Woke up to Smith 3 counters and was thinking whose Smith. Been that long since he's bowled, nice save by him as that good work by Harris shouldn't not have resulted in England being 4 down at stumps. Pattinson really has been doing his best Mitchell Johnson impersonation.
2nd Test: England v Australia at Lords Jul 18-22, 2013
- Thread starter Gurjot95
- Start date
superfreddie
Club Captain
Yeah, a nightwatchman so low down the order is strange, I was worried when they brought Smith on. He does bowl some drivel but that in turn can often result in wickets.
Smith is that typical part time bowler. Bowls the odd good ball, with a lot of trash thrown in, which can still get wickets, as Bairstow showed. Speaking of Bairstow, it seemed all very friendly, got given a life with that no ball and then gifted it back with that wicket. Needs to convert to a ton soon though, he can't keep getting out on 50 plus batting in the easiest position in the order.
What happens if Root's form doesn't pick up though? Do we drop him and keep Bairstow? Would be strange considering how good Root was down the order.
Good to see the DRS working better though, with that Root dismissal. Not enough evidence to overturn, so kept with the on field call, perfect.
Oh, and what kind of world do we live in when Ian Bell scores not one, but two pressure centuries in a row? Seems like those years of keeping him in the side no matter what, might finally be bearing fruit.
What happens if Root's form doesn't pick up though? Do we drop him and keep Bairstow? Would be strange considering how good Root was down the order.
Good to see the DRS working better though, with that Root dismissal. Not enough evidence to overturn, so kept with the on field call, perfect.
Oh, and what kind of world do we live in when Ian Bell scores not one, but two pressure centuries in a row? Seems like those years of keeping him in the side no matter what, might finally be bearing fruit.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
Everyone sitting comfortably? Let the rollercoaster ride commence!
midgetwars
Club Captain
It seems like Pattinson and Agar are a bit knackered from last test
superfreddie
Club Captain
Smith is that typical part time bowler. Bowls the odd good ball, with a lot of trash thrown in, which can still get wickets, as Bairstow showed. Speaking of Bairstow, it seemed all very friendly, got given a life with that no ball and then gifted it back with that wicket. Needs to convert to a ton soon though, he can't keep getting out on 50 plus batting in the easiest position in the order.
What happens if Root's form doesn't pick up though? Do we drop him and keep Bairstow? Would be strange considering how good Root was down the order.
Good to see the DRS working better though, with that Root dismissal. Not enough evidence to overturn, so kept with the on field call, perfect.
Oh, and what kind of world do we live in when Ian Bell scores not one, but two pressure centuries in a row? Seems like those years of keeping him in the side no matter what, might finally be bearing fruit.
Thought about the Root, Bairstow thing and if it continues would it be out of the question to move Root back down the order and bring back Compton to open, therefore dropping Bairstow. Any thoughts anyone. I know Compton isn't going to score at a rate of knots, but I think he could sure up the beginning of the innings and the middle order would have a stronger look to it.
Last edited:
England have picked their two from three, they have to give it a chance even if it means trying Trott as opener.
Awful decision to send in a nightwatchman, I could leave it at that but in context that means Broad is batting 10 and Swann 11. It's kinda ironic England are inflexible with their batting order other than this stupid tictac.
Are the aussies on top? I think they'll be very happy getting so many dangerous batsmen out cheap - Cook 12, Root 6, Pietersen 2 and Prior 6, With the other batsmen all getting past 50 this pitch looks a lot better than 289/7 so England really need to get close to 350.
As is often the case, the morning session should prove crucial. We really need the last three pairs to put on 20+ runs each. Of course now Swann batting 11 could stifle his natural game, Anderson is more the hanger around so it just compounds the stupidity of the nightwatchman.
I've heard before the batsmen choose if they want one, that most certainly should not apply below the keeper and arguably not even to the keeper. The batsmen are there to do the batting, to not go out just because you're afraid of losing your wicket is shying away from that job. Do the bowlers get to opt out of bowling because they might go for a few runs or because it's *insert name of star batsman* ?
And here's another thought, I might lend it to Cook. What if Anderson got or gets injured while doing someone else's job (batting).....................? He's lucky the aussies delayed the new ball because they might get frustrated not getting Anderson out and pepper him with short stuff.
Oh and England will need early wickets when they bowl, if only to keep the innings in check. Looks like the new ball might be the best way to get wickets. Could be a long hard day in the field.
Good news on the reviews front, they're talking about more power to the third umpire which is basically what I've been advocating. They reviewed Bairstow's wicket on the grounds of a no ball possibility, why should they do that and not Broad's on the basis, well, that he edged the f in ball to the fielder............?!?!?
