Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2019

littlebabyjesus said:
Or just the third ump, who basically does fuck all at the moment for most of the day. Can sit there with an eye on the relevant screen, has a thing to buzz the on-field ump when they see a no-ball. I wouldn't want an age taken over close calls where nothing else happened, though, so the third ump just calls clear ones, and intervenes over close ones only when there's a wicket.

With the drs tech, I actually think they have things pretty much right. Two reviews but keeping your umpire's call is a decent balance. Too many batsmen call for lbw reviews still when they know they're probably out, but that damages their team more than anything. My only problem with drs is my suspicion of the fallibility of hawkeye, tbh, although it's still probably right enough of the time to make it worthwhile. We got the right decision by accident in this match. Thank fuck Wilson gave it not out. Also, good umpiring gets reinforced by drs. It's only bad umpires that end up being undermined. And they have finally worked out how to use cameras for catches - there was a period there when a bunch of perfectly great catches were given not out.
Click to expand...

Yes and I think it makes a lot of sense that Australia lost out because of their spurious use of their last review. It should be 'I think he was out' not 'I really want him to be out' and there should be a price to pay for forgetting that.
 
Mogden said:
I wanted to go and watch it as I'm local but I'm already busy with something I can't get out of. Gutted cos I suspect it'll be an interesting game.
Click to expand...

I went to the tour match at Northants the last time the aussies were over and it was a great day out. Obviously the cricket isn't especially competitive but for a day out with a few beers watching international players its a great day.

From what little I remember Peter Siddle was a great laugh on the boundary, Pat Cummins was bowling express (trying to get in the team at that point) and Nathan Lyon was an arsey twat.
 
SpookyFrank said:
Yes and I think it makes a lot of sense that Australia lost out because of their spurious use of their last review. It should be 'I think he was out' not 'I really want him to be out' and there should be a price to pay for forgetting that.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I can't think of a worse review, ever. It was just fucking obvious that it wasn't out. Bowler knew it. Everybody watching on tv knew it. Spectators at square leg probably knew it. Totally serves them right that it ended up costing them, and as you say it is an example of the system working as it should. And to be fair to the Aus team and management, they have fully accepted that as well.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Totally agree. I can't think of a worse review, ever. It was just fucking obvious that it wasn't out. Bowler knew it. Everybody watching on tv knew it. Spectators at square leg probably knew it. Totally serves them right that it ended up costing them, and as you say it is an example of the system working as it should. And to be fair to the Aus team and management, they have fully accepted that as well.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every test team should learn from that. Do not use your last review unless you're sure its a decent shout, you never know whats around the corner.

As they were waiting for the outcome of the review you could see the aussies all taking their place for the next over. Why even ask?
 
He is the greatest fast medium bowler in English conditions. Virtually unplayable when it's swinging and he's hitting his straps. And to carry on as long as he has is incredible. But after all that he is still a mortal man approaching his 40s.
 
Indeed a sad way to end if indeed that is the case, we'll have to wait and see.

I really think its better this way then risking him again. I was nervous when they started talking about him being back for Old Trafford. An out of form Woakes is better than an half-fit Anderson especially if that half-fit bit suddenly became not fit at all.
 
Yep. He looks good for his age but he is 37. Very hard to see how he can be picked again though. This is what was happening to Steyn - break down, come back, break down almost straight away again. I know when I hit my late 30s I was starting to feel strains I hadn't quite felt before. It's been a huge effort just to keep going as long as he has.

My guess is that he was going to retire after the ashes anyway.
 
"Anderson won't last the Ashes".

But I'd hoped for more than 4 overs. That said I'm glad they've called it now. I'm afraid his injury cost us the first test and it couldn't be allowed to happen again.

Bye Jimmy and thanks for the memories. The Burnley boy done fantastic.
 
Meanwhile, a few England batsmen owe stokes and leach a drink. No change to the batting line-up. That is at the very least flawed thinking.
 
Meanwhile Derbyshire seconds have managed to work out Smith. Just need to copy what they did.
 
Australia have one of the best batsmen in the modern game returning.
England have failed to drop one of the worst openers in modern test cricket.
The ball goes dead by 30 overs. All you need to do is see them off, but that is not what the modern England team see as a priority, instead just hope that somehow, against all expectation, Roy will smash it out the park in the first 20 overs against the swinging ball. Woakes has managed to average 28, not too far from what you would expect given his position, so he is the most likely to make way for Curran. A masterplan unfolding before our eyes.
 
Old Trafford can be the best wicket in England. Bit of pace and bounce , little bit of nibble, and spin later on, but even enough to make batting possible. I hope they get the weather to produce a good one. It will be a true test.

