixth form college as Chris Packham, the BBC bird expert.


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Prior went to same school as Laurie Penny.


At least he went on to do something useful with his life.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Santino said:


> Chris Tremlett went to the same sixth form college as Chris Packham, the BBC bird expert.


 
And Theo Walcott. I wonder if any famous sporters or nature experts went to my school,


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Yes! Mike Barrett


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2013)

All I can find from mine is a Big Brother contestant.


----------



## Santino (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And Theo Walcott. I wonder if any famous sporters or nature experts went to my school,


I've got a Corrie actor, a prog rocker, an MP, a Premier league footballer and a Turner Prize winner.

State comprehensive, if you're asking.


----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2013)

Trott lol


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Haddin drags a ball from...Trott onto his stumps.


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2013)

Tufnell was noting how it was a bit odd to be using Trott what with having five bowlers but Cook obviously knows his stuff


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Would Root have displayed such imagination as captain?


----------



## Santino (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Would Root have displayed such imagination as captain?


He would have got the wicket himself, bowled Root caught Root (also keeping wicket at the time).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2013)

Good stuff from Aus. Already smashing it around for a quick declaration. Dodgy forecast for tomorrow, too, so they must anticipate losing a few more overs.


And as I write that, the looming declaration gives Woakes his first wicket.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2013)

> Woakes to Starc, FOUR, slower ball from Woakes but it goes back pretty quickly in the opposite direction, Starc picked it and thumped a half-volley through mid-on


It's morphed into a t20 match. 

ETA: 33 runs and a wicket in the last 4 overs.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2013)

lol @ Harris swatting flies 

Declaring on 500? A few overs to bowl at us?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2013)

Won't see a finer bowled & caught than that. Nice one Jim lad.


----------



## Athos (Aug 22, 2013)

The Wikipedia entry for my old school reveals not a single noteworthy alumnus.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 22, 2013)

Cook and Root both on double figures. Was beginning to wonder if I'd ever see the day.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/2...y-successful-with-michael-clarke-at-the-helm/

aaww


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2013)

Tim Bresnan went to the same college as me.


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 23, 2013)

No cricketers at my old school, but by checking I've discovered that Martin Freeman went there.

Bilbo


----------



## Santino (Aug 23, 2013)

Fascinating nugget from cricinfo: If you _discount one of the matches_, Australia have scored more runs and taken _almost as many wickets_ as England.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

If you forget 25% of the series played - fantastic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/2...y-successful-with-michael-clarke-at-the-helm/
> 
> aaww


Pretty poor show from Hayden, that. He himself comes across very badly, imo. To me it comes across that a young player found an unwelcoming group of older players in the dressing room and struggled to fit in.

Don't know what to think of Clarke really. I think he's a tactically excellent captain, far better than Cook, who is mechanical and unimaginative. I was disappointed that Cook didn't bowl Kerrigan yesterday. IMO that shows poor judgement. Clarke would have thrown him the ball, I'm sure.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 23, 2013)

Santino said:


> Fascinating nugget from cricinfo: If you _discount one of the matches_, Australia have scored more runs and taken _almost as many wickets_ as England.


 
There's been quite a lot of that hasn't there. Especially after the last game - 'well, apart from the total batting collapse in the second innings, Australia did very well.'


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 23, 2013)

Yes, it would be churlish of us not to admit that, for the most part, Australia have lost extremely well.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

Beautiful weather here in central London.

A good day to be batting.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

If we can do well today we could take advantage of the oncoming inclement weather this weekend. Lots of stopping and starting allowing let Jimmy put his feet up to come out fresh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

Great contest this morning. High quality test cricket on a flat pitch.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 23, 2013)

Tremlett takes 8 at Durham


----------



## Idaho (Aug 23, 2013)

Root... Lame.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Tremlett takes 8 at Durham


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2013)

Not much spin so far?

I can't watch out of principle so i don't know. 

Another wicket now and England might really feel the pressure with an inexperienced/non-scoring bottom half of the order that's not exactly inspiring confidence.

CR Woakes, MJ Prior†, SCJ Broad, GP Swann, JM Anderson, SC Kerrigan


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

34 overs left in the day. They can still avoid the follow-on today. They're a long way towards killing the game, which appears to be the only plan. Credit to Aus bowlers too, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 34 overs left in the day. They can still avoid the follow-on today. They're a long way towards killing the game, which appears to be the only plan. Credit to Aus bowlers too, though.


 
Just batting isn't avoiding the follow-on - it's not a negative choice, it's just playing.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 23, 2013)

The changes to the team really are totally wtf  - bad selections in their own right, plus it upsets the balance of the team, and also goes against the England philosophy / strategy of sticking to the same XI as much as reasonably possible. Harsh for Kerrigan too, bet his confidence has been badly knocked.

Oh, and Shane Watson is a cunt


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Just batting isn't avoiding the follow-on - it's not a negative choice, it's just playing.


 
Scoring at just over 2 an over in reply to a total of 500 is not a positive choice. I'm not particularly knocking it, but so far three batsmen - Cook, Trott and Pietersen - appear to continue to be badly out of nick.

One problem with scoring this slowly is that they were barely half way towards avoiding the follow-on when the second new ball became due. We'll see how this session pans out...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Scoring at just over 2 an over in reply to a total of 500 is not a positive choice. I'm not particularly knocking it, but so far three batsmen - Cook, Trott and Pietersen - appear to continue to be badly out of nick.


 
If they chose to bat at that rate it's a 'positive choice'. And the rate has been up and down all all day. It's now three over the last 10 overs. Is that intent to force a result or just how test cricket goes? Esp when, as you suggest, the aus bowlers have been pretty good.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

Let's hope Woakes goes out and gets a ton.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

Tough day with honours shared, I would say. Shame about the weather forecast - with two full days' play left, this match would be intriguingly placed.

I'm disappointed by the slow wicket. The Oval should be fast and bouncy - imo it is important that wickets should keep their historical characteristics. Perth bounces, Sydney turns. Likewise the Oval and Old Trafford in a less dramatic way. These things are important. No wonder the full-on quick bowler is disappearing from English cricket. Steve Finn is dumped on the first sign of inconsistency. But Lillee and Thomson were inconsistent. That's what being fast usually does - the Marshall level of pace with control is incredibly rare. Give Finn a bouncy Oval and tell him to let rip.

Pleased to see Starc finding rhythm today. Test cricket needs hostile quick bowlers, imo. Evidently many cricket authorities think otherwise.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 23, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Let's hope Woakes goes out and gets a ton.


I hope he does. It'll be his last test either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Root is too slow. 

Who do you want Vic? Trego?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Root is too slow.
> 
> Who do you want Vic? Trego?


 
I have a slightly different take on Root from VM. I don't see him as like Atherton - when he's going, he's more fluent than Atherton was. I think Cook's loss of form and recent tendency to become bogged down has affected the rest of the top order.

I don't really agree that Cook and Strauss are similar either. Strauss could go into his shell when he wasn't in form, but in form, he was a savage cutter and sweet timer of the ball.

I've just checked and the stats back up my memory of Atherton - a funereal 37 s/r. In other words, today's England performance was standard fare for Atherton. I don't think even Cook is like that at his best - at his best, he's prepared to grind at the start, but unfurls his shots as the day goes on. At the moment, he isn't getting into that second mode at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

He could if he batted lower down and COMPTON killed the new ball.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

Is there a case for Cook dropping to no. 3? Give him more time to switch from thinking about the captaincy to thinking about his own batting? If memory serves, that's what Vaughan did.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

No.


----------



## Santino (Aug 23, 2013)

The 'splitting the partnership' argument would be useful cover to drop Root down the order.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

I haven't been able to follow this test because of work but I like the idea of todays play. It's nostalgic memories of when just not getting out was triumph for England. I think it's a shame that Kerrigan didn't get a couple of overs yesterday at least. When Watson had gone, he could have had a chance to find his rhythm, get the disaster out of his system. He's not as bad a bowler as yesterday suggested. Woakes on the other hand bowled quite well in a sense but wasn't dangerous. That's more concerning than a player bowling badly and getting whacked, when a player bowls ok and gets whacked suggests he might not have what it takes.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if any famous sporters or nature experts went to my school,


 

My school alumni includes the fabulously un-famous footballer Neil Whitworth. He also was the worst player I've ever seen wear a Blackpool shirt. He was so bad in the one game I saw him play it was like a random man from the crowd had been picked to play a game of football. At that point I was oblivious to our shared history, perhaps I would have been more sympathetic had I known. There were no famous ornithologists apparent in my research though apparently a one time editor of the Angling Times was a pupil.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

Santino said:


> The 'splitting the partnership' argument would be useful cover to drop Root down the order.


Won't happen yet, though, if at all. Root and Cook will open in Brisbane. I even suspect that Bairstow might get another go and start in Brisbane too. I'll be very surprised if Compton is even on the plane.

Personally, I'd drop Root down the order, drop Bairstow and pick Carberry, who is in the form of his life by all accounts.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

They're not going to take no backup batsmen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're not going to take no backup batsmen.


I may well be proved wrong, but I don't think Compton will be one of them. Carberry appears to me to be being lined up for the one-dayers, and if he impresses in those, I think he'll go with the test squad.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Won't happen yet, though, if at all. Root and Cook will open in Brisbane. I even suspect that Bairstow might get another go and start in Brisbane too. I'll be very surprised if Compton is even on the plane.


 

I think Boycott is right about Bairstow - He needs to go and play in county cricket to develop his keeping as much as anything. The danger for him is that he's the right man to replace Prior in a few years but when the time comes he'll not have had enough experience with the gloves.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I may well be proved wrong, but I don't think Compton will be one of them. Carberry appears to me to be being lined up for the one-dayers, and if he impresses in those, I think he'll go with the test squad.


 

I agree with you about what will happen but disagree with the non selection of Compton. If Carberry has a blinder, that's the best chance of seeing Root down the order. They can spin it as more punch at the top of the order, rather than a retrograde step. I think it's Root whose more likely to play at three than Cook to be honest (someone suggested it above), but that will take Trott to stay out of nick for a while longer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I think Boycott is right about Bairstow - He needs to go and play in county cricket to develop his keeping as much as anything. The danger for him is that he's the right man to replace Prior in a few years but when the time comes he'll not have had enough experience with the gloves.


He's not the regular keeper for Yorks, is he?

I'm not a big fan of what SA have done, converting a batsman in de Villiers. I'm old-fashioned in that I think a keeper needs to have proved himself with the gloves before he's picked.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I agree with you about what will happen but disagree with the non selection of Compton. If Carberry has a blinder, that's the best chance of seeing Root down the order. They can spin it as more punch at the top of the order, rather than a retrograde step. I think it's Root whose more likely to play at three than Cook to be honest (someone suggested it above), but that will take Trott to stay out of nick for a while longer.


Oh Cook would need another poor series at least before he's moved. And tbh, I do keep expecting him to come good again, and still do in Aus.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Kieswetter and Buttler don't exist?


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's not the regular keeper for Yorks, is he?
> 
> I'm not a big fan of what SA have done, converting a batsman in de Villiers. I'm old-fashioned in that I think a keeper needs to have proved himself with the gloves before he's picked.


 

I don't know if his lack of keeping with Yorkshire is anything to do with the fact he's rarely there. I think he's regarded as at least a competent option at county level. I'm not saying he's the only man that can replace Prior, just agree with Boycott that it might be _his_ best bet for a long test career, but he's not kept for a long time. I suppose it's like saying 'what if Flintoff hadn't developed his bowling' - He'd never have been quite good enough as a test bat but his bowling initially seemed very innocuous trundle.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Kieswetter and Buttler don't exist?


I've never seen Buttler keep. I have seen Kieswetter. No thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I don't know if his lack of keeping with Yorkshire is anything to do with the fact he's rarely there. I think he's regarded as at least a competent option at county level. I'm not saying he's the only man that can replace Prior, just agree with Boycott that it might be _his_ best bet for a long test career, but he's not kept for a long time. I suppose it's like saying 'what if Flintoff hadn't developed his bowling' - He'd never have been quite good enough as a test bat but his bowling initially seemed very innocuous trundle.


Yep. It's an interesting point. When he bats, he looks like he's the keeper, tbh! But I'd want to see him fully formed as a keeper before getting the test spot. I also don't want to write off Prior just yet.  He's had an awful summer, but he can come back.

I'm a bit of a purist with keeping. When there are better keepers around, I hate seeing someone keep the spot because of his better batting, even when it's justified. Taylor was a better keeper than Knott, but Knott was very good and a far better batsman, so fair enough to pick Knott. But Russell shouldn't have been replaced by Stewart and more recently, I think Chris Read should have had much more of a go. The keeper sets the tone in the field - good or bad. And tbh I never thought much of Bairstow's dad's keeping.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. It's an interesting point. When he bats, he looks like he's the keeper, tbh! But I'd want to see him fully formed as a keeper before getting the test spot.


 

He's kept in Yorkshire's last game (today) - batted at 8! Got 62 + took 6 catches. I know what you mean about his batting.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/match/593512.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

So that's his thinking too, then. Maybe he's even had a word in his ear. I think with the keeper position, I can see why he has to be able to bat, but I also think there is a minimum standard his keeping has to pass. So Knott passed that. Stewart did to the quicks, but not the spinners. I think you need to pass it to the quicks and the spinners.

Perhaps it is their lack of quality spin that has persuaded SA to use de Villiers. The real art to keeping is standing up, but he barely needs to do that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

I'm seething about Tremletts and Onions treatment. We may of given them a proper spanking this summer.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> - batted at 8!
> 
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/match/593512.html


 

Closer inspection of the scorecard reveals he was a replacement after 50 overs. Which explains the position in the order.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm seething about Tremletts and Onions treatment. We may of given them a proper spanking this summer.


They should have played, as should Monty at Manchester, I think. Tim Bresnan might be secretly pleased that his replacement here has proved inadequate. Good example of your stock going up when you're _not_ in the team.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm seething about Tremletts and Onions treatment. We may of given them a proper spanking this summer.


 

Agreed. I have no idea why Woakes got a game other than to confirm a doubt. Tremlett scares the Aussies. Simon Hughes and Jarod Kimber were chuckling about them letting Woakes get a ton so England have to pick him again...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> I have no idea why Woakes got a game other than to confirm a doubt. .


Same reason Patel played ahead of Panesar in the first test in India - because he can bat. They simply won't move Prior up from seven, it seems, in any circumstances at all. And they'll compromise the bowling to make sure he stays at seven. I've thought it's misguided for a couple of years now, when you have Bresnan, Broad and Swann who can all bat.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They should have played, as should Monty at Manchester, I think. Tim Bresnan might be secretly pleased that his replacement here has proved inadequate. Good example of your stock going up when you're _not_ in the team.


 
Anderson
Broad
Tremlett
Onions
Bresnan
Swann
Panesar

That's a bloody good squad but something tells me they won't all be going to oz


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

Mind you, I confidently predicted Steve Smith would be a comical disaster so Woakes will probably smack a ton and take 8/24 as England grind Aussie into the dust and then after an England collapse, he'll hold the tail together brilliantly and hit the winning runs with a towering 6 on the last ball of the match in fading gloom. A new Ian Botham will be born!


