Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15th July 2015, 15:02   #641
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,849
Depending on the pitch, I would have thought that if Ali is injured then since Root will play in any case, Bairstow is an option as Ali's replacement.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 15:08   #642
stevieh
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 7,145
Seriously doubt that Rashid would not replace Ali, should the former be unfit to play. Root is fine as an occasional spinner, but you don't want to add the extra burden even to a willing horse. You are suggesting that Lord's would require an all-seam attack, which is unlikely given the types of wicket we are expecting for the balance of the series.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 15:25   #643
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
The way England played, they presented the match to the Aussies in the first session, but were fortunate the Aussies declined to accept it and gave England a second chance (which I agree, they took well). They won't always be that benevolent.

We may have won, but it would be foolish for England not to recognise the areas where they did less well: in this match they didn't make the difference, but in closer matches they become very significant.
What did they add, about 90 for the last four innings and 140 for the last five? Not so bad given that those at 8 and 9 could be classed as bowling all rounders. If i recall, once the mitch partnership was broken, things accelerated to a conclusion.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 15:37   #644
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Only saw the "catch up", but it seemed to me that we had the greater part of the good fortune going. I wonder if Rashid will get his chance at Lord's. Ali didn't bat and bowl as well as his figures may suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
They will probably drop someone who averaged 45 with that bat and under 30 with the ball. Rightly so.
If the selectors also consider figures to the exclusion of everything else, then the sarcasm may be justified.

Any road up, seems Ali may have a bit of an injury problem.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 15:43   #645
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
I've long felt the benefit of the doubt goes the wrong way with LBW - the batsman is supposed to use his bat, not his pads; the bowler has performed their art better by beating the bat, yet the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I'd prefer to see the benefit of the doubt going the other way, and if the batsmen don't like it, their remedy is simple: use the bat. ...
Take the point but with DRS there is now very little doubt and therefore very little benefit available to be given. The correct decision can now be made in a very high proportion of cases.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 16:53   #646
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Take the point but with DRS there is now very little doubt and therefore very little benefit available to be given. The correct decision can now be made in a very high proportion of cases.
I'm not sure how one might quantify this. I think to some extent it depends on what one makes of the "umpire's call" zone. If this zone is held to reflect the inherent uncertainty of the equipment, then it would be moot what "the correct decision" would be in cases that involve that zone. If, alternatively, it is held that the "umpire's call" zone is there in order to make the on-field umpire's call hard to overturn in relatively marginal cases, even where that umpire's call might be incorrect, then that would often limit the ability of the correct decision to be made. In any case, even without having to adjudicate on this matter once and for all, it seems to me that the correct decision is more likely to be made, when all is said and done, if the correct decision is made by the on-field umpire. So the on-field umpire's doubt and its benefit is still a significant factor -- indeed, this is frequently remarked upon by viewers (e.g. when an on-field "not out" call is reviewed and stands uncorrected, even though Hawkeye shows the ball hitting a stump). This can be so even while the UDRS succeeds in correcting a useful proportion of bad calls.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 16:59   #647
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 875
DRS is a good predictive tool, but I do not believe it is always right - does anyone?
IMO it is being used correctly at present - i.e. to correct very obviously poor decisions. On field umpires should only be over ruled if blatantly wrong.
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th July 2015, 21:48   #648
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
I've long felt the benefit of the doubt goes the wrong way with LBW - the batsman is supposed to use his bat, not his pads; the bowler has performed their art better by beating the bat, yet the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I'd prefer to see the benefit of the doubt going the other way, and if the batsmen don't like it, their remedy is simple: use the bat.

I have heard that one of the consequences of the DRS is the umpires now have a better understanding of what is going on to hit the stumps, and are more likely to give LBW. If so, so much the better.

Concering Watson, both of the dismissals would have remained not out if the umpire hadn't given them, and England reviewed. On another day they might not have been given, and England wouldn't have too many grounds to complain. So I'd say England had the rub of the green here,but I have little sympathy for Watson: the bowler beat the bat (see rant earlier in this post).
Agreed.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 07:08   #649
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 985
Well played England. There was no real time the Aussies looked a threat after day 1 (well, actually after Root got off 0).

Without wishing to take away too much from England's performance, as it was very good, it is difficult to understand the lack of fight from the Aussies. It was a capitulation in the end. There didn't even seem to be any thought of trying to drag it into day 5 to "see what the weather does". They were simply resigned to losing.

Two wayward "wildcard" type lefty quicks in the same attack make it impossible to keep pressure on the batsmen (despite occasional spells of brilliance). This was probably Clarke's worst game as Captain. In fairness, it would be very difficult to set fields/plans when your bowlers are spraying them like this, but not much discipline or urgency in this squad as yet. Hard to fathom, wonder if there is some problems behind the scenes.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 07:18   #650
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
If this is true then I suspect it is the end for haddin and Watson. When I predicted we would retire five of the Aussies by the end of the series I did not think this would be after one test! Only pup left.
It was always likely that Watson wouldn't finish the series in the starting line up. Most consider he shouldn't have been on the tour, let alone the starting line up, to begin with. There has even been a bit of musical chairs going on between him and Marsh in the ODI team (and Watson is a much better ODI player than he is in test matches).

Haddin has other problems. He dropped out of the team for 18 months at one stage for the same reason and had to fight his way back in. Though as he was likely to retire at the end of series anyway, that could be it.

