1st Test: England v Australia at Nottingham Jul 10-14, 2013

[SiriusBlack]

edited

 

[aditya123]

Hell no. Hence the "possibility" in quotation marks.

Okay. I think I`ve dragged on enough with the Broad non-dismissal. I really wanted that to be given out as it would have opened up the game again. As it stands, Australia are almost out of it now. I can`t see them conjuring up magic to chase down 300-odd against this English attack with the ball turning and reversing (i.e if they survive the new ball).

 

[used2bcool]

Controversy aside, I think that Broad/Bell partnership should pretty much set the template for English batting for the rest of the series. When you're slightly better than the opposition, you grind them to dust with attritional cricket and win Tests. If you're MUCH better than the opposition (like the world-conquering Australian or West Indian sides), then you go at the opposition, smash them to bits and win tests in four days.

 

[aditya123]

Controversy aside, I think that Broad/Bell partnership should pretty much set the template for English batting for the rest of the series. When you're slightly better than the opposition, you grind them to dust with attritional cricket and win Tests. If you're MUCH better than the opposition (like the world-conquering Australian or West Indian sides), then you go at the opposition, smash them to bits and win tests in four days.

To be fair to the England team, they are more than just slightly better than this Aussie side. If not for the Agar-Hughes partnership, we would be discussing what would be a good English declaration here.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

No-one denies that Broad knew he hit it but the problem is a wider one and he doesn't deserve to be singled out.
To be honest not walking has become far less of a problem with DRS so it's probably not worth the ICC's while to make a big push for punitive measures.

True.

Incidentally, I thought that an Umpire could 'go upstairs' any time he wasn't sure about a decision, regardless of reviews? Maybe that was before the DRS system came into place.

 

[barmyarmy]

I think the batting is similar but the English bowling is a lot stronger.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

To be fair to the England team, they are more than just slightly better than this Aussie side. If not for the Agar-Hughes partnership, we would be discussing what would be a good English declaration here.

Or if the Third Umpire had given that stumping...

 

[aditya123]

I think the batting is similar but the English bowling is a lot stronger.

I actually think its the other way around. The Aussie batting lacks any semblance of stability. You have to look back a long long way to find an Aussie start that is`nt 20/3, 30/3 or 100/4.

 

[barmyarmy]

You think that Australia's bowling attack is better than England's?

 

[aditya123]

You think that Australia's bowling attack is better than England's?

No, I think England have a better bowling attack than Australia. However, the Aussie bowling is far better than the Aussie batting The two batting lineups are`nt even comparable but at least I`d back the Aussie bowling to have a lot more good days than their batting.

 

[RobinHood]

Also to be fair to aleem dar it hasn't gone straight to slip, it's hit Haddins glove on the way through and that's what's thrown him in my view

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Now, my question is whether only the fielding side is to be held responsible as caretakers of the spirit of cricket? Would it not be great if the ICC can penalize Broad and set a precedent against it. If they do it, more batsmen would walk in the future knowing the consequences well. For me, what Ramdin did and what Broad did are analogous to each other. Both tried to hide the fact from the umpire knowing well that they were lying.

Well everybody should be held responsible for maintaining the spirit of cricket, but that doesn't mean you equate two things that are distinct and not equal in some warped sense of balance or fairness.

I understand the fact they are similar on the grounds of dishonesty, but there is a difference between the two acts in that broad didn't claim not to hit it, he just left it to the umpire, ramdin appealed the catch. there is a difference between an active lie and withholding the truth. Both are wrong, but there is a difference.

There is a reasonable consensus among a lot of cricketers that you don't walk and you wait for the decision. There isn't the same consensus about "appeal for catches you know were grounded and wait for the decision" so again the severity of what they have both done is different based on that. one is effectively standard behaviour (wrong, but that's how it is, I want that to be changed too) and the other is non-standard.

 

[Lee1981]

Couldn't careless

Decisions even themselves out, when it goes against you it's a killer, but when it goes in your favour ..

England to win ashes and I don't care how we do it, a win is win in my book.

Morals are for women..

 

[Gone4aDuck]

Aleem dar used to be cool.

 

[vorgaphe]

The comparisons between Broad and Ramdin are ridiculous. The main difference is that Ramdin actively tried to deceive the umpire, like a dive in football. On the other hand, what Broad did was fail to correct the umpire, that's like asking the goalkeeper to correct the referee if the a goal is incorrectly disallowed. These are fundamental differences. Also, with regards to the Ian Bell example, it would actually be wrong for him to be given out as he had tapped into his crease and was not attempting a run. This is inscribed in the laws somewhere, meaning that he could not be given out.