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same reason Patel played ahead of Panesar in the first test in India - because he can bat. They simply won't move Prior up from seven, it seems, in any circumstances at all. And they'll compromise the bowling to make sure he stays at seven. I've thought it's misguided for a couple of years now, when you have Bresnan, Broad and Swann who can all bat.


 

It's 5 bowlers lite... The great taste of a five man attack with less of that unhealthy tail.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Anderson
> Broad
> Tremlett
> Onions
> ...


Agreed. With Panesar, it isn't cricketing reasons, of course - but his stock is going up rapidly during this match. Five of those will definitely go. And I think Finn will go too. Onions may be considered the wrong kind of bowler for Aus pitches. If Panesar's out of favour, it's barely worth picking a reserve spinner. I don't think there are any who are good enough at the moment.

Onions is the most unlucky of the lot, I think. He might never play for England again at this rate.


On a side note, as the weather closes in and England grind on for the draw, it's possible Aus won't even bat again, or will only bat very briefly. Makes Cook's decision not to use Kerrigan yesterday even worse. He might just have that first day horror show as his memory of test cricket for a while.

I wonder if the unexpectedness of his call-up caught even him unawares and unprepared mentally. Bit like Bryce McGain - if you haven't had time to psyche yourself up, you might not get nervous until it's too late to be able to control it.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 23, 2013)

Assuming England get to bowl again, what would you do with Kerrigan? Personally I'd chuck him the ball at the earliest convenient moment. If he got Watson it could make a test career for him. Not bowling him would be like putting a batter down to 11 who got a duck. I don't think they manage the bowlers very well sometimes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Assuming England get to bowl again, what would you do with Kerrigan? Personally I'd chuck him the ball at the earliest convenient moment. If he got Watson it could make a test career for him. Not bowling him would be like putting a batter down to 11 who got a duck. I don't think they manage the bowlers very well sometimes.


Yep. Assuming it's the final day, he has to come on when he would have come on if he'd taken five wickets in the first innings. Either before Swann or with him. If it's Watson, fine. It's not about how many runs he goes for, but the quality of his deliveries - and that's the bit he can control.

It's tough. I can't remember his name, but I remember a one-day final a few years ago, and I think it was a Warks bowler, who had a very strange round-arm action. As round-arm actions can, it went wrong and he bowled wide after wide in his first over. It was a 10 or 11 ball over in the end, and that was it - that was his professional career over right there. It was horrible watching it - you just wanted him to bowl the legal balls he needed to so he could stop. If Kerrigan's terrible again, that could be devastating for him, but he's got to try.

Ottis Gibson tells a story about his first first class match. He was playing with Malcolm Marshall and itching to get a wicket. He bowled his first ball in the 'corridor' and it was defended away. Marshall had positioned himself at mid-on, and Gibson asked him as he walked back what he thought he should do next. 'Bowl it there again', said Marshall. So he did, with the same result. Then he asked again next ball. 'Bowl it there again' came the reply, so he did. And Gibson went on to bowl a maiden in his first first class over. He'd been itching to try all sorts of things to get a wicket with every ball. But Marshall taught him another way - a maiden in your first over with the batsman playing every ball is a fine start for any bowler.

I think Kerrigan will need this kind of approach. Bowl his stock delivery, and bowl it as well has he can, ball after ball, for as long as necessary. Then take it from there. Monty used to get slated for doing that, but it can be the best thing to do.

I think the reason Gibson tells that story is to emphasise the point that where the batsman has played a defensive shot for no runs, the bowler has done a good thing - so the bowler should keep doing that: it will either result in no run if the batsman plays it well, or a wicket if he doesn't. It's obvious but perhaps easy to forget: 'oh, that didn't get him out, so I ought to try something else'.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Assuming it's the final day, he has to come on when he would have come on if he'd taken five wickets in the first innings. Either before Swann or with him. If it's Watson, fine. It's not about how many runs he goes for, but the quality of his deliveries - and that's the bit he can control.
> 
> It's tough. I can't remember his name, but I remember a one-day final a few years ago, and I think it was a Warks bowler, who had a very strange round-arm action. As round-arm actions can, it went wrong and he bowled wide after wide in his first over. It was a 10 or 11 ball over in the end, and that was it - that was his professional career over right there. It was horrible watching it - you just wanted him to bowl the legal balls he needed to so he could stop. If Kerrigan's terrible again, that could be devastating for him, but he's got to try.
> 
> ...


 

Yes. I agree. Interesting anecdote about Gibson there as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Yes. I agree. Interesting anecdote about Gibson there as well.


To be fair to Australia, their bowlers showed this attitude today. Ryan Harris impresses me particularly in that respect.

The point of comparison of Kerrigan and the hapless Warks bowler is perhaps that because of nerves, they could not release the ball at the right moment, which buggered Kerrigan's length and, because he was round-arm, the Warks bowler's length and direction. Then you start trying to control it consciously, and that's when you're doomed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2013)

Another aside: a thought about round-arm bowlers.

Malinga is almost horizontal, which means that small changes in the moment he releases the ball hardly change the length at all. They change the direction, of course, but his speared-in yorkers do vary in direction a bit, from just outside off to just outside leg. His round-armedness is in fact a big advantage in getting consistent length, the trade-off being variable direction.

He still has only tiny margin of error, but then so do all death bowlers in one-dayers, where batsmen hit on length.

This could be the reason why certain specialist one-day bowlers like the Warks man I mentioned have had round-arm actions - their ability to bowl consistent yorkers.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 24, 2013)

Here's a free and easy poker tell. Pushing your tongue out when you have a bad hand, or in a bad situation. You see cricketers do it a lot in tv interviews - esp Cook. Kerrigan bowled his whole two spells with his tongue out. I bet he never does that for Lancashire.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2013)

Idaho said:


> Here's a free and easy poker tell. Pushing your tongue out when you have a bad hand, or in a bad situation. You see cricketers do it a lot in tv interviews - esp Cook. Kerrigan bowled his whole two spells with his tongue out. I bet he never does that for Lancashire.


 
And I bet he was using his conscious mind to try to control when he released the ball. But that's no good - our conscious awareness is after-the-fact. If we say 'now' in conscious awareness, it's already too late! I've just had a look at Kerrigan's first two overs, and they fit the pattern. The first ball to go for four in his first over was a low full-toss: released a fraction early. First over actually wasn't a disaster, but Watson hit him for two fours. Then came the disastrous second over as the conscious mind tried to control the moment of release, resulting in a series of long hops - released too late.

The tongue thing can be because it takes quite a bit of brain space to control the tongue and stop ourselves from biting it, so we tend to put it somewhere safe when we're concentrating on something else. It isn't always a bad thing. Steve Davis sticks his tongue out when he plays snooker - always has done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2013)

Did anybody speak to Kerrigan between the first and second overs? Tell him it's ok? I think it was that stewing period that buggered him. Advice would have been not to try to adjust the length, but just 'bowl what you know'; don't think, just bowl your stock ball; you know how to do it without thinking.

Perhaps tellingly, I guess Swann won't have said anything as he was bowling at the other end. That was the moment to speak to him - after the first over. After the second over was too late. But Swann might never have suffered from anything similar, in which case, he might not have had any idea what to say. In my experience of doing martial arts, people who don't suffer from bad performances because of nerves find it hard to understand why those who do do.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2013)

It's a very wet Hackney.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 24, 2013)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> It's a very wet Hackney.



Yup. Still steady rain in SW9 so late start :/


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did anybody speak to Kerrigan between the first and second overs? Tell him it's ok? I think it was that stewing period that buggered him. Advice would have been not to try to adjust the length, but just 'bowl what you know'; don't think, just bowl your stock ball; you know how to do it without thinking.
> 
> Perhaps tellingly, I guess Swann won't have said anything as he was bowling at the other end. That was the moment to speak to him - after the first over. After the second over was too late. But Swann might never have suffered from anything similar, in which case, he might not have had any idea what to say. In my experience of doing martial arts, people who don't suffer from bad performances because of nerves find it hard to understand why those who do do.


 

If you watch the Darryl Tuffey over where he bowls about 9 no balls/wides Damian Fleming comes and speaks to him twice. Each time it clearly has a positive effect.

I don't really know why Cook is captain other than the fact he's probably the most likely pick, he is well groomed and is a 'good example' as he is disciplined and concentrates hard. I don't think he really offers a lot tactically or 'emotionally' - mind you, of the England team - who does look like they have a great 'cricket brain?' - I'm not sure if any of them would make especially inventive or clever captains. It's very much England, great at pre meditated plans, great at executing them but struggle to find plan b or know what to do when plan a isn't working. Mind you, all my criticism is a bit harsh - we are 3-0 up!


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 24, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> If you watch the Darryl Tuffey over where he bowls about 9 no balls/wides Damian Fleming comes and speaks to him twice. Each time it clearly has a positive effect.
> 
> I don't really know why Cook is captain other than the fact he's probably the most likely pick, he is well groomed and is a 'good example' as he is disciplined and concentrates hard. I don't think he really offers a lot tactically or 'emotionally' - mind you, of the England team - who does look like they have a great 'cricket brain?' - I'm not sure if any of them would make especially inventive or clever captains. It's very much England, great at pre meditated plans, great at executing them but struggle to find plan b or know what to do when plan a isn't working. Mind you, all my criticism is a bit harsh - we are 3-0 up!


 

I need to stop using 'inverted commas' so much.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's not the regular keeper for Yorks, is he?


 He's Yorkshires first choice keeper these days, probably in part in England seeing him as a possible in that role.

Hodd might have kept more this year but that's only because Bairstow has been off with England.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2013)

Am I being daft thinking we could win this?

We could knock off the remaining runs in good time tomorrow with Bell in the finest of form; Woakes with something to prove and a ticket to oz to earn; Prior due a decent innings, back to his punchy best; Broad coming out to punish the Aussie coach with a classy innings; Swann with a swashbuckling half century and Anderson stoically not losing his wicket.

Then make an early dent into their top order to put them under pressure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2013)

yes, you are being daft. England will grind on past the follow-on, probably very slowly, and probably in bowler-friendly conditions. And then they will just grind on for as long as they can, batting all day if possible.

Poor old Kerrigan may very well not get another bowl. I feel for him - if he hadn't played in this match, he'd probably have gone to Australia, and might have had a taste of the big stage first in a lower-pressure one-dayer.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2013)

I dunno if I'm tired and misreading but William Hill have odds 100/1 for an England win.

I'm tempted to lob a tenner on.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

I think i should probably just put myself to bed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Don't.

There's no value in that. I don't bet, but I can see that there are certain things that are not any value whatever the odds. Say, Swansea to win the Premiership. They're not a bad team, but that can't happen. The odds are irrelevant.

Famously, England were 500-1 to win at Headingley 81. But the difference there was that there was still time left. That still could happen. Here there is no time.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yes, you are being daft. England will grind on past the follow-on, probably very slowly, and probably in bowler-friendly conditions. And then they will just grind on for as long as they can, batting all day if possible.
> 
> Poor old Kerrigan may very well not get another bowl. I feel for him - if he hadn't played in this match, he'd probably have gone to Australia, and might have had a taste of the big stage first in a lower-pressure one-dayer.



Too true. And in the post match interviews they'll claim they were definitely trying to win but its all about percentages and fair play to aus they made it hard blah blah blah. I hope the first hour yields about 70 runs and we left going wtf!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

What's the weather looking like in South London this morning?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Too true. And in the post match interviews they'll claim they were definitely trying to win but its all about percentages and fair play to aus they made it hard blah blah blah. I hope the first hour yields about 70 runs and we left going wtf!


I think the weather has totally vindicated their strategy. If they'd batted at 3.5 an over, even if they'd kept their wickets in tact they'd still have virtually no chance of winning the match (they'd have to bowl Australia out in one and a bit sessions).  Whereas if they'd been bowled out for 250, they'd very much be fighting to save the match today.


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

In Test cricket there's no shame in playing to save the game when the other side has put on a good first innings score. Make the game safe first, and be ready to take opportunities when they present themselves.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2013)

Very stupid news 


> Snicko could be used in this winter's Ashes series between England and hosts Australia.
> International Cricket Council chief executive Dave Richardson says the use of Snicko - which detects edges - will be considered following problems with technology this summer.
> There have been calls for thermal-imaging system Hot Spot to be scrapped.
> "Snicko will probably be the first bit of technology introduced," Richardson told BBC Radio 5 live's Sportsweek.
> "It's always been reliable."


It's absolutely rubbish and slow as slug.


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

Be funny if England declared just after avoiding the follow-on. There you are Australia - do you want to play some positive cricket?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Any decent streams ?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

http://www.coolsport.tv/skysports2.html


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2013)

Anyone listening to TMS? Boycott criticising everything under the sun and Blowers going into raptures over a cake, classic TMS


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 25, 2013)

I thought Boycott was fairly positive this morning.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

fen_boy said:


> I thought Boycott was fairly positive this morning.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.coolsport.tv/skysports2.html


 
It keeps crashing my browser.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It keeps crashing my browser.


 

Fine for me (Chrome)


----------



## fen_boy (Aug 25, 2013)




----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2013)

That's surely not PG rated


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 25, 2013)

New Barmy Army song according to fb feed...

"Don't cry for me Darren Lehmann. The truth is I knew I nicked it, but like an Aussie, I stood and waited. The finger stayed down, how well I faked it!"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

Terrible shot from Woakes


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 25, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> New Barmy Army song according to fb feed...
> 
> "Don't cry for me Darren Lehmann. The truth is I knew I nicked it, but like an Aussie, I stood and waited. The finger stayed down, how well I faked it!"


 


> I met a traveller from a sunburnt land,
> Who said: "Three vast and splayed-out stumps of stone
> Stand in the outback. Near them, on the sand
> Half sunk, a green cap lies, whose faded crest
> ...


Doing the rounds.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

I'm really quite the cricket novice (contain your shock), but what chance is there of Cook declaring after avoiding the follow on? As I understand it he's quite a pragmatic and safe captain, so won't he just make sure we avoid the loss?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2013)

Well the dressing room just sent out a message so that might indicate something


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm really quite the cricket novice (contain your shock), but what chance is there of Cook declaring after avoiding the follow on? As I understand it he's quite a pragmatic and safe captain, so won't he just make sure we avoid the loss?


None. They'd be conceding Australia the chance to win the game, without gaining any chance of winning it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> None. They'd be conceding Australia the chance to win the game, without gaining any chance of winning it.


Well Jonathan Agnew disagrees...



			
				Aggers said:
			
		

> "I just don't see how England could possibly lose by declaring, it would be a really positive thing to do for the game and for everyone here. I can't see any reason for them not to. I'll try very hard not to get grumpy if they don't."


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> None. They'd be conceding Australia the chance to win the game, without gaining any chance of winning it.


 
 How so? For Australia to have a chance of winning they'd also have to give England a chance of winning.

(Not that I think it's going to happen)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Having just done the maths, England would have to get 200 plus whatever the Aussies put on in what, half a day at the absolute most?

