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

[aussie1st]

Can someone explain to me what happened to Shaun Marsh? I know he had a really bad period where he got absolutely no runs (2011-12 I think) but I would probably pick him if he was available ahead of at least 3-4 batsman already in the Australian squad.

Was injured most of last season but he's shown very little for most of his career in the longest format. We all know his potential and definitely he is the most rounded of the youngsters but consistency is a big issue. We have gone down the potential case with guys like Johnson and we still haven't seen that transformed into consistent performances.

 

[Ahmad94]

I wonder if Dar and Dharmasena are going to stand the entire series. The only other available umpires would be Erasmus and Tony Hill. Erasmus is probably better off behind the camera if he's to be involved at all, though I have nothing against Tony Hill. On the plus side, there's nowhere to go but up after this test.

Aleem Dar is a class umpire, Dharmasena is pretty average.

Never even heard of Erasmus before, so he is probably not going to make the cut. For a series like the Ashes, really need to have quality back up umpires.

 

[Haarithan]

Tony Hill is quality. Him and Dharmasena (who endured a tragic start to his umpiring career, but has looked decent of late) should be umpiring the next test IMO

 

[MasterBlaster76]

You've got to laugh at the Aussie press. Moaning on and on about Broad's decision, while conveniently forgetting the ridiculous failure to give Agar out stumped, and the two 'outs' for Trott and Root.

They don't like losing. Neither do we. We had to put up with celebrating Aussies for years, and years and years - one image that won't leave me was when Warne was up on the balcony of Lords or the Oval doing the hippy-hippy shake while holding a stump. Suck it up, ladies - we had to.

You have to laugh - 'prancing English cricketers celebrating like they'd just won Powerball'... well, what's it called when there are prancing Aussie cricketers? Hypocrisy of the highest order methinks.

Enjoy those sour grapes ladies, there will be a lot more of them. I hope we grind you into the dust, just as Warne, Waugh/Waugh and co did to us so many, many times.

 

[ferg512]

You've got to laugh at the Aussie press. Moaning on and on about Broad's decision, while conveniently forgetting the ridiculous failure to give Agar out stumped, and the two 'outs' for Trott and Root.

How was the Root one not out? You're talking about the nick down the leg side right?

 

[midgetwars]

Trott was 100% out. There was no deviation on the ball. Eye trickery. Common sense.

Agar was not DRS it was 3rd umpire. Benefit of doubt has always existed

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Trott was 100% out. There was no deviation on the ball. Eye trickery. Common sense.

Agar was not DRS it was 3rd umpire. Benefit of doubt has always existed

His foot was on the bloody line! There was no benefit of doubt whatsoever! As I said before, the only man on the face of the planet who thought Agar was not out was the Third Umpire.

 

[barmyarmy]

Trott was 100% out. There was no deviation on the ball. Eye trickery. Common sense.

Agar was not DRS it was 3rd umpire. Benefit of doubt has always existed

Trott wasn't out. Which game were you watching? The umpire thought he'd hit it, Trott thought he'd hit it and snicko showed he'd hit it.
Agar was out. His foot was on the line which is out. Benefit of the doubt is not a rule in cricket; it's a fallacy that gets tossed around from time-to-time.

 

[midgetwars]

Trott wasn't out. Which game were you watching? The umpire thought he'd hit it, Trott thought he'd hit it and snicko showed he'd hit it.
Agar was out. His foot was on the line which is out. Benefit of the doubt is not a rule in cricket; it's a fallacy that gets tossed around from time-to-time.

I bet, if it wasn't LBW and was a caught behind, Trott would of thought he didn't hit it, his word means nothing.

Snicko, too close to hitting the pads. It was only one frame. Not conclusive at all. Could have been the pads. I think we can say that the umpire's decision is not to be trusted on edges. Broad and Haddin comes to mind.

 

[barmyarmy]

Snicko showed the extended line that you get from the bat not the pads. Plus you can see deviation if you look at the front on replay.
Whatever.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

I bet, if it wasn't LBW and was a caught behind, Trott would of thought he didn't hit it, his word means nothing.

Snicko, too close to hitting the pads. It was only one frame. Not conclusive at all. Could have been the pads. I think we can say that the umpire's decision is not to be trusted on edges. Broad and Haddin comes to mind.

I don't think I've ever come across someone with the Green and Gold glasses so firmly welded on! The bat was miles away from the pads - the only noise it could've been was bat on ball. And Snicko also showed the thin line associated with a snick, rather than the shorter, thicker line associated with the pads as Barmy said.

 

[War]

Trott wasn't out. Which game were you watching? The umpire thought he'd hit it, Trott thought he'd hit it and snicko showed he'd hit it.
Agar was out. His foot was on the line which is out. Benefit of the doubt is not a rule in cricket; it's a fallacy that gets tossed around from time-to-time.

Laws of Cricket | Lord's

Law 27 Appeals
6. Consultation by umpires
Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not out.

 

[barmyarmy]

Touch?

 

[War]

Can someone explain to me what happened to Shaun Marsh? I know he had a really bad period where he got absolutely no runs (2011-12 I think) but I would probably pick him if he was available ahead of at least 3-4 batsman already in the Australian squad.

Couldn't agree more on Bailey, I also wonder whether Voges is another one in that camp.

Marsh pretty much hasn't shown enough improvement in FC cricket since his horror run with the bat during the 2011/12 India series to earn a test recall in time for this Ashes basically. But he is certainly just as talented as Hughes, Khawaja, Warner.

On Voges, don't think he is a serious test option to be fair. Still pretty much a ODI option.

 

[SaiSrini]

Adam Gilchrist: The DRS is not the solution, it's part of the problem | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Well, some idiots must now be cringing in their seats now that one of cricket's most respected gentleman has come out in scathing criticism of the 'DRS'. Now what? Gilchrist has been paid by the BCCI?