Awful decision to send in a nightwatchman, I could leave it at that but in context that means Broad is batting 10 and Swann 11. It's kinda ironic England are inflexible with their batting order other than this stupid tictac.
Are the aussies on top? I think they'll be very happy getting so many dangerous batsmen out cheap - Cook 12, Root 6, Pietersen 2 and Prior 6, With the other batsmen all getting past 50 this pitch looks a lot better than 289/7 so England really need to get close to 350.
As is often the case, the morning session should prove crucial. We really need the last three pairs to put on 20+ runs each. Of course now Swann batting 11 could stifle his natural game, Anderson is more the hanger around so it just compounds the stupidity of the nightwatchman.
I've heard before the batsmen choose if they want one, that most certainly should not apply below the keeper and arguably not even to the keeper. The batsmen are there to do the batting, to not go out just because you're afraid of losing your wicket is shying away from that job. Do the bowlers get to opt out of bowling because they might go for a few runs or because it's *insert name of star batsman* ?
And here's another thought, I might lend it to Cook. What if Anderson got or gets injured while doing someone else's job (batting).....................? He's lucky the aussies delayed the new ball because they might get frustrated not getting Anderson out and pepper him with short stuff.
Oh and England will need early wickets when they bowl, if only to keep the innings in check. Looks like the new ball might be the best way to get wickets. Could be a long hard day in the field.
Good news on the reviews front, they're talking about more power to the third umpire which is basically what I've been advocating. They reviewed Bairstow's wicket on the grounds of a no ball possibility, why should they do that and not Broad's on the basis, well, that he edged the f in ball to the fielder............?!?!?
madmusician
Club Cricketer
I do think it's very dangerous, though, if the 3rd umpire can arbitrarily decide to override the current review system. At what point is an 'obvious' decision overturned? It adds a further element of judgment call as to when to review. I agree that the current system isn't perfect, but at least it is utterly fair, and if a team doesn't have a review left it is their own fault (I've always considered it the equivalent of Clarke moving the man out of second slip and then a ball being nicked right through the gap). If the 3rd umpire can just decide when to intervene in addition to the DRS reviews, then that leaves open further questions as to when he does not or when he does. What if there's a fairly noticeable snick that doesn't get given out - the 3rd umpire will have to be scrupulously fair between the two sides as to when he intervenes - but this is very hard as it undoubtedly becomes a judgement call.
Well they've made 361, shame the decision to bat Swann at 11 left him high and dry, but it's about 20-40 runs more than might have been expected given the position overnight and early wickets.
I reckon it's about a 400-450 par pitch, enough in it for the bowlers if they bowl well. England can't afford to bowl too many poor balls, most certainly there's little room for dropped catches/missed chances, and they really won't want to be any more than 50-70 behind IF they concede a 1st innings lead.
I'm not convinced the aussies will get a lead, but then we've left out Finn for a few runs from Bresnan and maybe some swing. Quick on his home ground, why on earth would we drop someone to coincide with that?!?!? Don't forget of course that the aussies struggled a bit with the Lords slope, it is quite likely England can capitalise on inexperience of the batting in this regard.
----------
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............................
I reckon it's about a 400-450 par pitch, enough in it for the bowlers if they bowl well. England can't afford to bowl too many poor balls, most certainly there's little room for dropped catches/missed chances, and they really won't want to be any more than 50-70 behind IF they concede a 1st innings lead.
I'm not convinced the aussies will get a lead, but then we've left out Finn for a few runs from Bresnan and maybe some swing. Quick on his home ground, why on earth would we drop someone to coincide with that?!?!? Don't forget of course that the aussies struggled a bit with the Lords slope, it is quite likely England can capitalise on inexperience of the batting in this regard.
----------
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............................
Well assuming the team isn't Australia then the team on the field will review it anyway. If it is Australia then the 3rd umpire can intervene. I can see merit in having a dual system. The 3rd umpire key role is to get rid of the howlers. If more teams did what England did then this wouldn't be an issue, since there has been more attention on how they review this innings I have been very impressed with what I've seen.
Spickery
PlanetCricket Writing Team
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
- Location
- Tasmania, Australia
- Profile Flag
- Australia
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
Australia hasn't preformed to a high standard in their bowling or batting this session. We shouldn't have exceeded so many runs from England's last wicket pair. That seems the go at the moment though. Watson getting out just before Lunch is an annoying setback. The fact he wasted another review on the decision makes it even worse.
Australia need to make runs this session so the middle order batsman have a run base to work off. This is a good to chance for Usman Khawaja to make some runs and cement his place in the team.
Australia need to make runs this session so the middle order batsman have a run base to work off. This is a good to chance for Usman Khawaja to make some runs and cement his place in the team.
Similar threads