Really never going to happen, is it?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Having just done the maths, England would have to get 200 plus whatever the Aussies put on in what, half a day at the absolute most?
> 
> Really never going to happen, is it?


yep. If England declared now, Aus could come out and do a quick 15-20 overs for 100 or so. No way you're gonna chase down 300+ on a day 5 pitch in 60 overs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm really quite the cricket novice (contain your shock), but what chance is there of Cook declaring after avoiding the follow on? As I understand it he's quite a pragmatic and safe captain, so won't he just make sure we avoid the loss?


 
Jonathan Agnew wanted it. In fact, he half had me believing that they might just do it and DrRingDing might just have had that bet last night, as Clarke would have made a sporting declaration.

But no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> How so? For Australia to have a chance of winning they'd also have to give England a chance of winning.
> 
> (Not that I think it's going to happen)


Yep. And Clarke has already proved that he is willing to risk defeat to increase his chance of victory - and not just in dead rubbers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> New Barmy Army song according to fb feed...
> 
> "Don't cry for me Darren Lehmann. The truth is I knew I nicked it, but like an Aussie, I stood and waited. The finger stayed down, how well I faked it!"


Ah, 10,000 fans singing their heads off at Brisbane. What a spectacular backfire on him.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Well the dressing room just sent out a message so that might indicate something


Was the message "we don't want to declare so could you just get yourself out, old sport?"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Jonathan Agnew wanted it. In fact, he half had me believing that they might just do it and DrRingDing might just have had that bet last night, as Clarke would have made a sporting declaration.
> 
> But no.


It's the kind of declaration only made by match-fixers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's the kind of declaration only made by match-fixers.


It's standard fare in county cricket. It's just a declaration to set up a result where both teams want to win more than they care about losing. I don't agree with you - reverse the positions, and I'm pretty sure Clarke would have declared.

That said, I've never seen intentional cafeteria declaration bowling in test cricket, and I'm not sure I ever want to.

ETA: Maybe. Then again, 4-0 is historic, isn't it? Maybe Clarke will be very keen to avoid that.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's standard fare in county cricket. It's just a declaration to set up a result where both teams want to win more than they care about losing. I don't agree with you - reverse the positions, and I'm pretty sure Clarke would have declared.
> 
> That said, I've never seen intentional cafeteria declaration bowling in test cricket, and I'm not sure I ever want to.
> 
> ETA: Maybe. Then again, 4-0 is historic, isn't it? Maybe Clarke will be very keen to avoid that.


Should've added _in test cricket_, obviously in county cricket all the incentives work in favour of getting a result... I honestly don't think Clarke would declare in the reverse position either. Risk a humiliating defeat on the off-chance they get back to 3-1? Nah.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Should've added _in test cricket_, obviously in county cricket all the incentives work in favour of getting a result... I honestly don't think Clarke would declare in the reverse position either. Risk a humiliating defeat on the off-chance that get back to 3-1? Nah.


Thinking about it, you might be right about Clarke too.

And I do take your point about match fixing. Cronje might have declared.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thinking about it, you might be right about Clarke too.
> 
> And I do take your point about match fixing. Cronje might have declared.


still, England are being generously aggressive here anyway. Going to be bowled out for a score that gives Australia a chance...


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

*England 1st Innings350 for 7 (137.0 overs)*

   RunsMinutesBalls4s6s
Cook c Haddin b Harris 25 138 88 3 0
Root c Watson b Lyon 68 237 184 11 0
Trott lbw b Starc 40 192 134 2 0
Pietersen c Watson b Starc 50 189 133 4 0
Bell c Haddin b Faulkner 45 204 143 5 0
Woakes c Clarke b Harris 25 81 70 5 0
Prior not out   35 67 46 5 0
Broad   b Starc 9 21 16 1 0
Swann not out   24 13 11 3 1
Extras 3nb 5w 11b 10lb 29  
Total for 7 350 (137.0 ovs)


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Seen worse.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 25, 2013)

Having an F1 break from the cricket at the moment. Have sport overdose today


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

well, we'll see how "positive" the aussies are in about half an hour. 60+ overs left, they could come out, blast 100 off 20 overs (and risk a batting collapse) set a target of 220+ to get in 40 odd overs.


----------



## JimW (Aug 25, 2013)

Aussies will be all out for less than a hundred then it's just a leisurely chase after tea.


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

Anyone know why Clarke's wearing a black armband?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Santino said:


> Anyone know why Clarke's wearing a black armband?


From the BBC feed:


> Sam Sheringham, BBC Sport at The Oval
> "Some of the Australian players are wearing black armbands today to mourn the death of Damien Mednis's father. Mednis is the Queensland Bulls strength and conditioning coach and those who know him, including Michael Clarke, Ryan Harris and Chris Rogers, are wearing the armbands."


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

Thanks.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Odds now dramatically changed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

4/67


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2013)

Plenty overs to make up as well.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Odds now dramatically changed.


in what way?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> in what way?


 
100/1 last night
10/1 now


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

for an England win at William Hill


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> for an England win at William Hill


Still not seeing that. Realistically they aren't going to chase down 200+ in 40 overs... (can't think of an occasion when anyone has in test cricket)


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Warne wanking on about Clarke's marvellous captaincy. He's lost 3 tests, and all he's realistically introduced here is the possibility of an Aussie kamikaze defeat...


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Still not seeing that. Realistically they aren't going to chase down 200+ in 40 overs... (can't think of an occasion when anyone has in test cricket)


 
.....and another wicket!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> .....and another wicket!


an exercise in reducing Broad's bowling average


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

and another!


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

86 for 6


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Broad on track for another five-fer. Seems a little cheap, but doubt he'll care.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

201 ahead.

Chase a 240 lead?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

fucking hell Warne is talking a load of bollocks.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

So will Clarke declare during tea? Will he play positive cricket?


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

Declared.


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

At Edgbaston in 2005 England scored at 5.13 an over. 44 overs at 5.13 would be... 225.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Santino said:


> At Edgbaston in 2005 England scored at 5.13 an over. 44 overs at 5.13 would be... 225.


In the first inning. On day one.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Aggers has called the declaratin "quite generous" - does he mean it's offering something to England to chase, or that it's quite a large target?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2013)

Former.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Aggers has called the declaratin "quite generous" - does he mean it's offering something to England to chase, or that it's quite a large target?


that he's given England a target they could plausibly get. We'll bad normally for 20 overs, then have a go if we've got wickets in tact I imagine.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Really? Fair enough, still seems a pretty high target to me, on a 5 day old pitch (he says, parroting what he's heard over this series  ).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Really? Fair enough, still seems a pretty high target to me, on a 5 day old pitch (he says, parroting what he's heard over this series  ).


Well usually you would bat on until you had so many runs that there was no danger of losing the game. If Australia bowl badly here they might put themselves in a difficult situation.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Well, three overs in and we're just about on target


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Run rate 5.22 according to blowers so far


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

100/1 i should of put a tenner on


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> 100/1 i should of put a tenner on


 
Odds now *England @ 7/2  *


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> 100/1 i should of have put a tenner on


I know it's annoying, but it's just as annoying for me to leave it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Run rate 5.22 according to blowers so far


Well never listen to me on betting matters. I read this wrong.

Good on Clarke though that's a juicy carrot


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Root gone.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> 100/1 i should of put a tenner on


nah. Two wickets and this run chase is over. (well, you could've laid it off against those ridiculous odds at this point...)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> nah. Two wickets and this run chase is over.


True. But 100-1 looks good now


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> nah. Two wickets and this run chase is over. (well, you could've laid it off against those ridiculous odds at this point...)


 
2 wickets and we may have bell and pietersen at the crease


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> 2 wickets and we may have bell and pietersen at the crease


Bell and Pieterson at the crease playing for a draw.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Bell and Pieterson at the crease playing for a draw.


 
Pietersen played a bizarrely conservative innings before but i get the feeling he may come out playing his natural game.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

180 more needed for a win.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

5.45 an over


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Trott looking positive.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Easy, all you have to do is get one 6 an over and you're laughing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Aus can shut up shop too if this goes on. Odds still stacked on the draw


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aus can shut up shop too if this goes on. Odds still stacked on the draw


of course. Although if you spread the field you start leaking singles, which is tricky if the rate if 5-6.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

England look so much better when they are looking to score. Too many bad balls not put away on friday.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Trott you beauty.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

80/1


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

142 more to win


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2013)

Faulkner is no test bowler. Trott timingvis gorgeous atm.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Light


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

So Mr Pietersen what does one have to offer?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

This is his time to shine like no other.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

96/2


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> This is his time to shine like no other.


erm... not sure about that one


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

Run rate's hit 6 now. Not a chance from 22 overs.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

That's it waste your reviews


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2013)

What a fantastic review.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Run rate's hit 6 now. Not a chance from 22 overs.


 
Let's see if Pietersen can get in and let loose.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What a fantastic review.


 

They should be banned from reviewing shite like that ffs.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

99/2


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

100/2

6.05 runs an over


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Go on KP all will be forgiven.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Pietersen has just taken that run rate back under 6


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 25, 2013)

This is pretty exciting actually... Very unlikely we'll make it, but it would be great if we could crush them into the dirt in a final flourish


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

6.3 per over.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

100/1  so close to putting on a tenner


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

What price was that for?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

((((Lyon))))


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> This is pretty exciting actually... Very unlikely we'll make it, but it would be great if we could crush them into the dirt in a final flourish


 
Australia should be massively embarrassed if they lose this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What price was that for?


 
Last night William Hill had odds of 100/1 for an England win.

100/1


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

98 more runs to win


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Last night William Hill had odds of 100/1 for an England win.
> 
> 100/1


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

138/2


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

Gwan KP!


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 25, 2013)

Smash 'em Kev! CRUSH THEM!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

Smack Watson round the fucking park an all.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Half century for Kevin. Fastest 50 in Ashes history.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 25, 2013)

tbh even if we don't win, unless there's a major collapse, it'll be a great finish to the series, and it should silence any aussie whinges about "oh well we nearly won, lots of positives etc etc blah" - the aussies should never have let this happen after a 492 first innings (obvs).


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Why aren't they bowling Harris. I'd be bowling the fucker into the ground.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

64 more to win


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Right Mr Bell. Man of the series?
Let's see it then.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 25, 2013)




----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)




----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

182/4


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Woakes looking good.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Prior, Broad and Swann to come.

I'd swap Broad and Swann in the order.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Bell has a look on his face that says "this run rate stuff is a bit vulgar, isn't it? I'm a classically trained cricketer for god's sake..."


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Michael Clarke looking mightily pissed off


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Just got home from work, thought it might be over by now. This is a bit fun, innit


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

100/1  DrRingDing


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Mixed emotions. Desperately want them to win but ruing not sticking that tenner on for 100/1

I could of been a grand up.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

There's a guy on the BBC feed who apparently put £10 on at 175/1


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 25, 2013)

Bell went through a bad spell ,but hasn't put a foot wrong this series


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Missed a bit of TMS putting the kettle on (have I ever started a more English sentence?! ), were Blofeld and Tufnell suggesting Australia are going to bowl shit balls that England just can't get runs off?

Light?! _Light?!!_ Fuck off!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

FFS!!!

Give the batsmen back the fucking LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

They've taken them off 

Jaysis... I hope the umps' cars aren't too identifiable!


----------



## JimW (Aug 25, 2013)

Light it is then. Moral victory will have to do.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Aug 25, 2013)

Boo!


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

Waste of a chance to have a tie.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 25, 2013)

Grrrrr!!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Santino said:


> Waste of a chance to have a tie.


it's not a tie unless they bowl England out...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Mixed emotions. Desperately want them to win but ruing not sticking that tenner on for 100/1
> 
> I could of been a grand up.


 
Now you're a tenner up.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

JimW said:


> Light it is then. Moral victory will have to do.


What's that, 2-1 in the series to Aus? Suppose it's good to get one on the board.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> There's a guy on the BBC feed who apparently put £10 on at 175/1


He lost £10


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Now you're a tenner up.


Oh God, that guy who put a tenner on at 175/1!  He must be going absolutely spare! 

e2a: 





Lo Siento. said:


> He lost £10


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2013)

The ICC should refund everyone in the fucking ground. Or give the batsmen back the light!

Crock of fucking shite.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Aug 25, 2013)

Someone should of hidden those light meters.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> He lost £10


 

Betting is a mugs game. He's a mug. lol


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 25, 2013)

Best result, guaranteed to change the rules now. Only a shame that DRS wasn't culpable of the same paradox.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Well I'm kinda relieved it's a draw as I could seriously do with a grand.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2013)

Apparently Bresnan and Bairstow are in their whites.

Any word on whether they've got their shinpads on?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 25, 2013)

well, awfully nice of that Michael Clarke chappy to offer us a chance to win the game  (I'd be fuming if I were the Cricket Australia management though, cause that kind of gimme is not what competitive cricket teams do)

(also thanks for helping our middle order put some form together and smash your bowlers all over the park )


----------



## Santino (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> In the first inning. On day one.


5.15


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> well, awfully nice of that Michael Clarke chappy to offer us a chance to win the game  (I'd be fuming if I were the Cricket Australia management though, cause that kind of gimme is not what competitive cricket teams do)
> 
> (also thanks for helping our middle order put some form together and smash your bowlers all over the park )


 
Yep Trott back in nick. Just what the Dr(RingDing) ordered.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 25, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Apparently Bresnan and Bairstow are in their whites.
> 
> Any word on whether they've got their shinpads on?


I hope someone shops JT into a pic


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> well, awfully nice of that Michael Clarke chappy to offer us a chance to win the game  (I'd be fuming if I were the Cricket Australia management though, cause that kind of gimme is not what competitive cricket teams do)
> 
> (also thanks for helping our middle order put some form together and smash your bowlers all over the park )


 

Yeah Michael Clarke was a good sport there, a shame the bad light rules couldn't also have been bent a little in the spirit of the occasion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Moronic. Utterly moronic.

Oh, it's the rules. We can't do the right thing because the rules say so.

Well rules are an evolving thing that never include the right decision for every position. Rules need to be fuzzy. Umpires need to be given the final say.

'These are the rules. Break them if you wish, but you will be held accountable if you do break them.'

That should be the position.

Not 'These are the rules. Break them and you're sacked.'

I would still have loved Dar and Darmasenha to have done what they clearly wanted to do, which was to tell Clarke to piss off - you're bowling the overs no matter how dark it gets as long as England want to carry on'

A total breakdown.

Moronic. And it must be changed.


But really, only one rule needs to be changed: It's up to the umpires. That's it. They will be held accountable afterwards, and sacked if necessary, but ultimately, it must be up to them what to do.

I'm disgusted by what happened today. I thought we had gone beyond such idiocies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Still, Australia take all the momentum into the next series. 

Clarke screaming at the umpires that his timewasting should be allowed to save him the game.

Fuck me, he was almost physically harassing them. Stay classy, Michael.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 26, 2013)

A great end to the series tbh, Aus thinking "fuck me we got away with that by the skin of our teeth" - almost more corrosive for them, the fear of what might have happened, than an actual loss. I reckon it'll bug them more. 

Watson's a cunt.


