2nd Test: England v Australia at Lords Jul 18-22, 2013

[madmusician]

How can it be "dangerous" ?!?!? Bad decisions going unchecked is more "dangerous" than the third umpire picking up anything the onfield umpire(s) missed



I thought the players were out there to play cricket and the umpires make judgement calls on decisions like wickets.................. How can it be not "utterly fair" if the umpire changes a bad decision? It's not like he'll only do it for the home team. And it's one step closer to where it should have started, with the umpires making all the calls and reviewing where they aren't sure.



See that's a TACTICAL decision, the review system is not meant to be a tactic even though that is how it pans out.



Not really, they're supposed to be impartial and on your argument whether the umpire gives it out or not forces the hand of the side having to review so is that "scrupulously fair" ? Especially when it comes to this whole "umpires call" where the batsman given out stays given out, but if he was given not out and the bowling side appealed then he'd stay not out. How does that sit with your "scrupulously fair" and "dangerous" assertions?!?!?

And is it "scrupulously fair" that no balls are called and batsmen recalled without a review? Or that stumpings and run outs fall outside the review system? It is all over the shop, some decisions reviewed by the umpires, some by the players and it is a bit of a circus.

I can understand why the Indians aren't keen, and is it "scrupulously fair" that England seem considerably more experienced and 'well versed' in using the system than the aussies? I suspect they've played more Tests using it, again you could argue an unfair advantage for the home side.



As I've said before, you need to look at the objective of the system, to eradicate howlers or bad calls. If there are no reviews left for one side because of the tactical deployment of the system by giving it to the players, then you are not achieving your objective.

If I set out to achieve world peace and there's still fighting in Syria and other countries then I've failed in my objective, even if Russia and USA aren't threatening to nuke each other. Broad was not given out, shouldn't have had to been given out, and so a mistake stood unchecked. Sure the aussies wasted their reviews, but the flaw in the system is because it is made tactical.

If England had used up their reviews, maybe due to an error by the third umpire, and hadn't had one to get the last aussie wicket it would have been wrong. You can't blame the captains/batsmen for being human, it is down to the UMPIRES to make decisions and the correct ones, giving the ability to review it to the captains was just too risky. It's like giving your kids control of the household income and wondering why they spent it all on sweets and can't pay the gas or electric bills............................

Fine, you don't want it to be a tactical system - I was arguing on the basis that it was currently - so we agree on that! Although, truth be told, I think it is the best situation of them all for the following reason.

If it was in the hands of the umpire, there would be a temptation for every decision to be reviewed. See the Champions Trophy in 2002 for evidence when this system (admittedly pre-Hawk Eye and Hot Spot, but the protocol was the same) was in place. This takes up a hell of a lot of time in the game, and would lead to teams appealing for everything - it would ruin the game, IMHO. Thus, in my opinion, the system that we have at present for DRS is the best of a bad bunch. I know that it isn't perfect, but I genuinely believe that it is better than the alternatives.

OF COURSE it will become tactical - that's the nature of the beast. BUT it is up to teams to use it in its best interest - it would be an EXTREMELY unlucky set of circumstances for a team to lose all its reviews ready for a howler - or, indeed, extreme incompetence from a captain, as we saw in the last test match.

The reason that I referred to Dave Richardson's suggestion as 'dangerous' was that IMO we either have the system that we currently have: teams choose when to review or we return to the umpires making the decisions amongst themselves - whether that is the on-field umpire requesting assistance or the third umpire jumping in. Mixing the systems will not work - let me explain:

Will the third umpire jump in with every decision that he sees is wrong from his bank of monitors? If so, then there's no point in the teams having reviews, too. If he doesn't, and he elects to jump in AS WELL as the teams' reviews, then there is a real risk of undermining the review system - what constitutes a 'howler'? There may be an occasion where a team does not need to review as a result of the third umpire's intervention and then the opposing team doesn't get the assistance and loses their reviews. Please note that I am not suggesting this be corruption - I just think that the system at present (in terms of review protocol) is in black and white. It would not be with this 'half-way-house' system. If the ICC want to change it so that technology is only used at the discretion of the umpires then fair enough - I would disagree, but at least the system is clear. There is an alarming lack of clarity in a 'half-way-house' - the third umpire may intervene, but equally might not - system.

I hope that explains my thoughts better than my post earlier.

 

[War]

Ian Botham's Ashes column: Jimmy Anderson is now in same league as legends McGrath, Hadlee, Lillee and Marshall - Ian Botham - Mirror Online

Whoaa!! Somebody tell Sir Ian to ease the rhetoric on Anderson. He is very good but not on those guys level. He is not even on the same level as great English fast bowlers such as Trueman, Larwood, Snow, Statham to be frank.

 

[Owzat]

The important thing is to get decisions right, they've gone down the wrong path with giving it to the players and I'd rather they crossed a road or two to get to the right path than nearly get where they're going but just miss the target because they're slightly off course.