I'm guessing Starc will finally play, in place of Pattinson. I think Aus may have overthought their bowling options. Starc, Cummins, hazlewood is their best seam attack. Just trust it and run with it till injuries force a change. It has quality and all-surface variety.
 
England have also named Craig Overton in a 13 man squad. So it's the same XI as last week plus two alternative options to Woakes. I'm not especially surprised no one has been dropped with the series so finely poised after a momentous victory, although with these selectors I'm rarely surprised by anything they come up with. (I will be genuinely surprised if Roy is still opening the batting though. Surely they must have an alternative plan of some sort?)
 
If Woakes is dropped after one slightly iffy performance and Roy keeps his place that will be entirely expected from these selectors
. Doesn't make it right though.
 
If Woakes is dropped after one slightly iffy performance and Roy keeps his place that will be entirely expected from these selectors
. Doesn't make it right though.
 
Teaboy said:
Meanwhile Derbyshire seconds have managed to work out Smith. Just need to copy what they did.
Click to expand...

Caught on the boundary at extra cover. Lol etc.

Meanwhile Denly and Roy swap batting positions. Hands up who thinks that'll fix things.

I said hands up...oh, never mind.
 
It's a bit shit for Denly IMO. OK it's a bit of a punt as much as anything but as far as it's thought out it's about trying to get something more out of Roy isn't it. Denly's not really an opener either and will probably get a few more low scores and be out of the team after the series - he's being sacrificed in the hope of getting this mythical super fast century out of Roy.
 
If anyone's interested, I've posted a clip of the Stokes LBW decision on my photo-sharing account.

Video

There's no sound, but you can see the incident at full speed, and then in slow motion. I think that, when you see it in slow motion, it's clearly out, but I still completely understand why Wilson gave it not out. At full speed, it's not clear where the ball hits first, and the movement of Stokes' leg towards leg side also gives the impression that the ball was going down leg. He's also a fair way down the pitch. If there's any blame to be assigned here, it's to the Aussies for their diabolically bad use of review a few minutes earlier.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
It's a bit shit for Denly IMO. OK it's a bit of a punt as much as anything but as far as it's thought out it's about trying to get something more out of Roy isn't it. Denly's not really an opener either and will probably get a few more low scores and be out of the team after the series - he's being sacrificed in the hope of getting this mythical super fast century out of Roy.
Click to expand...
Denly was very much an opener during the first phase of his career, I saw him open the batting a number of times in Championship matches with Rob Key and always thought he looked a real prospect as a potential Test opener. His career seemed to stall ten years ago when England picked him for ODIs without success (I always saw him as better suited to the longer form of the game myself) then a move to Middlesex didn't work out either. I can't remember whether he stopped opening before or after he returned to his native Kent in 2015. Of course that doesn't mean he should be opening now.

I agree about the futility of this apparent search for Roy to eventually produce the type of Test century we saw from Stokes just over a week ago. I said before the start of the series I wouldn't be surprised if he produced one, but also predicted that he would most likely produce a string of low scores to go with it and would offer no sort of consistency at the top of the order. He's still too high batting at 4, if he's going to be retained at all it should be at 6 and they should drop Buttler (whose average for the series, batting in his favoured position, is fractionally worse even than Roy's opening) with either Sibley opening and Denly remaining at 4, or Denly opening and Pope coming in at 4. Roy has 9 first class centuries in a 9 year career, Denly has 29 centuries from a 15 year career, Roy's average is about three runs higher; neither is a particularly compelling candidate.

Unfortunately the haphazard scheduling of the various competitions this season means anyone not currently in the Test XI has played no more than one Championship match in the last 7 weeks (or in Sam Curran and Ollie Pope's case half a match) so picking any newcomer at this point risks him being exposed as ring rusty and no more effective than whoever he's replaced. If we'd lost at Headingley and the Ashes were already retained by Australia there would be nothing to lose by looking at newcomers, although it always seems to be those who've been introduced within the last few months get jettisoned. By contrast others who've been there for years are allowed to keep failing until they finally have a good game that cements their place for another series or two, then the cycle continues.
 
mhendo said:
If anyone's interested, I've posted a clip of the Stokes LBW decision on my photo-sharing account.

Video

There's no sound, but you can see the incident at full speed, and then in slow motion. I think that, when you see it in slow motion, it's clearly out, but I still completely understand why Wilson gave it not out. At full speed, it's not clear where the ball hits first, and the movement of Stokes' leg towards leg side also gives the impression that the ball was going down leg. He's also a fair way down the pitch. If there's any blame to be assigned here, it's to the Aussies for their diabolically bad use of review a few minutes earlier.
Click to expand...
I think it could have been out, but I also think that Hawkeye was definitely mistaken, and the more I see it the more I think that, due exactly to what Stokes said - that it flicked his front pad first and the Hawkeye operator didn't pick that up when telling the computer bods where the ball first hit the pad. No way it was middle-and-leg. It was outside half of leg at best, and quite possibly umpire's call.