----------



## Santino (Aug 26, 2013)

Hugh Morris is leaving the ECB for Glamorgan, which leaves a convenient opening for Andy Flower.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 26, 2013)

Fascinating catching up with this thread after being out for the last few days.  I strongly recommend that all participants reread the last three or four pages.  A lot of you will cringe!  Lbj, remember saying that it was *impossible* that England could win?  That was funny with the benefit of hindsight.  And Lo Siento was prescient with talking about a situation in which England could be set 220-odd with 40-odd overs, but then spoilt it by saying that the run rate wouldn't be achievable.  And the £10 bet saga was great.  All good stuff, thanks all!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

Ironic that when more decisions are being taken out of the hands of umpires that one using technology in the shape of light meters gets so much stick that people want umpires to make the final decision. 

The technology said it was too dark so they went off. Why rely on the umpires 'lying eyes'? 

You reap what you sow. 

Frankly it's laughable that some people want to destroy the spirit of the game by removing the umpires roll in being the final arbiter of decision making, but then want them to make decisions on the light.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Ironic that when more decisions are being taken out of the hands of umpires that one using technology in the shape of light meters gets so much stick that people want umpires to make the final decision.
> 
> The technology said it was too dark so they went off. Why rely on the umpires 'lying eyes'?
> 
> ...


The point is flexibility. Rule-makers have to allow room for circumstances arising that their rules don't cover adequately. This is a case in point. Aus knew how many overs they had to bowl, and slowed things right up when they realised they couldn't win but England could, knowing that after 7.30 at this time of year, the light would start to fail. And they got a draw out of it as a result. Not a criticism of Aus particularly as England would have done exactly the same thing.

In Lahore 2000, when the rule was that the batsmen were offered the light, Pakistan were screaming at the umps, who, admirably, told them to go away. And England duly won - in light that was far worse than yesterday. I don't see what was wrong with the old system, and had we had the old system, the match would have continued to the end, and England would almost certainly have won.

I feel sorry for the umpires, but I am also a bit disappointed they didn't just say to hell with the rules and carry on. They'd have been risking their jobs, though, so I understand why they didn't. Not their fault - the fault lies with the people who made the rules. And actually we had the two best umpires out there. These two are good - the other two, Erasmus and Hill, are appalling.

I think we can pretty much guarantee that the rules will be changed now, but I hate it when cricket shoots itself in the foot like this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Combined with that, we need to sort out over rates. It's supposed to be 15 per hour, but nobody does that now. I agree with the idea of penalty runs for slow over rates. You'd instantly see teams bowling 15 an hour then.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

There's a common misconception about bad light affecting only batsmen. I played on saturday and at one point it got very dark. It was okayish for the batsman as they had sight screens but as the fielding skipper I was worried about player safety and the fact we were at a disadvantage as we couldn't see the ball to field it. 

Try picking up a fast moving red cricket ball coming out of a crowd of spectators at high speed. I'd argue it would have been harder for Australia than England to carry on in those conditions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> There's a common misconception about bad light affecting only batsmen. I played on saturday and at one point it got very dark. It was okayish for the batsman as they had sight screens but as the fielding skipper I was worried about player safety and the fact we were at a disadvantage as we couldn't see the ball to field it.
> 
> Try picking up a fast moving red cricket ball coming out of a crowd of spectators at high speed. I'd argue it would have been harder for Australia than England to carry on in those conditions.


You're right - in bad light it takes us longer to perceive things - but tough shit. The only reason they were out there was Aus's slow over rate.

But fielder safety? Really? It wasn't that dark. And even if it had been, it was Aus's decision to slow things down. It's really no different from Lahore 2000 - fielding team's fault they were still there in bad light, so they get no say in what happens. That's where the rules need to allow for this kind of thing - if the umpires think the fielding team has been time-wasting, they don't go off even if it's getting bad for them. Tough.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right - in bad light it takes us longer to perceive things - but tough shit. The only reason they were out there was Aus's slow over rate.
> 
> But fielder safety? Really? It wasn't that dark. And even if it had been, it was Aus's decision to slow things down. It's really no different from Lahore 2000 - fielding team's fault they were still there in bad light, so they get no say in what happens. That's where the rules need to allow for this kind of thing - if the umpires think the fielding team has been time-wasting, they don't go off even if it's getting bad for them. Tough.


 
I wasn't there, but tv cameras invariably make things look much lighter than they are. I saw a couple of photos of the players coming off and it was much darker than it looked on tele. Not to say it was too dark however... When i spoke about it being dangerous i was mainly referring to the game I was playing in, but there always has to be some concern for player safety, at any level.

I don't blame Australia for slowing it down, Clarke made a good game of it by tempting England with a reachable target and it's only expected that as the game goes on and gets closer to the finish that the fielding skipper takes more time over his field placings, thus stretching the game out. Having said that there was obviously some gamesmanship involved too.

The biggest factor for carrying on was that presumably the lights are the same ones used for the one day/night games, so im not sure how they can be too dark for test cricket, but not fow one day games. If it's purely a test match cricket 'light level' reading that is different from one day games then it seems completely ridiculous to take them off.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 26, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> The biggest factor for carrying on was that presumably the lights are the same ones used for the one day/night games, so im not sure how they can be too dark for test cricket, but not fow one day games. If it's purely a test match cricket 'light level' reading that is different from one day games then it seems completely ridiculous to take them off.


 

Apparently the red ball is harder to see when the floodlights are on.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Apparently the red ball is harder to see when the floodlights are on.


 

Ah yes, how silly of me   (re-engages brain)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

I wasn't there, but I was in London when it happened. It was murky but if this had been a one-dayer they would certainly not have stopped.

I don't blame Aus either, tbh. Clarke did what he had to do to avoid losing. I blame the stupid rule. There was nothing wrong with the old rule - offer it to the batsmen, if they say no, you carry on. If there is a small danger to fielders in the dark, it is nothing compared to the batsmen: Aus could legitimately put on their fastest bowlers bowling short balls into the ribs/ at the head, and if the batsmen are ok with that, that should be it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Cricketers get a lot of stick, but when it comes to the crunch and there's a match to be won, there are a lot of batsmen out there who will take on the conditions and have a go, despite the danger of injury. Cricket requires a certain amount of personal bravery, and I was glad to see every England player itching to play and get on with it no matter how dark it got. Good stuff. (I don't doubt that the Aussies would have been exactly the same.)

In the end I guess the result matters little. It would have been a bit of a steal to win this one. I just wish the series hadn't ended in farce.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

And one final thought on Ian Bell. Before his silly run-out, he was marshalling the run-chase coolly and calmly. He has come of age, and it is great to see. 

Pietersen, Trott and even Cook to an extent will have been pleased with the way they batted last night. Thanks for that, Michael.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 26, 2013)

The news is the English side with alcohol involved, pissed on the Oval pitch causing much raising of eyes.

That's two things they pissed over then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)




----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wasn't there, but I was in London when it happened. It was murky but if this had been a one-dayer they would certainly not have stopped.
> 
> I don't blame Aus either, tbh. Clarke did what he had to do to avoid losing. I blame the stupid rule. There was nothing wrong with the old rule - offer it to the batsmen, if they say no, you carry on. If there is a small danger to fielders in the dark, it is nothing compared to the batsmen: Aus could legitimately put on their fastest bowlers bowling short balls into the ribs/ at the head, and if the batsmen are ok with that, that should be it.


 

The danger is _relatively_ small to the fielders, but say Australia hadnt time wasted and it was darker - would it be fair for the fielding side to be expected to pick up a ball they cant see? If Australia were close to winning then would it have come down to whether the English batsmen felt endangered? It's a multi-faceted situation which has many variables - which makes any rule, whether it be the ICC one or the 'Umpires choice' very difficult to survive intact from all situations. Each team will want to do what is advantageous to them, and as much as the ICC rule is a bad one, it does take player interests out of the game. Of course this means that the game suffers for the spectator in certain instances.

I dont actually think its as easy as some commentators claim it is. It used to be the umpires choice for many years but this didnt make it any less controversial. Dickie Bird was well known for being a conservative bloke when it came to bad light and taking players off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> The danger is _relatively_ small to the fielders, but say Australia hadnt time wasted and it was darker - would it be fair for the fielding side to be expected to pick up a ball they cant see? .


 
No it wouldn't. And that is where the old rule can be improved. Here's how: If the fielding side has been bowling 15 overs per hour, their needs are considered. But if they haven't, then their needs are not considered at all until they've bowled the overs they should have bowled at the point the light became an issue.

This is stuff that can be hard to formalise in written rules but dead easy to work out at the time. It was obvious last night what the right thing to do was.

And as I said above, over rates generally are something that need sorting. It was the West Indies in the 70s/80s who first started bowling really slowly. With some justification, they argued that they still won within the time limit, but it's not on. 15 overs an hour is not unreasonable.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

Those interests are neatly put by Giles Clarke, who i doubt would be quite so vocal had the shoe been on the other foot.




> "It's totally unsatisfactory," Clarke told BBC Radio 5 live. "We've had a magnificent match and I'm afraid to say the rules are clearly completely unacceptable."
> He said David Richardson, the ICC's chief executive officer, should have addressed the issue long before Sunday's incident and added that he expected the ICC to act at its next board meeting in October.
> When asked if he would be making a representation to the ICC, Clarke added: "I'll be doing a little bit more than that."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Dickie Bird was well known for being a conservative bloke when it came to bad light and taking players off.


 
Yes, I remember it well.  And he never gave lbws unless it was hitting middle half way up.I don't think drs would have been very kind to Dickie, but at least he was consistent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Fuck Giles Clarke. He is a total cunt.

But I still think the rule is wrong. I'd be saying exactly the same if it had been Australia batting.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

Andy Flower says,



> Flower said the International Cricket Council needed to amend its rules.
> "In my opinion, it should be whether the contest between bat and ball is reasonable and fair," he said.



And how does he propose this be done exactly? Id like to hear it, honestly, because im not sure how you do it apart from using a light meter to give a reading that is calibrated to being safe or unsafe if someone is bowling above a certain pace. If the umpires say "either bowl spin or come off" then the fielding side might be more than happy to refuse to put a spinner on and come off the field of play. You can hardly have the umpires demand a team puts spinners on so the batting side can win the game.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

My solution!

You consider the needs of both bowling side and batting side but only once the bowling side has bowled the overs they were supposed to have bowled by that point. Until they have, you only consider the batsmen's wishes.

That works. I should send it in. 

You could word it in this way: Once the light has reached a point where it is considered that batting or fielding are compromised by it, you go off if either bowling or batting side wants to go off - basically whichever side you think is now at a disadvantage is given the opportunity to go off, whether it is batters, fielders, or both. If the bowling side switches to spinners, then the level at which it becomes unfair to the batters changes, so you stay on until it is so dark that it's unfair to them even with spinners. However, the bowling side's wishes are only considered once they have bowled the overs they were supposed to have bowled up to the point where light became an issue. If they haven't, then they must continue until they have, and only then will their wishes will be considered.


This really is such a fucking solvable problem.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 26, 2013)

Good work lbj


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My solution!
> 
> You consider the needs of both bowling side and batting side but only once the bowling side has bowled the overs they were supposed to have bowled by that point. Until they have, you only consider the batsmen's wishes.
> 
> ...


 

That's a pretty good call on the face of it, ill have to have a think and see if i can find any problems


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 26, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Fascinating catching up with this thread after being out for the last few days. I strongly recommend that all participants reread the last three or four pages. A lot of you will cringe! Lbj, remember saying that it was *impossible* that England could win? That was funny with the benefit of hindsight. And Lo Siento was prescient with talking about a situation in which England could be set 220-odd with 40-odd overs, but then spoilt it by saying that the run rate wouldn't be achievable. And the £10 bet saga was great. All good stuff, thanks all!


ahem. I'm claiming a technical victory on grounds that they didn't face enough overs to get the runs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> ahem. I'm claiming a technical victory on grounds that they didn't face enough overs to get the runs


Me too. They ran out of time. It was *impossible*. *cough*


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Me too. They ran out of time. It was *impossible*. *cough*


nearly possible is still impossible!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> nearly possible is still impossible!


Exactly. They got to the very fringes of the possible, and it still wasn't enough.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 27, 2013)

Given the wonderful and sporting way in which the aussie squad, management and press have conducted themselves this tour I do hope no one is so unkind as to question Clarke's Cronjeesq declaration.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 27, 2013)

So, Australia will be preparing wickets to neutralise Swann in the hope their pace attack can fare a little better than ours.

They're not going to be much better off are they?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 27, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So, Australia will be preparing wickets to neutralise Swann in the hope their pace attack can fare a little better than ours.
> 
> They're not going to be much better off are they?


 
Maybe.  Certainly England requested slow pitches to nullify the aussie pace attack and help Swann so its probably fair to say that Swann wont be as effective on the quicker oz pitches, but as last time it'll bring England's seamers into it and I think we have the better unit in that regard. 

Its not always wise to choose pitches based upon your opponents perceived strengths or weaknesses.  I remember Dhoni asking for turning pitches in the winter and then England pitched up with two better spinners then India had.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 27, 2013)

Anyone bold enough to make a prediction on the score down under?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2013)

I don't think this summer's slow pitches did England any favours, tbh. Their batsmen will prefer the pace and true bounce that they'll get in most of Aus.

I think both teams have good pace attacks. England have by far the better spinner, but Lyon's ok. But if England's top four can find some decent form, they should have the edge over Aus's batting.

On that basis, I'm going for 3-2 England, assuming no rain.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think this summer's slow pitches did England any favours, tbh. Their batsmen will prefer the pace and true bounce that they'll get in most of Aus.
> 
> I think both teams have good pace attacks. England have by far the better spinner, but Lyon's ok. But if England's top four can find some decent form, they should have the edge over Aus's batting.
> 
> On that basis, I'm going for 3-2 England, assuming no rain.


 

I'm feeling cocky and I predict we'll keep a clean sheet with 4-0.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 27, 2013)

Don't let them sing their stupid little song.


----------



## Santino (Aug 27, 2013)

The next person who says or writes the phrase 'in the form of his life' when talking about Ian Bell is going to get a punch on the nose.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2013)

'finally a man'.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 27, 2013)

3-1 England


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes! Mike Barrett


Bless him, may he rest in peace. I was a bit young to remember him but some of the old timers still bore the arse off us about how good Mickey was


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

Been away again, hello all.

Congratulations to Australia for a resounding victory in the moral Ashes  in the only contest that matters they romped home, humiliating England, who insisted on batting sensibly, waiting for the umpire's decision and celebrating their victories in a fashion that no Aussie bloke ever would.

Meanwhile, England have to console themselves with a mere 3-0 series win - almost 4-0 - and a third Ashes victory in a row 

Seriously though, here's a thought for you James Faulkner - wait until you've played a few Tests, maybe won a match or two (maybe even a series could be within your grasp! When are you due to play Bangladesh again?) before you have the cheek to try and criticise England's tactics. You complete arse. And your captain, Michael 'innovative' Clarke: so innovative that he nearly turned 3-0 into 4-0 with a declaration straight out of the Hansie Cronje school of 'sporting' tactics. How the fuck does he get all the praise and Cook gets slated when the series result was such an undeniable twatting?!

And now the dickhead Australian media try and deflect attention from their terrible team by mithering about some English players taking a piss on the Oval pitch when celebrating together. As though Warne's dicking about with a stump on the Lord's balcony or the Australian team's invasion of the home dressing room at Lord's in 2005 after England had gone home never happened. Dickheads.