Not sure how anyone can complain if a correct decision is given, maybe a bit of discontent at the application but if Broad had been given out then could England have complained? No. Either way, with the reviews in the hands of the players there will be ill feeling one way or another.

It's easy to sit back and say the aussies can only blame themselves, well Broad refused to walk so it is easy and arguably right to blame him. He knew he was out, everyone knew he was out except the umpire.

As for players making mistakes with reviews, they're bound to. They're in the game to PLAY not to make judgements on whether batsmen are out or not. If the umpires find it hard from a good position, what chance others?!?!?


Anyway, moving on..................


A dramatic end to the day's play, might be a little too little a little too late, but could keep the aussies in the hunt. Another nightwatchman approach by England, they may feel justified at 30/3 or whatever it was, but maybe a bit more focus from the batsman is what's needed not cowering behind the sofa and sending out a lower order batsman.

England are still in control of this match, but if the aussies can put England in a similar position to that they were in themselves, it could be an interesting finale. The aussies will have to up their efforts from their first three innings of the series, did I say they were averaging 151 for the first nine wickets with a best of 231/9? England can't rest on their laurels and assume that the aussies will capitulate, they are all capable batsmen even if their form was left behind some matches/series ago.

England should want to get to lunch no worse than 100/5 or 100/6, 333 ahead with some wickets in hand. Obviously they'd prefer to lose as few as possible, but this pitch is giving up wickets the pundits still refuse to accept reflect the pitch - or at least their view of it being a good batting track. Personally I think it isn't that good, but is better than the batsmen are making of it.

Despite what was claimed on C5 highlights, Bell's innings was not faultless. I think they claimed he made his first mistake well past fifty when he was nearly bowled, he sliced two aerial shots through gully area I think it was which were catchable had a fielder been employed there - both before he reached fifty. But for a no ball Bairstow would have been out bowled earlier in his innings, has any batsman made more than about 30 runs convincingly and chance/error free? Can't remember how fluent Trott's innings was, but England could easily have been out for well under 300.

Yes a lot of it is down to poor shots and poor shot selection, especially from the aussies none of whom faced more than 45 balls, but still there has been some luck in making (remotely) big scores.

For the aussies to win they need to make early inroads, I don't think they'll make the target required even if you work on the basis England are bowled out for 90-100. England really only need to mirror the aussie total to post a tough target.

On a side note, I find Michael Yawn hypocritical in his role on TMS. He criticises Cook's decisions which he himself would have made, sounds more positive about things like batting and declarations than he ever showed as captain, and him barking on about the nightwatchman and use of Root as a bowler just about capped it off.

England used nightwatchmen while he was captain and for years before, he can't knock Cook for it. And to slate the decision to bowl Root who then took a wicket, and with it changed Yawn's cynicism to celebration in a most sickening way. I so don't feel sorry for HIM getting stuck in a lift, felt sorry for those stuck with him. I watched Earthquake last weekend, don't know why that sprang to mind in relation to lifts (elevators)

----------

Ian Botham's Ashes column: Jimmy Anderson is now in same league as legends McGrath, Hadlee, Lillee and Marshall - Ian Botham - Mirror Online

Whoaa!! Somebody tell Sir Ian to ease the rhetoric on Anderson. He is very good but not on those guys level. He is not even on the same level as great English fast bowlers such as Trueman, Larwood, Snow, Statham to be frank.

I know what you mean, he's a good bowler but just because he's breaking records doesn't mean he is the bestest ever. It is largely down to how much he's played. Might dig up a thread I think I made on Anderson and post the England all time wicket taker stats

 

[sifter132]

^With ya there buddy, the Jimmy Anderson love has been massively over the top. He skittled the Aussie tail twice in the first Test and suddenly he's god? 5 of his 10 wickets at Nottingham were bowlers...and he had to bowl almost 60 overs to get those 10. Contrast with Siddle who took 8 wickets in about 45-50 overs, only 2 of whom were bowlers, against a better batting lineup. Anyone mentioning that Siddle is good as McGrath? Haven't heard it...

Anderson is still obviously a good bowler, always dangerous when the ball is moving, but I still think his length is usually too short and if he pitched it up more, he'd be even more lethal.

That's really handy stats, I know people have been looking for them. Rogers should be blowing up over him wasting it as he would have reviewed otherwise.

Came out this morning that Rogers confirmed, maybe even suggested, that Watson should go for it.

But generally that sentiment is right, Watson never feels he's out LBW because he gets the big stride in. Sometimes he's right, often he's not.

Noticeable that Broad gives Watson more trouble than Anderson, and it's because of Broad's angle. It seems to skew Watson's mental pitch map a bit, and gets him playing across that pad a bit more. I'd be suggesting to Anderson to bowl wider on the crease to Watson all the time.

----------

As for players making mistakes with reviews, they're bound to. They're in the game to PLAY not to make judgements on whether batsmen are out or not. If the umpires find it hard from a good position, what chance others?!?!?

