Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2015

scorecard.png


The first hour is crucial. If they can make it to rain that will demoralise the Aussies as they know our number 12, the British weather, is about to take the piss.

Broad is going to be facing some extensive chin music from Johnson. Has he fully over come the fear of the short stuff?

There's a new ball after an over. This is an opportunity for Ali to show off his opening credentials.

I want to see Johnson whining and exhausted again in the field.
 
There's still batting in this side. They are definitely *capable* of making Australia bat again, particularly with the Aussies spending their third day in the field. But will they have the mental strength to last?

With sch a big first innings lead and the weather looking so dodgy, I guess Aus had no choice but to enforce the follow on. But I have a massive aversion to it nonetheless. I've almost never seen an enforced follow on result in a victory -- I think the psychology of it is problematic. Better almost always to go and put a quick hundred or so on the board to loosen up and grind the opponents down and then go and bowl them out again.

This could definitely be the exception that proves the rule though.
 
England regain the Ashes :D:cool:


in the most bizarre circumstances..........glad I didnt get my usual ticket for day 2 at the Oval in the end

Two fairly well matched sides (perhaps slightly mediocre) - one possibly on the up, the other in decline and rebuilding from tomorrow - play out a series of, at times, high drama which has confounded many a pundit and spectator alike....:confused:

Strange stats to match the play at the end......Broad the leading wicket taker; the next four on the list are Aussies. Root the only Englishman in the top four run scorers??

Goodbye Clarke, Harris and Rogers - and probably Haddin; Voges; LBWatson......

For England, as many concerns as plus points. A clear change in the captain and his captaincy (for the better); a change in coaches - and hopefully less regimentation and analysis; #1 batsman in the world; rough diamonds in the middle order; and a pace battery (albeit it suited to English conditions). However, a revolving door at opener; a lack of quality spin options; no real fast pace coming through; and too many batting collapses bodes ill for Pakistan in UAE and South Africa away. (Moeen CANNOT open vs Steyn/Morkel!!!)

Before that the ODI's - full of fresh one day specialists, giving some of the test series players a break (Root already ruled out) - and T20

But for now I'll settle for winning 3-2 and enjoy the moment. Honestly, who on here (or in the media for that matter) gave England a "cat in hells chance" before the series?

:thumbs:
 
I think we should try Moeen as opener. Give him a few chances in the uae and bring in Rashid. Deal with south Africa later. 4 seamers and 2.5 spinners and 8 batsmen in your side is got to be worth a go. Swap bell for Hales... For the lulz.
 
Fools at Cricket Australia removing the WACA as a Test venue for the Ashes, going to have more shitty drop in pitches in a AFL ground. Good for England I reckon though, considering they've only won there once and that was during the World Cricket Series split.

Englands Test record there is W1, 3D and 9L
 
Despite what it says there I can't imagine that they'll keep the WACA going long term. If the finances are in trouble now what are they going to be like without the SA, England and India internationals and the Big Bash games? The attendances for Sheffield Shield games are so low that I'd be surprised if they didn't lose money on them.

Five years and it'll be sold off as prime Perth real estate, :( and both the WACA and state government know that the fucks. The ground did need refurbishing but it had great character and a good location.
 
Stokes out for obstructing the field.

I'm puzzled. The onfield umpires apparently said they didn't think it was out. At least one of them was right there in front of the action as it happened. Why did they refer it to the 3rd umpire? What might the 3rd umpire have seen that they didn't? You have to give the batsman the benefit in this instance - if there is even a chance that it was just self-protection, it has to be not out. An instance in which slow-motion can lie as it suggests a longer decision-making time than there really is. Poor from all three umpires.

Stinker of a decision, imo. And turned out to be the turning point in the match, which was fairly evenly poised at that moment. One of those rare instances where I agree with Agnew - cue bowlers hurling the ball at the stumps at every opportunity. And if the bowler does hit the batsman with the throw? Then what? Bowler gets sent off the field???? Fair's fair.
 
Yeah I'm inclined to agree, I see too much uncertainty in the decision for it to be given out and as you say why was the 3rd umpire involved?
 
Everyone was busy looking up the laws after it happened, including commentators. But there's a reason it's such a rare dismissal - the bar is set very high, and the wording is 'wilfully'. So it has to be a clear, conscious decision to attempt to interfere with the field, not a reflex reaction to a ball hurled in your direction from close quarters.

Lots of misunderstanding of the laws also, including from Steve Smith. It is irrelevant to the laws whether or not the ball would have hit the stumps. All that matters is the 'wilful' nature of the interference.

Don't think I'm being a one-eyed England supporter here. I supported the Sri Lankans last year over the mankading, and I was pretty disgusted by Paul Collingwood for appealing the run-out after players had collided a couple of years ago. (Collingwood later regretted it - Smith may do the same.)
 
I think it was wilful. I don't know why, I just think it looks like he was trying to hit the ball and not defend himself.
 
Idaho said:
I think it was wilful. I don't know why, I just think it looks like he was trying to hit the ball and not defend himself.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if you try to turn away from the ball in that position that arm does come out just as we see in the video, so it could quite easily have been unintentional.
 
I think it was six of one, half dozen of another. So non story.. Its cricket.. Move on and stop making an issue of it
 
redsquirrel said:
In which case as LBJ pointed out he should have been given he benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Yep, by the laws. I do think it looks very different in slo-mo. In real time, the hand comes out first of all as a protection. And thinking about what I'd do, if I were fending away a hard object like that, I'd both parry it with my hand and move my body away from it.

It could be that Stokes had the presence of mind to keep the hand out there in case it hit the stumps, in which case, it's out. But we can't tell from the evidence - it's a weakness of the laws in fact that they refer not only to the action but to the intention behind the action. But there is no clear intention here.

Here's an example of clear intention, and Gooch himself knows it. Compare and contrast... Plus Bird gives it out straight away, having seen what happened.



I'm blaming the umpires here, mostly. And particularly the onfield umpires. I'd love to hear an explanation as to why exactly they needed to refer the decision. What is it that they didn't see?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

littlebabyjesus
England Cricket 2024
32 33 34 35 36
Replies
1K
Views
25K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
WhyLikeThis
The Ashes 2023
68 69 70 71 72
Replies
2K
Views
48K
kabbes
K
QueenOfGoths
T20 Cricket World Cup
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
290
Views
6K
Petcha
P
Puddy_Tat
County Cricket 2024
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
P
England Cricket 2023
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
648
Views
17K
Petcha
P
Back
Top Bottom