Proud of our team, that was great. Same again in Australia please, these are shit 

Take time to smell the roses people, these are the good old days, right now


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

Congrats to Zimbabwe for beating Pakistan by seven wickets in the Harare ODI today. First win over Pakistan in 15 years


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

> "Look, I can't control the crowd. They've been pretty good all series. We've kept them quiet most of the time, even though we are 3-0 down, so it shows how close it probably is,"


Crowd kept quiet - mission accomplished. Well done Darren. You complete arse.

Racist too


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 27, 2013)

JTG said:


> Crowd kept quiet - mission accomplished. Well done Darren. You complete arse.
> 
> Racist too


Bless them. What are they going to do when they lose in Australia too?


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Bless them. What are they going to do when they lose in Australia too?


Bang on about how they're keeping the spirit of cricket alive single handedly. Same as when they used to win (I'm old enough to remember those days kids!)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2013)

Haddin knocking the bails off - didn't appeal like he did against NZ and kept his mouth shut when upheld.


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

Just pondering on that declaration some more...

What was Clarke trying to achieve? I don't actually believe he seriously thought they had a chance of winning but I do think that he thought Cook and Root would have a go, get out and then England would shut up shop. He wanted a share of the momentum they think is so bloody important over there, he wanted the moral high ground. He wanted everyone to go on about adventurous Australia v conservative England and get a bit of advantage for the return leg.

Instead England played it steady, scored at a faster rate for longer than Australia whilst losing fewer wickets and very nearly turned a certain draw into 4-0. He fell flat on his face in other words whilst Cook emerges as what he is - a confident leader of a united and solid team who believe they can win from anywhere. He may have a bit to learn but he's doing bloody well.

Meanwhile, for a captain who 'plays to win', Michael Clarke doesn't seem to be very good at it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2013)

JTG said:


> What was Clarke trying to achieve? I don't actually believe he seriously thought they had a chance of winning but I do think that he thought Cook and Root would have a go, get out and then England would shut up shop. He wanted a share of the momentum they think is so bloody important over there, he wanted the moral high ground. He wanted everyone to go on about adventurous Australia v conservative England and get a bit of advantage for the return leg.


Yes, I think this is right. Plus a long shot at actually winning, but yes, I think he thought England would not get anywhere near - that way, they could have chalked this one up with Old Trafford as a win denied by the weather. He was panicking at the end there when he was harrassing Dar.


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

I've also seen it argued that England effectively knew from around lunch on day two that the only way they'd win would be a suicidal declaration from Clarke and they engineered it beautifully. Not quite convinced by the argument but it's deliciously Machiavellian and it's certainly true that when the game was on in this series, it was England who were able to put their foot down - after all, why does Cook need to gamble when he knows that eventually Clarke will?


----------



## JTG (Aug 27, 2013)

England won the first T20 international today, meaning that they need only a tie or win from one of the two remaining T20 games to regain the women's Ashes


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 28, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Anyone bold enough to make a prediction on the score down under?


Hard to say, England will need to play better to be certain of winning.

Seam bowling wise there's not much to choose between the teams (if anything I think Australia may edge it), Swan is obviously a better spinner but Lyon can do a decent job. The batting is the question, England's is better but you've got some important players out of form. I think it will be close but I think England might sneak it, principally because I think Australia don't seem to be able to take their chances properly.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

7-0


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Bowling wise, Australian pitches are going to suit England's bowlers better than those we've had here this summer


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

Cook and Trott filled their boots on Aussie pitches last time they played there.  I'm fully expecting the same again.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Will the plans their bowlers put in place and executed rather well for Cook, Trott and Prior this last series work on their pitches? Have they the control required on faster pitches? And the patience at home?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Harris and Siddle have the control. I do think a key factor is going to be the state of Ryan Harris's body. They need him.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Harris and Siddle have the control. I do think a key factor is going to be the state of Ryan Harris's body. They need him.


 

Well maybe if he wasn't such a stocky chap he may not have so many injuries.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

At the risk of labouring the point (I'm still catching up on the detail of what happened at the Oval given I was away from a TV for the whole thing), here's the difference between Cook and Clarke as shown by the events of the fifth day's play:

1) Australia had built a solid first innings total and England had played safety first cricket to ensure they avoided following on or conceding a huge deficit. So far, so conservative from England/Cook - refusing the invitation to hit out before the match was safe. Cue post day 3 whinge from Faulkner about England not throwing their wickets away.

2) Fourth day washout meant the final day's play began with England still in their first innings. England then came out and went hell for leather to build as big a total as they could before being bowled out. Conservative? Yes, Clarke set attacking fields but he had done on day 2/3 as well and England didn't take the bait. This time they did.

3) Australia come out and the bash is on for quick runs. Yes it's attacking but they are frustrated by defensive fields and Cook's use of his three experienced bowlers to restrict bad balls. As a result, come tea - when Clarke must have decided he was going to declare come what may - Australia aren't nearly far enough ahead to justify what turned out to be a suicidal declaration. Out-thought by Cook again who knew that simply 'attacking' in the commonly understood sense of the term would have led to a far greater Australian lead when the declaration was made. Of course, England had some great resources to use in Anderson, Broad and Swann, but the captain could easily have decided to release the pressure by taking men off the boundary or bowling the weaker bowlers. He didn't.

4) Clarke sticks to his plan and declares at tea. 'Adventurous', 'bold, 'attacking' - call it what you will, I call it predictable and obviously foreseen by Cook who had ensured the final day's play led to Australia/Clarke being exactly where he wanted them and doing exactly as he anticipated.

5) The final act arrives and England smell blood, as they did at Chester-le-Street in different circumstances. They don't arse around with the batting order, bat positively without being silly and are chasing the target down with ease. Clarke panics, slows the bowling rate down (what price whinging about Stuart Broad now eh?) to a ludicrous 11 overs/hour and makes demands on the umpires to take the teams off for bad light. England fail to win the Test but Cook emphatically wins the tactical battle by reading his opponent like a book, manipulating the game better and being in a far better position to win come the denouement. Yes, he has better players but don't tell me that's all there is to his captaincy - England scored at a better rate, for longer and losing fewer wickets than Australia did on day five, both in the second innings and - crucially - in the portion of their first innings which was played in the morning of day five.

Of course, chance comes into it, as do better resources. But which captain makes the better use of his resources? It's Cook again. Look at the egos in that dressing room, look at the mess he inherited a year ago with the Pietersen saga and the fall out across the whole side. Does the England team look strong, united and playing for each other? Has Pietersen batted sensibly this summer or like an egotistical prat? Do the other players look like they have an issue with KP or anyone else? Meanwhile Clarke oversees a dressing room in which Australia's second and third best batsmen aren't even present, with Michael Hussey having retired well before he had to and Simon Katich is persona non grata. Twatto and his ego is clearly a problem, respect for Clarke appears to be questionable both in the team and in Australia generally and I can't see that idiot Lehmann helping at all. They're a mess. Captaincy isn't just about fancy field placings and left-field bowling changes.

If Australia, with moronic cheerleaders in the media like Shane 'be prepared to lose in order to win' Warne, take their main lesson from this series as being that they need to be more 'innovative' and 'attacking' in the field then that is very good news for England. It means they won't sort out their dressing room issues and they won't understand that there's more ways to win cricket matches and series than the two dimensional 'attack attack attack' philosophy of Warne and co. It's funny how Cook has supposedly been out-thought by the more 'imaginative' Dhoni, McCullum and Clarke yet has a combined scoreline of 7-1 from 14 Tests against them. That's not just down to better players, not by that margin.

England to win comfortably in Australia and a lot of people still won't understand why.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Great post. 4) is crucial - Cook trapped him into declaring from a weak position.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Incidentally, anybody complaining that England's approach to their first innings is 'playing for a draw' or whatever doesn't appear to appreciate that Test match cricket is played over five days and that the closing 4/5 sessions (or three in the case of this match) can speed the game along nicely. I'm glad that Alastair Cook does realise this.

Hopefully, Clarke will continue to completely balls up his declarations in Australia, as he did at both Old Trafford and the Oval


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Clake is a Captain. Cook is a Field-Marshall.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Yeah, good post, but I take issue with this bit: 'refusing the invitation to hit out before the match was safe'

I don't think that's really what happened on Friday. They crawled along towards safety with a mindset that actually saw a lot of bad balls not being scored off. Smith is a part-time leggie who often does not land it - but they didn't score off him. It's not a question of hitting out, but one of looking to score. England forgot to look to score on Friday, and a list of batsmen all getting in but only top-scoring 68 is symptomatic of that.

You paint an intriguing picture there, but it is laced with a little bit of post-fact wisdom.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, good post, but I take issue with this bit: 'refusing the invitation to hit out before the match was safe'
> 
> I don't think that's really what happened on Friday. They crawled along towards safety with a mindset that actually saw a lot of bad balls not being scored off. Smith is a part-time leggie who often does not land it - but they didn't score off him. It's not a question of hitting out, but one of looking to score. England forgot to look to score on Friday, and a list of batsmen all getting in but only top-scoring 68 is symptomatic of that.
> 
> You paint an intriguing picture there, but it is laced with a little bit of post-fact wisdom.


For sure - not claiming it was a perfect strategy and I didn't see a ball bowled so I won't pretend I know better than those who did about the details. It's a big picture analysis and tbh I'm only reasonably confident about the day five stuff. I do think that England encouraged Australia to write their own suicide note from the final morning onwards


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, good post, but I take issue with this bit: 'refusing the invitation to hit out before the match was safe'
> 
> I don't think that's really what happened on Friday. They crawled along towards safety with a mindset that actually saw a lot of bad balls not being scored off. Smith is a part-time leggie who often does not land it - but they didn't score off him. It's not a question of hitting out, but one of looking to score. England forgot to look to score on Friday, and a list of batsmen all getting in but only top-scoring 68 is symptomatic of that.
> 
> You paint an intriguing picture there, but it is laced with a little bit of post-fact wisdom.


 
Sometimes you can only see the plans after they have been executed. That usually means that it was a good plan.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sometimes you can only see the plans after they have been executed. That usually means that it was a good plan.


True. And I like jtg's idea that Cook suckered Clarke into that declaration. My issue isn't really with what England did on Sunday, but what they did on Friday. IMO they got themselves in a tangle on Friday.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

I've read it said that Friday saw Australia bowling negatively to conservative ODI fields - any thoughts? Had they wanted to win that badly, surely they'd have been bowling more wicket taking balls to attacking fields? Can they complain about boring batting if they themselves are bowling boringly?

Seems to me that Clarke is a compulsive declarer and England know this. They're manipulating his captaincy thought processes as much as they are any batting/bowling shortcomings. It calls into question how Clarke would have managed to lose at Old Trafford rather than that Test being the nailed on win some seem to think it was (with KP and Bell at the crease and two sessions to bat? Really?).

Clarke's also far too happy with losing. He's no Allan Border


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sometimes you can only see the plans after they have been executed. That usually means that it was a good plan.


England went from being unable to win, to unable to lose, to nearly winning anyway. And all the while never in danger of losing. That is absolutely brilliant strategy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Seems to me that Clarke is a compulsive declarer and England know this.


Yep.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 28, 2013)

If England had won yesterday, I'd wager most credit would have gone to Clarke for making a game of it. It certainly would have in my eyes anyway.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> If England had won yesterday, I'd wager most credit would have gone to Clarke for making a game of it. It certainly would have in my eyes anyway.


That kind of ignores England's batting in the morning and England's approach to Australia's innings in the afternoon when they knew they'd be having a bash


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> I've read it said that Friday saw Australia bowling negatively to conservative ODI fields - any thoughts? Had they wanted to win that badly, surely they'd have been bowling more wicket taking balls to attacking fields? Can they complain about boring batting if they themselves are bowling boringly?


 
It might not be logically consistent but it makes sense to follow up the tactic with that sort of rhetoric to try and pressure England into playing how they want.

I've quite enjoyed the attempts to claim various moral victories in the Australian press tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It might not be logically consistent but it makes sense to follow up the tactic with that sort of rhetoric to try and pressure England into playing how they want.
> 
> I've quite enjoyed the attempts to claim various moral victories in the Australian press tbh.


Claiming rain-affected draws as moral victories is one thing, but it's just a shame that Clarke got away with his timewasting on Sunday. Had he not, they'd have been claiming a rain-affected _defeat_ as a moral victory.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Anyway, captaincy isn't a popularity contest. Clarke's welcome to claim the credit for as many England wins as he likes in my view and I bet Alastair Cook is happy for him to do so as well


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Clarke's also far too happy with losing. He's no Allan Border


 
This is a good point. When you're in charge of a poor team, making them hard to beat is the first step out of the hole. Nasser Hussain knew this too.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> That kind of ignores England's batting in the morning and England's approach to Australia's innings in the afternoon when they knew they'd be having a bash


It also completely ignores the fact that Clarke wasn't just 'making a game of it' - _his declaration gave England a chance of winning and his own side no chance whatsoever!_ It was bizarre in that sense, the only way to understand it is by assuming that he had decided that he wanted to go out looking like the more attacking, positive captain and he had to back up the rhetoric to this effect both from within his own team and their supporters in the Aussie media. It backfired spectacularly and made him look a complete tit

ETA: it also shows his naivity in believing England wouldn't go for the win. Of course they would, England are a good side who believe in their own ability to win from anywhere


----------



## Santino (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> It also completely ignores the fact that Clarke wasn't just 'making a game of it' - _his declaration gave England a chance of winning and his own side no chance whatsoever!_ It was bizarre in that sense, the only way to understand it is by assuming that he had decided that he wanted to go out looking like the more attacking, positive captain and he had to back up the rhetoric to this effect both from within his own team and their supporters in the Aussie media. It backfired spectacularly and made him look a complete tit


To be fair to him, given the England top order's recent record, there was a possibility that a few wickets would be lost quickly and England would have shut up shop, and the story of the match would be spun as 'England saved by rain' (rather than 'England batting for a draw having lost a few wickets'), taking Clarke's record to two imaginary wins in the series.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> ETA: it also shows his naivity in believing England wouldn't go for the win. Of course they would, England are a good side who believe in their own ability to win from anywhere


 
Yep. His declaration at tea surprised me, I must admit. I agree with you that he had predecided to declare at tea so that they didn't lose change-over overs, and that they had scored about 30-40 fewer runs by then than he had hoped for.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Interesting point from Vic Marks:


> *Low point:* Chris Rogers, lbw b Swann 15 at Lord's. That was the high full toss. Horrible ball, horrible shot, horrible decision. After that Australia collapsed horribly and the outcome of the series seemed decided


Hard to argue against the idea that such a desperately poor piece of cricket from both sides and the umpire seemed to nail Australia's coffin shut at that early point of the series


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Interesting point from Vic Marks:
> 
> Hard to argue against the idea that such a desperately poor piece of cricket from both sides and the umpire seemed to nail Australia's coffin shut at that early point of the series


And it was Watson's fault, rather perfectly, even though he wasn't even on the pitch.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And it was Watson's fault, rather perfectly, even though he wasn't even on the pitch.