I agree...Should DRS usage be a skill that is rewarded? I say no. This 'skill' has very little to do with cricket itself and often about how good an umpire your wicket keeper is, how sensitive your batsmen are to nicks, or how calm your captain is. These aren't cricket skills, but skills that have been unfortunately emphasised by a system that is attempting to take the blame off umpires and put the responsibility on the players to keep the umpires honest.

Phil Hughes is apparently evil because he can't tell that he'd got a thin edge, Watson is the devil because he thought his pad was outside off stump on a ball that was almost 90mph, and he had precisely half a second to calculate. How the hell are players supposed to KNOW when to review?

----------

Oops, forgot to add the other point I wanted to make....that the other downside of having players in charge of reviews, is that it actually emphasises non-cricket issues eg. I've seen a couple of headlines today bemoaning Australia's DRS use, even though both decisions were absolutely correct by the umpires. DRS chatter takes away from the game, and has us all talking about decisions and DRS tactics, often, even when the umpires decisions were right

 

[Hooper]

Brad Haddin is terrible.

Our top 6 is so weak.

This Root guy is putting me to sleep.

 

[barmyarmy]

Yeah I can understand how concepts such as "playing yourself in" and "waiting for the right ball" are alien in Australian cricket right now.
It's much more exciting for the spectators when Australia bat...

 

[Warner Watson]

Yeah I can understand how concepts such as "playing yourself in" and "waiting for the right ball" are alien in Australian cricket right now.
It's much more exciting for the spectators when Australia bat...

which is in strong Position obviosly but i think Australia will do unexpected in this match am sure, expecting from Shane Watson some unbelievable knock

 

[Dutch]

which is in strong Position obviosly but i think Australia will do unexpected in this match am sure, expecting from Shane Watson some unbelievable knock

The only unbelievable knock we are going to see is when Watson whacks Clarke with a cricket bat...

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

away tests this year (presuming this ends in australian defeat)

P 24
W 1
D 4
L 19

and it's bangladesh that have made the only win and one of the draws.

----------

expecting from Shane Watson some unbelievable knock

I think australia will need more than 50 runs tbh

 

[Owzat]

England progressing steadily, should really have injected a bit of momentum into their batting mind as you can't assume the win is in the bag until weather and any other obstacles have been taken out of the equation.

Root surely has to stay opening next Test, really don't see a gain returning a 30 year old whinger in Compton and whose 54 runs in his last six innings compares poorly to a 74no knock by his (effective) replacement

England shouldn't waste time "making sure", anything over 400 will be too much and if they carry on to 500 they're just using up potentially precious bowling time. Do what the opposition wants least, the aussies will not be wanting to chase 400+, but they also won't be wanting to bat today.

If England press on for the next hour and add 75+ runs, then for up to an hour after tea and add maybe 75-100 runs then that would set over 500. So English "convention" suggests you don't want to leave a door open, 500 isn't a door, it's a minute crack and if the aussies somehow made 500 in two days to win then you take your hat off to them, especially for a side yet to register 300 in the series. I think the aussies would take most of six sessions to score 500 runs anyway, probably taking way more than the 10 wickets they start with.

Of course you could argue there's enough time to make sure we don't lose, well 480+ should do that and besides, the more you try to make sure you don't lose the more you jeopardise the win. I wouldn't want to be 1-1, the chances of it are remote even now, but I would most certainly not want to be 1-0 after two Tests in which the aussies really should have been buried a lot earlier.

Let's save avoiding defeat for when we're in aussie type trouble, not for when we're so far on top we may yet bowl them out again for less than 200.

----------

Watson never feels he's out LBW because he gets the big stride in. Sometimes he's right, often he's not.

If he did get such a big stride in then the umpires wouldn't give it out so readily, although the shift of emphasis has moved so that "benefit of the doubt" seems to be less a factor over judging if it would hit or not.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Whoops.... another shocker by the Third Umpire - this time against Australia. That was a catch, no doubt about it.

 

[barmyarmy]

Not important in the match situation but unfair on Smith and Australia.
Tony Hill has form on this.

2 rpo is a poor run rate but you feel they want to grind Aus down and get Root to his 100. I'd say fireworks later and a declaration with about an hour to go.

 

[Ahmad94]

Root is only 8 runs away from his 2nd Test century. What a quality find he has been, and with time will blossom in to another Alastair Cook.

 

[Gone4aDuck]

The only unbelievable knock we are going to see is when Watson whacks Clarke with a cricket bat...

Don't think that would be all that unbelievable tbh.
This Aussie team would be embarrassing if it wasn't for their "above average" young seamers.

----------

Root is only 8 runs away from his 2nd Test century. What a quality find he has been, and with time will blossom in to another Alastair Cook.

Does make you wonder if cook sets a highest runs total just to have it beaten just a few years later.

 

[Ahmad94]

Why are England not declaring or attacking the Australian bowlers, Root has already reached his century.