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

[ste_mc_efc]

from the battrick forums about watson's LBWs

"
Just going back through his recent LBWs
just now - given out,reviewed and out
1st test - given out,reviewed and out
2 LBWs vs India - assume not reviews
vs SAF in Perth - reviewed and out
vs Saf in Capetown in 2011 - didn't review, should have
vs SL in 2011 - given not out, SL reviewed and given out
vs Eng MCG 2010 - given out, reviewed and out
vs Eng Perth 2010 - twice out LBW, Twice given out and reviewed, twice still out
vs India 2010 - assume not reviews
vs Pak at Leeds - not sure if they had reviews but "Ian Gould quickly raises the finger, but Watson isn't happy and takes a while to leave "
vs WI Perth 2009 - given out, reviewed it, still out
vs WI Brisbane 2009 - does not ask for a review!!!!

He could have asked for more reviews and being given not out - I think I saw 1 time that it happened going through teh scorecards - so this is an "at least" number of reviews and only in Tests.

So...
14 times out LBW since DRS brought in
3 times no DRS
1 time opposition reviewed
9 times he reviewed unsuccessfully
1 time he didn't review."

 

[aussie1st]

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.

 

[Owzat]

I was going to say earlier that I reckon the close of play score should be around 230-250. Four wickets would make it in the balance, five or more would favour England and three or less the aussies in box seat.

But at four down already the aussies would probably settle for 6-7 down and that position.

re the reviews, the Hughes decision shows how the umpire influences the reviews anyway. Had it been given not out then England would have had to have "risked" their review, and of course England got a bonus wicket when the aussies didn't review.

Might be better IF they insist on giving it to the sides, if they gave them 10 reviews per Test, to be used as and when they see fit. But even then any mistakes resulting after reviews have gone would still be mistakes, and it would be so much better if the umpires just reviewed all given out and some of those decisions given not out. The captains could ask for a review, but would be penalised if persistently asking for reviews where they only think it might be out.

And as I speak Smith is out, no reviews left so any injustices will go the way of England. Is that "fair" ? I'd laugh if any side made 500 on this pitch, someone on BBC earlier on was suggesting England fell 200 short, I think he's 'aving a giraffe. It's not what the pitch looks like, it's not what the weather is doing, it is how sides bat and bowl respectively.

Maybe the aussies should ask if they can send in the sheilas next match......................

----------

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.

England seem to employ a much simpler approach, the batsman asks his partner and I think the partner's input is upon which they base the review.

The aussie instinct seems to be self preservation, and not a very good instinct at that, as they almost immediately go for the review as if it's a 50-50 decision and not a judgement.

Even if you firmly place the blame on the aussies for being selfish and stupid with reviews, it is still spoiling the game. Like a kid not getting how to play a game, or not following suit at Bridge.

And Broad not walking is akin to a player not following suit at Bridge and trumping instead, and knowing he hasn't as he does it, hoping that no one will pick him up on it. We played Whist a few weeks ago, my partner didn't follow suit (mistake not intentional) and I immediately tried to pull back the situation by giving the other pair the trick and switching the offending card with the card that should have been played. My partner wasn't cheating, had she done it deliberately then she would have been.

 

[aussie1st]

The aussie instinct seems to be self preservation, and not a very good instinct at that, as they almost immediately go for the review as if it's a 50-50 decision and not a judgement.

Really just a couple that waste it in Watson and Clarke. Rest never get the chance to use it really.

 

[Owzat]

Six down, the umpires perhaps ought to edge on the side of caution and give the aussies benefit of any doubt.

Aussies will do well to get to 200 from here. They seem to have made a bit of a pig's ear of the entire series with reviews, batting, not bowling Smith much earlier than the 76th over of the 2nd Test - he took three of the last six wickets to fall, didn't bowl today as England made some late runs. Is that like taking off a striker who's scored two goals in five minutes in the first half at half-time for no reason?

 

[ste_mc_efc]

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.

It was an aussie who posted it and he said a few posts later that it doesn't add up, someone else corrected it and it's pretty similar. will dig out the
corrected list in a minute.