I love Twatto. Just not for the reasons he'd like to be loved for 

Too much self loathing in the press reviews of the series. Seriously guys, get over it. We won, we won well and we've been doing so for some time. Time to come to terms with it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Do they have the same four umps lined up for the winter? Time to call time on Erasmus and Hill. They are incompetent.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do they have the same four umps lined up for the winter? Time to call time on Erasmus and Hill. They are incompetent.


They have no option, all the other umpires on the elite panel are either English or Australian. Well thought out, that


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> They have no option, all the other umpires on the elite panel are either English or Australian. Well thought out, that


 
How often do they review the panel do you know?


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

No idea


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 28, 2013)

From a bit of googling looks like they do it annually in June, so unless they change that practice they'll be stuck with what they've got.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

This idea about Australia's bowling being as good as England's down under...

Pattinson - fitness in question
Harris - excellent but we know about his fitness
Starc - um, yeah
Bird - ditto
Lyon - honest toiler
Siddle - ditto
Cummins - injured

Which leaves Mitch when it goes wrong fitness wise. Obviously I've not mentioned mediocrities like Smith and Faulkner for a reason

Otoh, Anderson, Broad, Swann, Bresnan, Finn and Tremlett all love Australian pitches

Game on


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Another way of seeing Clarke's actions on Sunday: set up a chance for a thrilling climax, then cynically wasted time to deny the crowd that climax.

I'll stop having a go at him as soon as people stop making him out to be some daring chance taking genius, only denied glory by the cynical English and the paucity of talent available to him. He's not you know


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> From a bit of googling looks like they do it annually in June, so unless they change that practice they'll be stuck with what they've got.


Where are the Indians? The biggest and richest cricketing set-up on Earth and they can't contribute even one umpire to the list?

Dharmasena is excellent (on the field, at least). So is Dar still, I think. He made one bad mistake, but I still maintain that this was caused by a hangover from having his judgement wrongly questioned earlier in the match with the Trott decision. But really, the other two need booting out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Another way of seeing Clarke's actions on Sunday: set up a chance for a thrilling climax, then cynically wasted time to deny the crowd that climax.
> 
> I'll stop having a go at him as soon as people stop making him out to be some daring chance taking genius, only denied glory by the cynical English and the paucity of talent available to him. He's not you know


He's somewhere in the middle. He does read the game well, such as when Root was trying to get his 200.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's somewhere in the middle. He does read the game well, such as when Root was trying to get his 200.


Shhh, I'm 'providing balance'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> This idea about Australia's bowling being as good as England's down under...
> 
> Pattinson - fitness in question
> Harris - excellent but we know about his fitness
> ...


Ok:

Anderson - excellent, but he can have his sulky off days still
Broad - um, yeah, like Starc, he can be brilliant or ordinary
Swann - yeah, excellent, hard to pick any fault, but the pitches mean he's unlikely to be a matchwinner
Bresnan - honest toiler
Finn - um, yeah, lots of runs to be had there
Tremlett - excellent last time, but we know about his fitness issues since


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Bit harsh on bresnan thee - esp on the faster wickets that allow his aggression to work. He's missing most of the series anyway isn't he?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Given the choice between Bresnan and Siddle, I'd take Siddle if they were all lined up and we were choosing our teams.

The stats bear that out, too.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

The results don't! I would not swap them - because, i don't think they're comparable. That was my point. Bresnan had a range of things he can do (angle/aggression +30runs at quick rate) that Siddle doesn't.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok:
> 
> Anderson - excellent, but he can have his sulky off days still
> Broad - um, yeah, like Starc, he can be brilliant or ordinary
> ...


Broad's now got 200+ wickets at 30 a piece over the course of his career, so I'd say he's a bit more consistent than that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Ok, I was only considering the bowling there.

Mind you, I've long been of the opinion that with a four-man bowling attack, the relative batting abilities should not be considered, especially when you already have two capable batsmen in the shape of Broad and Swann. Bresnan has a batting av of 30, but comes in low in the order and his total number of test runs is low. He doesn't add much more to the team with his batting when there are Broad and Swann to follow anyway. Swann is often more or less wasted as a batsman coming in at 10.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Broad's now got 200+ wicket at 30 a piece over the course of his career, so I'd say he's a bit more consistent than that.


He's not consistent at all. He can be bloody brilliant and he can be bloody infuriating. Adding the two produces that record - pretty good, but not fantastic. He has a very similar record to Matthew Hoggard, who reached his figures in a rather different way.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Aug 28, 2013)

Comparing Broad to Starc is just plain wrong.  Fair enough neither is the most consistent, but Starc can only dream of having spells as good as Broad's matchwinners.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

...and Broad's good days have been getting closer to each other this year.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and Broad's good days have been getting closer to each other this year.


This is true. May it continue.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok:
> 
> Anderson - excellent, but he can have his sulky off days still
> Broad - um, yeah, like Starc, he can be brilliant or ordinary
> ...


Anderson - in the top two swing bowlers in the world. Actually, in the top two bowlers in the world full stop
Broad - His match winning spells are awe inspiring and he's been improving year on year for some time now
Swann - best spin bowler in the world
Bresnan - better than you think and used very well by Cook in this series
Finn - loves the pace and bounce down under
Tremlett - yeah, who knows eh?

Or:

Anderson - better/fitter than Harris
Broad - better than Starc
Swann - better than Lyon
Bresnan - better/more versatile than Siddle
Finn - better than Pattinson
Tremlett - even injured and out of the squad he's better than Bird/Johnson etc

Fun game


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

Based on what I have seen, my team would be

Cook
Rogers
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Clarke
Prior
Broad
Harris
Swann
Anderson

Three Aussies, eight Anglos.  I'd take Prior over Haddin becase I think he's a better keeper and his general batting record is good.  Rogers gets the #2 slot only because the alternatives are not great.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

Shit, that's only three seamers.  This is harder than it first looks.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Based on what I have seen, my team would be
> 
> Cook
> Rogers
> ...


Broadly agree. Obv Cook to captain and Clarke to be kept well away from everything 

Rogers won't do so well in Aus btw. Well suited to English pitches


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Shit, that's only three seamers. This is harder than it first looks.


That's all you need


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

I'll give you Broad better than Starc and Swann better than Lyon.

But I'm going for

Harris better than Anderson
Siddle better than Bresnan

and I'm going to say
Finn = Pattinson


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

I'm prepared to concede you may have an argument over Siddle/Bresnan but Harris > Anderson?! No way!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> That's all you need


 
Excellent.  Then my team in complete.  

Bresnan and Starc can come as back-up, along with Haddin, Twatto (did enough with the ball to justify a squad place and has flexibility as a batsman) and, erm, Monty.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Twatto's flexibility extends to looking equally perplexed in any given match situation. His ability to have nil impact on any game, no matter how many he scores/gets out is remarkable


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Jimmy is better than his overall average, but not 8 better. He can still go missing in matches when things are not in his favour, and he was outswung by the kiwis in NZ this year.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Jimmy is better than his overall average, but not 8 better. He can still go missing in matches when things are not in his favour, and he was outswung by the kiwis in NZ this year.


Nah, I'm not holding six ordinary months against him given his undeniable ability and achievements throughout his career in all conditions

Harris will forever be a 'what if'. Yes, he's good. We'll never know how good though and I'd rather have Jimmy every single time


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Oh and Kerrigan - has won the Ashes as many times as Michael Clarke and more times than Twatto


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Twatto's flexibility extends to looking equally perplexed in any given match situation. His ability to have nil impact on any game, no matter how many he scores/gets out is remarkable


 
Since he got moved away from being an opener, he's done alright.  And even as an opener, he still arguably did better than Root:  

30, 5, 6, 180, 8, 13*, 16, 2, 68, 11

vs

13, 46, 30, 20, 19

Neither record is anything to write home about, but at least Twatto generally lasted long enough to take the shine off the ball; the same can't be said for Root.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Since he got moved away from being an opener, he's done alright. And even as an opener, he still arguably did better than Root:
> 
> 30, 5, 6, 180, 8, 13*, 16, 2, 68, 11
> 
> ...


He still failed to contribute any substance whatsoever to anything at all. He's like an anti-impact player, someone who can score runs/take wickets and it's still meaningless. It's remarkable.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Nah, I'm not holding six ordinary months against him given his undeniable ability and achievements throughout his career in all conditions
> 
> Harris will forever be a 'what if'. Yes, he's good. We'll never know how good though and I'd rather have Jimmy every single time


Anderson averages 25.95 for the last 4 seasons.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> He still failed to contribute any substance whatsoever to anything at all. He's like an anti-impact player, someone who can score runs/take wickets and it's still meaningless. It's remarkable.


 
This is an excellent concept.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Anderson averages 25.95 for the last 4 seasons.


And Harris 22 over his career. A shorter time period admittedly - about half the number of wickets - but an average nearly 4 runs per wicket better.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is an excellent concept.


Thanks, I like it 


littlebabyjesus said:


> And Harris 22 over his career. A shorter time period admittedly - about half the number of wickets - but an average nearly 4 runs per wicket better.


Yeah, as I say, forever a 'what if' - would he have improved, been 'found out', what? Would he have done as well in different countries (not sure of his touring record/locations) etc? It's an excellent record, but...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> He still failed to contribute any substance whatsoever to anything at all. He's like an anti-impact player, someone who can score runs/take wickets and it's still meaningless. It's remarkable.


 
A useful squad player, who can take the place of anybody who gets injured that you don't have a specific back-up for.

Also, if Clarke wasn't a useless captain, he might have been able to make use of Watson's very rapid 176 at the Oval.  A bit unfair to say that Watson contributes nothing when, like all cricketers, he cannot be a one-man team.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And Harris 22 over his career. A shorter time period admittedly - about half the number of wickets - but an average nearly 4 runs per wicket better.


4 series in total, with more than 1/3 of the wickets coming in the last series (@19 each). Bit much to claim he's better than Anderson on the back of a few good games, and one excellent series


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> A useful squad player, who can take the place of anybody who gets injured that you don't have a specific back-up for./quote]


Like Mark Ealham with a surfboard

Good point re: Clarke though. Maybe this is why Twatto hates him, Clarke makes him look even worse than he already is


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Like Mark Ealham with a surfboard


Or Ronnie Irani with a massive shinpad.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Or Ronnie Irani with a massive shinpad.


If he ever learns the lbw rule, he could be dangerous. The legendary request by an Aussie spectator for Phil Tufnell to 'lend me your brain, I'm building an idiot' seems more appropriate for LBWatson

New topic: why the hell are England pandering to Australia's idiot journalists (and their scum UK tabloid equivalents) by apologising for celebrating winning the Ashes yet again? They have nothing to apologise for, so they shouldn't. They weren't fighting, harassing women, abusing anyone etc etc. They were enjoying the moment out in the middle of their home ground as a team, away from any (officially present) journalists, public etc. It's pathetic, of course they had a pee, no harm done whatsoever

ETA: supposedly there's an ECB investigation at Surrey CCC's behest. Fucking nice one you twats, coin it in from Tests/ODIs on the back of the England team and then make trouble over something utterly trifling. No wonder everyone hates you


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

Yeah, peeing on some grass, how earth-shatteringly awful.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Surrey are just piss takers - they hate the ECB when it disciplines ramps and they then put him in the team for one-dayers that he never plays to get the ban over with, then they cry war when Batty is banned, now they whinge to the same people. Going down.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

Yeah, well so's your face


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Surrey are just piss takers - they hate the ECB when it disciplines ramps and they then put him in the team for one-dayers that he never plays to get the ban over with, then they cry war when Batty is banned, now they whinge to the same people. Going down.


I actually want them to get relegated more than I do your lot. Yeah, really


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, well so's your face


 
The jowels of time catch us all kabbes.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, well so's your face


Your mum


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> I actually want them to get relegated more than I do your lot. Yeah, really


 
Snap!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

I am destined never to support a team that anybody else likes.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Snap!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Yeah, as I say, forever a 'what if' - would he have improved, been 'found out', what? Would he have done as well in different countries (not sure of his touring record/locations) etc? It's an excellent record, but...


 

That's fair enough, but if we're in the school yard picking players for Aus this winter, I'm still going for Harris over Anderson. Anderson's my second pick, but I'll lose him because you'll pick him next no doubt. But I'm taking Harris over Anderson right now. I'd take Vernon Philander over either of them even though he hasn't proved himself yet either. At this moment, my top four seamers would be, in order: Steyn, Philander, Harris, Anderson. Of those, only Steyn and Anderson have properly proved themselves, but I'll take the punt.

Oh, and if I'm going first, I'm not even thinking about the seamers yet - I'm snapping up Swann. There may not be too much in the wickets for him, but I still want him first.

My problem comes if you go first. If you go first and pick Anderson, then I have to take Harris first and give you Swann. I can't afford to give you both of the top seamers.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's fair enough, but if we're in the school yard picking players for Aus this winter, I'm still going for Harris over Anderson. Anderson's my second pick, but I'll lose him because you'll pick him next no doubt. But I'm taking Harris over Anderson right now. I'd take Vernon Philander over either of them even though he hasn't proved himself yet either. At this moment, my top four seamers would be, in order: Steyn, Philander, Harris, Anderson. Of those, only Steyn and Anderson have properly proved themselves, but I'll take the punt.
> 
> Oh, and if I'm going first, I'm not even thinking about the seamers yet - I'm snapping up Swann. There may not be too much in the wickets for him, but I still want him first.


You're welcome to have Harris. I'll have Anderson but you've got to take Twatto as well


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> You're welcome to have Harris. I'll have Anderson but you've got to take Twatto as well


I don't want him.

I'll have Anderson and you have Twatto.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Fuck that, if you get Harris AND Anderson it means you have to take Xavier Doherty and Mitchell Johnson to even things up


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

I think we both agree that we want either Harris or Anderson. But I still don't want Twatto. If I have to have him, then you get Hughes.

Hughes won't last long against Ryano.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

You bastard


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Surrey are just piss takers - they hate the ECB when it disciplines ramps and they then put him in the team for one-dayers that he never plays to get the ban over with, then they cry war when Batty is banned, now they whinge to the same people. Going down.


On the subject of Surrey - massive population, loads of private schools, brimming with cash etc etc and what do they do? Pack the side with old lags (I mean, I LOVE Jon Lewis but his best days were with us 10 years ago) and aging Test stars. No attempt to develop their own talent properly these days. They deserve to go down


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> On the subject of Surrey - massive population, loads of private schools, brimming with cash etc etc and what do they do? Pack the side with old lags (I mean, I LOVE Jon Lewis but his best days were with us 10 years ago) and aging Test stars. No attempt to develop their own talent properly these days. They deserve to go down


Their biggest asset is the people of South London, surely. Sod the private schools - they've always produced far fewer good cricketers than they ought to given their advantages. It's local clubs that provide the lifeblood to produce good players, as they do in Lancs and Yorks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

So how come Surry is not full of them?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So how come Surry is not full of them?


Well, clearly they don't have the history. I don't know is the short answer, but if I were in charge of Surrey CC, I'd be trying to develop the local club structure as much as I could.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

They haven't. They've had time to. What does this suggets to you? To me it suggests a century of not giving a shit.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Their biggest asset is the people of South London, surely. Sod the private schools - they've always produced far fewer good cricketers than they ought to given their advantages. It's local clubs that provide the lifeblood to produce good players, as they do in Lancs and Yorks.