Totally agree however that in real time it doesn't look very out, and is a very hard one to be sure of, which does still mean, according to the laws, that it should be given not out. And I also agree that it looks more out in slo-mo, even disregarding Hawkeye - it did turn, question is just whether or not it turned enough. And assuming the angle on that camera view is perfect, it doesn't quite turn enough to totally straighten by my judgement, taking the front pad as the first point of contact. That plus distance down the pitch should be enough to get 'not out'.
 
Last edited:
mhendo said:
If anyone's interested, I've posted a clip of the Stokes LBW decision on my photo-sharing account.

Video

There's no sound, but you can see the incident at full speed, and then in slow motion. I think that, when you see it in slow motion, it's clearly out, but I still completely understand why Wilson gave it not out. At full speed, it's not clear where the ball hits first, and the movement of Stokes' leg towards leg side also gives the impression that the ball was going down leg. He's also a fair way down the pitch. If there's any blame to be assigned here, it's to the Aussies for their diabolically bad use of review a few minutes earlier.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty clear that the blue predicted path is different from the red path, suggesting Hawkeye has been bamboozled by the front pad deflection. The original path looks like maybe hitting leg stump but maybe not. At full speed it's not clear enough to give out, and full speed was all Wilson had to go on.
 
planetgeli said:
Also, that "6" in the World Cup.

FFS. Bring on the 4th Test already.
Click to expand...
It does matter a bit to me. I was listening live and the impression from TMS was that this was another Wilson howler. At the time I didn't care too much, and laughed at the idea of a Wilson howler saving England, but thinking on it now, I would rather that were not the case, and I also hate the way the Aus press went to town on it. That was unfair to Wilson and is also unfair to England, and I'm happier knowing it was a perfectly reasonable decision, not a howler.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
It does matter a bit to me. I was listening live and the impression from TMS was that this was another Wilson howler. At the time I didn't care too much, and laughed at the idea of a Wilson howler saving England, but thinking on it now, I would rather that were not the case, and I also hate the way the Aus press went to town on it. That was unfair to Wilson and is also unfair to England, and I'm happier knowing it was a perfectly reasonable decision, not a howler.
Click to expand...

I know and I agree. But I'm sure we did this two pages ago.

Now it just feels like a deliberate lingering air of doubt is being left because, y'know, we didn't really win that Test.
 
I think its really poor preparation from Oz. They've clearly don't have defined plans for how to use their fielding reviews and given how the series has gone that is piss poor.

This situation was very predictable and they should have had a plan ready. Yes Paine is making bad calls but he's also been let down by a lack of strategy and that's as much the coaches fault as it is his.

One thing that will come out of this is you probably won't see another test captain chucking away the last review in a very tight run chase.
 
Khawaja left out for OT. Slightly surprised by that decision - he has a proven test record. I think England will prefer to see Head's name in the starting 11 over Khawaja.

Head's average is 45 but it's a good example of how early-career stats can be misleading. He's played in four series so far, and averages 30-33 in three of them. His runs against a weak SL attack in Aus conditions are skewing his record to make him look better than he is.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Khawaja left out for OT. Slightly surprised by that decision - he has a proven test record. I think England will prefer to see Head's name in the starting 11 over Khawaja.

Head's average is 45 but it's a good example of how early-career stats can be misleading. He's played in four series so far, and averages 30-33 in three of them. His runs against a weak SL attack in Aus conditions are skewing his record to make him look better than he is.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm more than happy for them to leave out Khawaja. I'm also happy Warner has bought himself another game because he's been a bag shit for most of the series so far.
 
Starc finally set to play. He could be dangerous at OT. Reckon Aus will finally have their best bowling line-up.

And Marsh may play. lol. A poor man's Shane Watson. Can't bat, can't bowl. Not sure what his fielding's like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WhyLikeThis
The Ashes 2023
68 69 70 71 72
Replies
2K
Views
48K
kabbes
K
RileyOBlimey
The Ashes 2021/22
45 46 47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
28K
two sheds
two sheds
S
  • Poll
BBC Sports Personality 2019
Replies
23
Views
1K
stavros
S
Throbbing Angel
2019 Scottish Open (snooker)
Replies
7
Views
497
stavros
S
S
2019 UK Championship (snooker)
Replies
24
Views
1K
Throbbing Angel
Throbbing Angel
Back
Top Bottom