"14 LBW's

4 times no DRS (India x3, Pakistan)
1 opposition review (SL)
7 unsuccessful reviews (Eng, Eng, SA,Eng,Eng,Eng, WI)
2 times no reviews. (WI, SA) "

apparently.

still shocking.

shockingly bad, not in a sense of a surprise.

 

[MUFC1987]

England have picked their two from three, they have to give it a chance even if it means trying Trott as opener.

I don't get why you keep on bringing this up. Trott has been brilliant at 3 and solved a massive issue for us there, in tying down the spot, yet you want him to open? I don't get it. He's brilliant where he is, there's no need to move him. That's without going into who would bat at 3, with KP having a history of not wanting to bat there, hence Trott getting a go there in the first place.

 

[barmyarmy]

@Owzat - big on the analogies today. I'd by slightly concerned about playing bridge with someone who didn't know they had to follow suit. Probably bidding slams for fun as well.

Follow-on still 70 away but England won't enforce it. These are Australia's best two batters anyway.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

@Owzat - big on the analogies today. I'd by slightly concerned about playing bridge with someone who didn't know they had to follow suit. Probably bidding slams for fun as well.

Follow-on still 70 away but England won't enforce it. These are Australia's best two batters anyway.

I remember playing a hand of solo in 6th form which was simply ludicrous due to this.

2 people bid misere (sp) 1 bid misere ouverte* (sp) the 4th said "okay, i'll take all 13 tricks then"

and it happened. guy won all 13. was completely baffling.

*think my spelling is fine, barring accents. been a while since i did french

 

[Spickery]

Credit to England on their bowling. The England bowlers are hitting the right line and length and are destroying Australia's batting line-up. Australia's batsman can not stay at the crease with their dismal batting.

The batsman playing for Australia now are meant to be the best in the country, with the way they have preformed we are in trouble.

 

[Owzat]

@Owzat - big on the analogies today. I'd by slightly concerned about playing bridge with someone who didn't know they had to follow suit. Probably bidding slams for fun as well.

Not necessarily not knowing they had to follow suit, not knowing they hadn't followed suit ie a mistake

Follow-on still 70 away but England won't enforce it. These are Australia's best two batters anyway.

They definitely shouldn't, makes no sense to. While the aussies are unlikely to post 400+, it would be easier for them to do so batting third and England should shut them out of the game. Add 250-350 to a 200+ 1st innings lead and leave the aussies no chance.

You should only enforce the follow on if a) you have enough runs to win by an innings, or b) time is an issue. This is what, day two of five, so time should not be an issue unless we get thunderstorms and even then I'd expect there to be some more play.

England may be able to bowl the aussies out for less than 250 but I'd rather add runs, accelerate towards a 400+ lead and then put the pressure on bigtime. I bet Finn is peeved, anyone who can remotely bowl is a wicket taking candidate against the aussies in their current "form". They posted nearly 300 in both innings of the first Test, but so far :

117/9
231/9
104/9

Their first three innings of the series have produced an average so far of 151/9 , rescued twice already from complete humiliation and nearly stealing a win. I think, as Boycs put it, they've had chances in this Test and let them slip - 28/3 to 271/4 and letting the England tail wag a bit with 72 for the last two wickets.

Was interesting to hear the par for Lords in the 1st innings is 375.

----------

I remember playing a hand of solo in 6th form which was simply ludicrous due to this.

2 people bid misere (sp) 1 bid misere ouverte* (sp) the 4th said "okay, i'll take all 13 tricks then"

and it happened. guy won all 13. was completely baffling.

*think my spelling is fine, barring accents. been a while since i did french

I learned to play Bridge watching can't have been more than two hands played in sixth form. First two hands I played were decided on discards, which suit to keep and which to throw.

At college I taught a handful of friends to play, can't stand Solo though, better off playing Bridge - solitaire, sevens, snap and almost any other game come to that.

 

[barmyarmy]

109/9 to 420 ao. Who would have believed it?

 

[angad]

Its embarrassing to watch this Australian side!!! Cant bat against spin, cant bat against pace!! Has to be the worst Australian side in current form!!

 

[Epic]

Brad Haddin.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

109/9 to 420 ao. Who would have believed it?

Well it is a batting pitch.