Sorry, yeah, that's kind of what I meant in the 'massive population' part. Not clear enough, oops.

Surrey Championship has always been one of the tougher leagues to play in I believe - how this does or doesn't feed into SCCC's strategy I don't know enough about


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

Well here's part of the problem, the demise of state school cricket. 



> The downturn in West Indies' own fortunes could also have something to do with it. Ultimately though, it's a cultural thing, exemplified by DeFreitas' experience. As an 11-year-old, he went to the same school as Chris Lewis, Willesden High School, in a north London suburb with a high black contingent. It is the only state school in modern Britain to have produced two England cricketers.
> "There was a pitch at the back of the classrooms, and that's where Chris and I first learnt to play,'' said DeFreitas.
> Ten years ago, the cricket field was looking unkempt. Now it has gone completely – to be replaced by an synthetic turf football pitch. ``Cricket's not on the school's agenda,' said the head of PE. ``We do athletics, basketball, football but no cricket. We haven't got anywhere to play and there isn't a lot of interest.''


Source.
That was 2004. I wonder if there is any more interest now. I hope so. I can't believe that there is more interest in basketball than cricket. And if it's not on your agenda, there's unlikely to be much interest anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

JTG said:


> Sorry, yeah, that's kind of what I meant in the 'massive population' part. Not clear enough, oops.
> 
> Surrey Championship has always been one of the tougher leagues to play in I believe - how this does or doesn't feed into SCCC's strategy I don't know enough about


I don't know either, tbh. But I do know that a very large percentage of Lancs and Yorks players come through their local club system.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

Every village round here has a cricket team.  Those teams are stuffed with decent teenagers, who terrify me with their pace bowling and walloping batting.  I have no idea why SCCC isn't interested in doing something with that.


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Every village round here has a cricket team. Those teams are stuffed with decent teenagers, who terrify me with their pace bowling and walloping batting. I have no idea why SCCC isn't interested in doing something with that.


That's the impression I've always had - suburban/rural Surrey is brimming with keen cricketers


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2013)

We have 200 people in our village and still manage to put out two teams when necessary. Cricket and golf are the the two religions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Every village round here has a cricket team. Those teams are stuffed with decent teenagers, who terrify me with their pace bowling and walloping batting. I have no idea why SCCC isn't interested in doing something with that.


 
I don't know, but I'm sure they do do _something_. It's just that whatever it is that they are doing doesn't work. So are they interested in finding out why it doesn't work?


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Things I would have liked England to do differently:

1) Not drop Nick Compton. Keep Root at six and lose Bairstow (though I don't dislike him as much as some others)
2) Pick Monty at Old Trafford
3) Pick Bresnan at Trent Bridge
4) Pick Finn at Lord's
5) In the wake of Monty playing at OT and thus NOT going bonkers, pick him again at the Oval
6) Trott not to listen to the knockers and play his normal game

Everything else just right and tbh, what the fuck do I know anyway


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

I agree with 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Not sure about 6, tbh. Thing is that Trott's looked really good, then got out. I don't think he's far away. The thought may have come from him anyway. Perhaps the thought that he can average 50 in the one-dayers, so why not be more positive. It's not like he was reckless, and he played like that against NZ too.

3 is an intriguing thought that hadn't occurred to me. I'd have picked Bresnan only at OT and Oval, although which batsman to drop is a tricky one - it would have to be Root atm. I think he's a fine fourth seamer, but doesn't quite have the cutting edge to be the third. Oh, and Onions for Durham, but that said, the attack picked did the job.

But what do I know? England *couldn't* win. (((drd's tenner)))


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

Yeah, I chucked 6 in on a whim. Not quite convinced of it meself but hey ho

Also considered Onions for C-l-S but as you say, we stormed home so...


----------



## JTG (Aug 28, 2013)

If anyone fancies a laugh, well known drugs cheat, sext-pest and umpire botherer Shane Warne has described England's players as 'crass and arrogant' in the Herald Sun.

Truly the man is beyond parody


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2013)

When he says 'England's players', he's really talking about Stuart Broad, isn't he? Broad's won me over that he cares enough and is enough of a team man to deserve to play. I still think he's a twat. But he's our twat, and I'm kind of fond of him for that. And I think the Aussies have misjudged him if they think all this rubbish is going to do anything except make his successes this winter even sweeter. Did the negative reaction to his non-walking faze him even one tiny bit? I think he's a bit of a twat, and I think he knows he's a bit of a twat, and that he knows that others think he's a bit of a twat, and that he does not care one bit.

For instance, with the walking incident, I reckon he's probably quite pleased with himself that he managed to look so innocent.

I will give Broad credit for this: he bowled well without reward at times this series and he didn't sulk.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm trying to think of Aussie players who aren't twats. Rogers, Harris, Lyon maybe, Smith maybe. And, um, that's it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 29, 2013)

JTG said:


> Things I would have liked England to do differently:
> 
> 1) Not drop Nick Compton. Keep Root at six and lose Bairstow (though I don't dislike him as much as some others)
> 2) Pick Monty at Old Trafford
> ...


 
Onions? Tremlett?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 29, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Onions? Tremlett?


Depends where we're taking this from. With Bresnan injured, you think of Tremlett for the Oval. But if you've made different decisions earlier, who knows? For instance, I'd have stuck with Finn for Lord's. If he'd done well, then I'd have picked him for the Oval too. I rate Finn and I hope he gets sorted. I think the bail problem rattled him a fair bit - he managed to get the laws of cricket changed all on his own, after all. And I saw him in a one-dayer a couple of weeks ago. Bowled ok, but fell over after delivery twice. There's still a problem there that is clouding his mind. I don't think he's thick-skinned like Broad.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Depends where we're taking this from. With Bresnan injured, you think of Tremlett for the Oval. But if you've made different decisions earlier, who knows? For instance, I'd have stuck with Finn for Lord's. If he'd done well, then I'd have picked him for the Oval too. I rate Finn and I hope he gets sorted. I think the bail problem rattled him a fair bit - he managed to get the laws of cricket changed all on his own, after all. And I saw him in a one-dayer a couple of weeks ago. Bowled ok, but fell over after delivery twice. There's still a problem there that is clouding his mind. I don't think he's thick-skinned like Broad.


 
Not thick skinned and too nice.

Vicious, accurate, unrelenting fast bowlers is what we need. Not nice, smiley dudes from the home counties with side partings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 29, 2013)

Right, there's the challenge. Think of a great, or even just really good, fast bowler who didn't have some kind of vicious streak when on the field.

I'll have to think.

Update:

Still thinking. Even Devon Malcolm had to see red to be brilliant.

Hmm. Dave Lawrence was a rather mild-mannered chap. But he got injured and never made it.

ETA:

Aggers?


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When he says 'England's players', he's really talking about Stuart Broad, isn't he? Broad's won me over that he cares enough and is enough of a team man to deserve to play. I still think he's a twat. But he's our twat, and I'm kind of fond of him for that. And I think the Aussies have misjudged him if they think all this rubbish is going to do anything except make his successes this winter even sweeter. Did the negative reaction to his non-walking faze him even one tiny bit? I think he's a bit of a twat, and I think he knows he's a bit of a twat, and that he knows that others think he's a bit of a twat, and that he does not care one bit.
> 
> For instance, with the walking incident, I reckon he's probably quite pleased with himself that he managed to look so innocent.
> 
> I will give Broad credit for this: he bowled well without reward at times this series and he didn't sulk.


Broad plays for the team. See Auckland.

Anyway, the article was about Piddlegate. The bit where a load of hard bitten Aussie journalists had to be given smelling salts and carried out of the Oval press box for some air like so many Victorian maiden aunts because some cricketers took a leak on the square. Will go looking in a bit

I like it when the Australians lament the decline in standards across the world and set themselves up as last defenders of the ethics of the game only they love so much. Getting teary about the Baggy Green, walking, correct toilet manners etc. It's hilarious


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/c...ass-and-arrogant/story-fni2usfi-1226704959225

Turns out the original was in the Torygraph

As previously stated, Surrey can fuck off too


----------



## Athos (Aug 29, 2013)

The Aussies' moans are a good barometer of their state of mind;  there being an inverse correlation between the team's confidence and whine volume. If this trivial nonsense is more comment-worthty than their cricket, that says more about them than it does about England.  Quite why Surrey are playing along with it, I'm not sure.


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Shane Warne not being crass at all


----------



## Athos (Aug 29, 2013)

JTG said:
			
		

> Shane Warne not being crass at all
> YouTube Video



A worthy guardian of the spirit of the game.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 29, 2013)

Changing the subject a bit I was watching the 1st Womens Ashes 20/20 on tv the other night.  Its been a few years since I saw international womens cricket and I struck by how much the standard has improved, some of the batting (in particular Sarah Taylor) was of a very high standard.  I think they need to tweak the fielding restrictions a bit because boundaries dried up when the field was set back but apart from that it was thoroughly enjoyable and well worth a watch.


----------



## Santino (Aug 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, there's the challenge. Think of a great, or even just really good, fast bowler who didn't have some kind of vicious streak when on the field.
> 
> I'll have to think.
> 
> ...


Hoggy?


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Changing the subject a bit I was watching the 1st Womens Ashes 20/20 on tv the other night. Its been a few years since I saw international womens cricket and I struck by how much the standard has improved, some of the batting (in particular Sarah Taylor) was of a very high standard. I think they need to tweak the fielding restrictions a bit because boundaries dried up when the field was set back but apart from that it was thoroughly enjoyable and well worth a watch.


Not least because we're about to regain the Ashes 


Santino said:


> Hoggy?


I was going to use that as a cue to post a link to his finest hour at the Wanderers in 2005 when he won us the Test (and series) almost single handed. Not as any kind of argument but just because it stands out as my favourite day's play when I've been at the ground anywhere, ever. And that includes the final day at the Oval in 2005

However, as I can't find it on Youtube, here's his hat trick v West Indies:



I loved Hoggy


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, there's the challenge. Think of a great, or even just really good, fast bowler who didn't have some kind of vicious streak when on the field.
> 
> I'll have to think.
> 
> ...


Statham surely, by all accounts very mild mannered. Even to warning people when he was going bowl them a bouncer.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, there's the challenge. Think of a great, or even just really good, fast bowler who didn't have some kind of vicious streak when on the field.
> 
> I'll have to think.
> 
> ...


 
Joel


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Joel


Ah yes, good call. He was already terrifying, though. Didn't need to add anything extra. Tremlett's similar.


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Reports that Ryan Harris could be out for 6-8 weeks, leaving him struggling to prepare for the First Test in Brisbane

So, that's Harris, Pattinson ('touch and go' for the Gabba), Bird and Cummins all crocked then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 29, 2013)

JTG said:


> Reports that Ryan Harris could be out for 6-8 weeks, leaving him struggling to prepare for the First Test in Brisbane
> 
> So, that's Harris, Pattinson ('touch and go' for the Gabba), Bird and Cummins all crocked then


I'm a bit  about that. I want to see him playing.


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Australia 127/7 off 20 overs. England require 128 to regain the Ashes


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

JTG said:


> Australia 127/7 off 20 overs. England require 128 to regain the Ashes


 
9/3


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

JTG said:


> 9/3


63/3 at the halfway point...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

Inzebag


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Inzebag


Is he that new teen wonder playing for Pakistan in Zim atm?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

Oh hang on, is there a blokes game tonight? Will it ever end.I got things to do. Women just about to stroll over the line


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Five runs required off 9 balls...


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh hang on, is there a blokes game tonight? Will it ever end.I got things to do. Women just about to stroll over the line


Yeah, double header


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

And that's the Ashes


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

The _double_ ashes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

Bat in the air longer than the ball there.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 29, 2013)

Finny getting smashed all over


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Didn't think you lot would be watching England A


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 29, 2013)

COME ON RAVI!!


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 29, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> COME ON RAVI!!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

This is ridiculous.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2013)

151 off 60.

Open with Jos.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 29, 2013)

FFS 151 off 60 balls 

who the fuck is he anyway?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 29, 2013)

Good lord, that's a fair old knock.


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Ah come on - apply the ODI Law of Jade:

"Any game in which Jade Dernbach participates is automatically devalued for the purposes of records, averages etc by a factor of two"


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 29, 2013)

Right, so, not really an ODI team then...?


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Of course not, Jade's playing.

As is Luke Wright, but we don't need to apply Wright's Law because it's superceded by the Dernbach ruling


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 29, 2013)

JTG said:


> Of course not, Jade's playing.


I've got from the BBC feed that he's generally not rated, but he just got four out of six wickets!


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> I've got from the BBC feed that he's generally not rated, but he just got four out of six wickets!


That's OK, they don't count either. Because Jade's playing. That's the Law


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

Bloody hell, someone's a touch bitter:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/667597.html


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

Pathetic.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

> ". . . just after I got to 50, James Anderson bowled a ball at my feet. I got my bat down on it just in time. "'Good ball, Jimmy,' I said to him. "Anderson's face darkened and snapped back, 'What would you know what a good ball is?' "'Well, I mightn't know what a good ball is,' I came back with, 'but I know a bad one. I just hit your last one over there,' as I pointed my bat towards the grandstand."



This really really happened.


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

I really can't see how anyone can blame Irish players for wanting to play Tests and/or earn the best money they can at the moment, nor England for picking the best players they can as they become available. It's not a plot, it's just the way things happen to be set up internationally. I'd rather they changed but hey, as it stands nobody can blame Eoin Morgan for being where he is now surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

What's the racist prick got against Overton too?


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's the racist prick got against Overton too?


I think it's that he's not Jimmy Anderson or Alistair Cook

Weirdly, England see an Ashes tour of Australia as more important than a one off match in Dublin. Ho hum. Must be a relief for them to escape all that hatred at home mind


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> I really can't see how anyone can blame Irish players for wanting to play Tests and/or earn the best money they can at the moment, nor England for picking the best players they can as they become available. It's not a plot, it's just the way things happen to be set up internationally. I'd rather they changed but hey, as it stands nobody can blame Eoin Morgan for being where he is now surely?


I wonder what goes through his head though, when he's lining up for GSTQ. Ireland are a long way short of Test status but our best players getting cherry picked by England won't help us at all.


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

Probably much the same as goes through my head when I hear GSTQ


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I wonder what goes through his head though, when he's lining up for GSTQ. Ireland are a long way short of Test status but our best players getting cherry picked by England won't help us at all.


What would help 'you'? What could the ECB do that it's not?


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

tbf, if Ireland want to start blaming England for all their cricketing woes and that... join the bloody queue


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> tbf, if Ireland want to start blaming England for all their cricketing woes and that... join the bloody queue


Of get to fuck.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What would help 'you'? What could the ECB do that it's not?


Do you think poaching our best players is helping 'us'? .


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

It's probably showing young Irish cricketers that it's possible to hit the heights of the international game, yeah.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> It's probably showing young Irish cricketers that it's possible to hit the heights of the international game, yeah.


I really doubt if young Irish cricketers will dream of playing for England or kids will get into cricket with that in mind...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think poaching our best players is helping 'us'? .


Can you answer the question please.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think poaching our best players is helping 'us'? .


What do the players poached think?