It's hardly the type of implosion we saw from England where their "stars" simply dropped their bundle and gave up mid series because they couldn't cope with being utterly dominated.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

Last edited by thedon : 16th July 2015 at 08:03.
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 09:09   #651
The Scorer
Bat In Hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
Best Physics lessons ever watching the morning session of this game.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin...tch/63754.html
No century until day 2 though.
I was actually at Lord's on a tour of the ground that day.

As we were walking around the ground, every now and then someone would say "another one gone at Edgbaston". Every time this happened, the two Kiwis who were on our tour would give the couple of Aussies who were there as well (why they weren't in Birmingham, I can't recall) some terrible stick!

__________________
Garage Manager: You must have shot an awful lot of tigers, sir.
Charlie Croker: Yes, I used a machine gun.
The Scorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 09:33   #652
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Scorer View Post
I was actually at Lord's on a tour of the ground that day.

As we were walking around the ground, every now and then someone would say "another one gone at Edgbaston". Every time this happened, the two Kiwis who were on our tour would give the couple of Aussies who were there as well (why they weren't in Birmingham, I can't recall) some terrible stick!

Didn't we get murdered at lords in the second test though ?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 10:01   #653
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
What did they add, about 90 for the last four innings and 140 for the last five? Not so bad given that those at 8 and 9 could be classed as bowling all rounders. If i recall, once the mitch partnership was broken, things accelerated to a conclusion.
Strange how things could have gone Australia's way had they made most of starts and finished England off :

1st Innings

England were 43/3, made 430
Australia were 129/1, made 308

England were 293/6, added 137 for last 4 wickets
Australia were 258/4, added 50 for last 6 wickets

2nd Innings

England were 73/3, made 289
Australia were 97/1, made 242


Unusually England recovered better than the aussies when batting and polished them off better, taking 4 wickets for 9 runs in the 2nd innings and the last 3 aussie 2nd innings wickets went for 19 runs.

In contrast the aussies had several strong positions, not least when they dropped Root, but even when England were 73/3 2nd innings they were still in it as the lead was just shy of 200.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 10:53   #654
Notts Exile
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedon View Post
It's hardly the type of implosion we saw from England where their "stars" simply dropped their bundle and gave up mid series because they couldn't cope with being utterly dominated.
Who says that's not what Haddin's doing? It'll just be better managed. England could so easily have just left Swann out after Perth and then had him retire upon his return to Blighty. They managed it all so very badly, no cover ups at al. I don't think there's any doubt that there are factions in the Aussie squad that aren't good for the team as a whole. Lehmann has done brilliantly so far to keep them close enough but cracks are showing. Now the clock is ticking towards the end of a few careers those cracks may get wider and become chasms. A good England performance at Lord's will exacerbate the situation.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 10:53   #655
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
DRS is a good predictive tool, but I do not believe it is always right - does anyone?
A lot depends how you define "right" - it would be foolish to believe it is accurate to the micrometre, so by that threshold it is almost never right.

What I do believe is that it provides the best information currently available, and is demonstrably free of bias. And unlike the umpires, tests can be conducted to verify the accuracy of the system. Given the choice, I would contend that the probabilities will always strongly favour HE being closer to the truth than the umpires - even on the occasions where "umpire's call" allows the umpire's view to prevail.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 10:57   #656
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
What did they add, about 90 for the last four innings and 140 for the last five? Not so bad given that those at 8 and 9 could be classed as bowling all rounders. If i recall, once the mitch partnership was broken, things accelerated to a conclusion.
There have been a number of occassions in the last few years (at least that is my perception) where England have been in strong positions with the Aussies five down, only to see the last five wickets score lots of runs and reverse the situation. It's an area we need to improve significantly, and where in the second innings in Cardiff we struggles - despite the final margin of victory being comfortable.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 14:24   #657
The Scorer
Bat In Hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Didn't we get murdered at lords in the second test though ?
Well, not quite, as it was drawn. However, England's first innings (77 all out) was less than Australia's at Edgbaston, so comparing like with like, we were worse.

The results for the rest of the series were

2nd Test (Lords)
England 77 & 266 - 4 dec.; Australia 213 - 7 dec;
Match drawn.

Third Test, Old Trafford
Australia 235 & 385 - 8 dec.; England 162 & 200;
Australia won by 268 runs.

Fourth Test, Headingley]
England 172 & 268; Australia 501 - 9 dec.
Australia won by an innings and 61 runs.

Fifth Test, Trent Bridge
Australia 427 & 336; England 313 & 186
Australia won by 264 runs.

Sixth Test, The Oval
England 180 & 163; Australia 220 & 104
England won by 19 runs

Australia won the series three - two with one drawn.
__________________
Garage Manager: You must have shot an awful lot of tigers, sir.
Charlie Croker: Yes, I used a machine gun.

Last edited by The Scorer : 16th July 2015 at 16:27.
The Scorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 14:44   #658
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,721
You might want to review that 5th test, The Scorer.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2015, 16:28   #659
The Scorer
Bat In Hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
You might want to review that 5th test, The Scorer.
Corrected; thanks!

__________________
Garage Manager: You must have shot an awful lot of tigers, sir.
Charlie Croker: Yes, I used a machine gun.
The Scorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org