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I really doubt if young Irish cricketers will dream of playing for England or kids will get into cricket with that in mind...


Kids won't get into cricket when they see Irish players playing Test cricket or getting IPL contracts?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I really doubt if young Irish cricketers will dream of playing for England or kids will get into cricket with that in mind...


Maybe they won't bother then. As the boom in cricket in Ireland shows.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe they won't bother then. As the boom in cricket in Ireland shows.


The boom in cricket in Ireland has been driven by the Irish team, not the few playing for England.


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

These Irish players playing in the English county system - is that holding Ireland back? Or is it developing those Irish players good enough to win county contracts (not all of whom are selected for England funnily enough) and showing Irish youngsters that there is a way forward if they stick at the sport?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> Kids won't get into cricket when they see Irish players playing Test cricket or getting IPL contracts?


Not for England, I dunno why this is so hard to grasp?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can you answer the question please.


I did.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> The boom in cricket in Ireland has been driven by the Irish team, not the few playing for England.


The two are entirely separate are they?. Any chance you could answer the question. It's rather important to what you have posted and argued that you do.


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not for England, I dunno why this is so hard to grasp?


So, seeing Irish players playing at the peak of the world game, one that isn't currently available for an Ireland team, is no incentive? This is what you're saying?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I did.


No you didn't. I asked you:



> What would help 'you'? What could the ECB do that it's not?



You replied with now answers. You did make a reply that showed that you were ignorant of how irish and UK cricket worked though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not for England, I dunno why this is so hard to grasp?


You don't give a shit for grass roots irish cricket. If you did you'd know why your ignorant top down OMG i can't believe that they're not Irish stuff is utterly irrelevant - and what's more, is motivated by pathetic reactionary nationalism.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> So, seeing Irish players playing at the peak of the world game, one that isn't currently available for an Ireland team, is no incentive? This is what you're saying?


i really doubt if an Irish kid is going to get into the game because he wants to play Test cricket for England. Seeing the likes of Morgan or Rankin playing well for Ireland, even in an ODI would though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You don't give a shit for grass roots irish cricket. If you did you'd know why your ignorant top down OMG i can't believe that they're not Irish stuff is utterly irrelevant - and what's more, is motivated by pathetic reactionary nationalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


>


I'll ask you again to answer the question. Any hope of that?


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> i really doubt if an Irish kid is going to get into the game because he wants to play Test cricket for England. Seeing the likes of Morgan or Rankin playing well for Ireland, even in an ODI would though.


That's not really what I said though is it? I said that Irish players playing at the highest level of the game was an incentive.

You'll be telling me no Irish people follow England overseas next


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'll ask you again to answer the question. Any hope of that?


I did, I'm not arsed whether you want to accept it or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

What's driven the irish cricket boom is what SK calls cherry picking (ooh, two players over a decade - and then if they don't get picked for test team it's down to anti-irishism) and people like George Dockrell appearing in the English leagues. Maybe there should be a ban on irish players lest it retard the home development Shall we ask the players?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> That's not really what I said though is it? I said that Irish players playing at the highest level of the game was an incentive.
> 
> You'll be telling me no Irish people follow England overseas next


I've certainly never heard an Irish person talk about the English test team and very few talk about cricket full stop.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I did, I'm not arsed whether you want to accept it or not.


No you didn't. I'm amazed that you can think that you have. It demonstrates enormous levels of dishonesty.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I've certainly never heard an Irish person talk about the English test team and very few talk about cricket full stop.


What a great post to make on this thread. Well done.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What a great post to make on this thread. Well done.


Thanks.


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm sure the 2007 WC helped drive it. Which was in itself part driven by Irish players playing in the English system, those players hoping to play for England as it meant more money/prospects of playing Test cricket. I'm pretty sure Irish kids aren't ignorant of Eoin Morgan's career and wouldn't say no to the opportunities he's had. Having had an interest sparked, it's something to aim for whilst hoping Ireland are given further chances by the ICC.
Simple enough


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Thanks.


Any chance of answering the cricket question instead of making yourself look stupid?


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I've certainly never heard an Irish person talk about the English test team and very few talk about cricket full stop.


Now you're arguing that few people in Ireland discuss cricket, when we're talking about those who are already playing it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

JTG said:


> I'm sure the 2007 WC helped drive it. Which was in itself part driven by Irish players playing in the English system, those players hoping to play for England as it meant more money/prospects of playing Test cricket. I'm pretty sure Irish kids aren't ignorant of Eoin Morgan's career and wouldn't say no to the opportunities he's had. Having had an interest sparked, it's something to aim for whilst hoping Ireland are given further chances by the ICC.
> Simple enough


I don't agree. I think the Irish team will be worse by losing those players, results will dip and cricket will lose it's recent popularity. It's a strange argument that you make a team better by taking away it's best players.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't agree. I think the Irish team will be worse by losing those players, results will dip and cricket will lose it's recent popularity. It's a strange argument that you make a team better by taking away it's best players.


He talked about kids getting into cricket in ireland not irish national team  cricketers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No you didn't. I'm amazed that you can think that you have. It demonstrates enormous levels of dishonesty.


I did, it's the point I've been making for the past couple of pages.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I did, it's the point I've been making for the past couple of pages.


No you didn't. You haven't actually made any point at all. You've shown ignorance of irish cricket of how it works and instead concentrated on some stupid anti-imperialist narrative. Bit of a joke.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I did, it's the point I've been making for the past couple of pages.


In that case you'll be able to repeat your answer to my question:



> What would help 'you'? What could the ECB do that it's not?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No you didn't. You haven't actually made any point at all. You've shown ignorance of irish cricket of how it works and instead concentrated on some stupid anti-imperialist narrative. Bit of a joke.


Anti-imperialisim narrative?. Fucking hell.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In that case you'll be able to repeat your answer to my question:


The ECB could help us by not poaching our best players.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Anti-imperialisim narrative?. Fucking hell.


_Der fugging brits_


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> The ECB could help us by not poaching our best players.





> What would help 'you'? What could the ECB do that it's not?



Look very closely at this question. See if you can come up with an answer to it, and then deal with the responses to your other OT posts.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Look very closely at this question. See if you can come up with an answer to it, and then deal with the responses to your other OT posts.


Tell me what you think my answer should be then.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Tell me what you think my answer should be then.


What brand of new idiocy is this?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What brand of new idiocy is this?


Genuinely, I have no idea what the fuck you're on about.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

I ask you a question about cricket - you avoid it for pages - then you finally demand that i answer it in your place.


----------



## JTG (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't agree. I think the Irish team will be worse by losing those players, results will dip and cricket will lose it's recent popularity. It's a strange argument that you make a team better by taking away it's best players.


Loads of other factors involved. There's a surge of interest as a result of those players being successful, that surge hopefully means Ireland continues to build its infrastructure up and the national team continues to benefit. You're looking at it in a very two dimensional way tbh


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2013)

I didn't avoid it, I answered it, and now I'm going off to eat my dinner. Have fun.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn't avoid it, I answered it, and now I'm going off to eat my dinner. Have fun.


You avoided it once, then you avoided it when asked to expand on what you offered as a reply, then you avoided it a second third and fourth time. Your dinner is going to miss your mouth by some distance.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2013)

ECB have announced a proper 5 match series against India next summer.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 3, 2013)

Santino said:


> ECB have announced a proper 5 match series against India next summer.


used to be a split six test season ,with three tests against another country,and three against india .It shows how much indian cricket as come on


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 3, 2013)

JTG said:


> Loads of other factors involved. There's a surge of interest as a result of those players being successful, that surge hopefully means Ireland continues to build its infrastructure up and the national team continues to benefit. You're looking at it in a very two dimensional way tbh



I don't think that Morgan, Joyce or Rankin playing for England helps the popularity of cricket here significantly. It probably harms it overall.

What has boosted the popularity of the game here has been the success of the national team. That success is rooted in Irish players getting high level experience playing in the English domestic game, unquestionably, but while Irish lads playing IN England is crucial, having the best of them play FOR England is damaging. 

That's not to slag off the players concerned: Of course they want to play test cricket, they're cricketers for fucks sake, and if that means playing for England, good luck to them. But from the point of view of the development of the game here, it would be better if they were playing for Ireland. The key issue is getting Test status, so that the best Irish players can do so.


----------



## Santino (Sep 4, 2013)

Following on from the (much) earlier discussion of tours to South Africa, a National Archives blogger has just posted this about Gary Sobers in Rhodesia: http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/cricket-controversy-yorkshire-sobers-and-touring-rhodesia/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> IThe key issue is getting Test status, so that the best Irish players can do so.


And for that to happen, a 1st class system needs to be in place. Bangladesh were promoted to test status on the back of the rapturous reception at home to their winning the Associates trophy, but they didn't have good domestic structures in place. I can't see that mistake being made again.

IMO it needs to be a short, intense season at the height of summer - perhaps six teams playing each other twice within the space of ten weeks, or even five teams within the space of eight weeks: one match per week over that period, perhaps with a final between the top two at the end. Players would be paid for the time lost to work, but would not necessarily be full-time pros.

There are problems here, and the biggest is how to get the players already earning a living in the County Championship back to Ireland for those ten weeks. The English counties wouldn't like it at all, but an Irish 1st class system without any of the best Irish players would not work. Perhaps you could have as few as four teams, playing a six-week season, but that still leaves the problem of counties releasing players.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Sep 8, 2013)

Anyone watching the ODI at Old Trafford today?

4th ball, Marsh gone.  5th ball, Leg Before Watson out Leg Before.  DRS with an absolute howler - on field umpire gets it right, 3rd umpire (Aleem Dar) overrules it to the wrong decision - hotspot showed up a clear mark so Dar gave not out, snicko clearly showed that ball hit pad first, followed by pad on bat.  TBF, it didn't take snicko to see that either, watching the efiing vid was enough.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 8, 2013)

Steam?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 8, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Steam?



http://nutjob.eu/ss1tv.html


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

For the record: sky have fucked up what looks like being a good game. I've had nothing since about 11-30.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 9, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24013036

Starc to miss the next Ashes with a stress fracture of the lower back, after Bresnan and Pattinson both missed part of the last series with the same injury. Is there something particular causing that? Back to back tests, or modern techniques or something? It hasn't been a routine injury for fast bowlers in the past as it?


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2013)

Thought it had been around for some time - back trouble for bowlers that is. Bowling is a very unnatural thing for your body to do


----------



## gabi (Sep 11, 2013)

Yeh. It's always been an issue. In fact the most common complaint for a fast bowler.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 11, 2013)

JTG said:


> Thought it had been around for some time - back trouble for bowlers that is. Bowling is a very unnatural thing for your body to do


 

Yeah, I read an article (not long after I posted that actually) that said the difference is the MRI scanning machine. What used to be a sore back that bowlers played through is now a diagnosed stress fracture of the lower back that requires rest to recover.


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2013)

Some trivia:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/match/247484.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/566940.html

Interestingly similar dismissals/scores for one player. Only one significant difference really...

Also - one of my heroes is retiring. Thanks very much for Johannesburg 2005 Hoggy


----------



## JTG (Sep 13, 2013)

Zimbabwe are 236 runs ahead of Pakistan with three wickets left in Harare. Could be a tricky chase for Pakistan there


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 13, 2013)

JTG said:


> Also - one of my heroes is retiring. Thanks very much for Johannesburg 2005 Hoggy



And Simon Jones retiring as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24067488

He was great for a little while. Shame the injuries meant he never managed to keep it going.


----------



## JTG (Sep 13, 2013)

JTG said:


> Zimbabwe are 236 runs ahead of Pakistan with three wickets left in Harare. Could be a tricky chase for Pakistan there


Pakistan are 65/2 chasing 264 to win...

Meanwhile, Sreesanth and Ankeet Chavan have been given life bans by the BCCI for spot fixing. Good.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> And Simon Jones retiring as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24067488
> 
> He was great for a little while. Shame the injuries meant he never managed to keep it going.


The greatest bowler we almost never had?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 14, 2013)

great over from Mckay earlier. must admit i thought we were finished then.

i'm going on Monday, hope the rain holds off.


----------



## JTG (Sep 14, 2013)

Zimbabwe have beaten Pakistan by 24 runs at Harare - their first Test win over anybody other than Bangladesh since 2001


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 14, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> And Simon Jones retiring as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24067488
> 
> He was great for a little while. Shame the injuries meant he never managed to keep it going.



.....and being cast aside by the ECB.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 16, 2013)

i'm going today. hope we send them home with another series loss.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

Enjoy yourself today Dan. Whoever wins finishes the one day rankings as world #2. Forecast looking cloudy.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 16, 2013)

It's a bit parky too!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

Stokes on a hat trick after rain stoppage. 48-3 /9.4


----------



## gabi (Sep 16, 2013)

Nasser Husain just described Shane Watson as robotic. Seriously.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Stokes on a hat trick after rain stoppage. 48-3 /9.4



I was actually slicing two red onions as the wickets came


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I was actually slicing two red onions as the wickets came


Fantastic

Just wait for the huge onion fest to come over there. We need some recipes.


----------



## gabi (Sep 16, 2013)

Did anyone know beefy botham has an amazing life?


----------



## gabi (Sep 16, 2013)

Ireland taking a proper kicking here. Rankin looks quality though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

Bit of a shambles that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

Save us jos.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of a shambles that.



agreed. as was the decision to hold a day/night game in England in mid September. It was chuffing cold - was hard to tell if the cricket or the weather contributed to the tepid atmosphere, probably a bit of both.

pains me to say it but LBWatsons innings was real quality, Clarke it doesn't pain me to praise him as he is class and the two of them provided the days main excitement - although we'd left to get the train back to London and missed Bopara/Buttler, and Mitchell Johnson, his bowling wasn't shite.

we were just pretty ordinary really - the bowling of Rankin who I thought was our best bowler despite only taking one tail ender - and seeing Jordan fly in at 90mph was good.

one observation re: KP and Carberry shambles, KP was fielding on the boundary in front of us and was trying to give instructions to Carberry on how/where to field at deep cover which Carberry didn't look too thrilled to be receiving and pretty much ignored on his home ground. Oh to be a fly on the dressing room wall when Carberry.

#2 is yours then Australia.


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2013)

India's tour of South Africa is in the balance:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2013-14/content/current/story/672389.html

Somehow, CSA seem to have upset the BCCI who have decided to potentially abandon their SA tour (which is in the Future Tours Programme) and instead arrange a series against the Windies (which isn't) and bring forward their tour of NZ. So the BCCI are overriding the ICC and basically deciding on who they play and when at the drop of a hat. All this regardless of the fact that SA v India is surely going to be a fantastic series if it goes ahead. Such a shame.


----------



## JTG (Sep 22, 2013)

So anyway. Ashes tour squad announced tomorrow so I'm bringing this thread to a close. New thread imminent


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

Not the right thread, but well done Afghanistan. Qualified for the 2015 World Cup aftr stuffing Kenya.


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2013)

As long as the thread is still active, let's remember 3-0 and Thatcher is still dead.


----------



## agricola (Oct 10, 2013)

Anyone watching the first ODI between India and Aus?  Set 207, India currently 187/4 with 2 overs left, Vuvraj on 70 from 31.  If India win, the argument could be made that its all Watson's fault.


----------

