3rd Test: England v Australia at Old Trafford Aug 1-5, 2013
- Thread starter Owzat
- Start date
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
baffling way to declare. do it at tea, or slog out for 10-15 overs. don't come out for 10 minutes and go back. headcase.
Umair7
El Presidente
More than 500 WOW Haddin and Starc both were good with the bat now its time to get some quick wickets
Last edited:
Be a tester for England alright, will they be complacent, walk out thinking they can hit the bowling to all corners, or will they build an innings?
I think this has more or less put a lid on a whitewash, even if England were to say score 400 and bowl the aussies out cheaply they'd still need 150-200 runs or more and that will take up a fair few sessions - about the only way I could see us winning is knock the aussies over cheaply on an 'unlikely to bowl 'em out cheap' pitch.
And for all the bowling selection 'controversy', Bresnan 1/114, Broad 1/108 and Anderson 0/116 - as I say, "much of a muchness"
Surprised Root didn't bowl more overs, considering Swann took 5/159 and the seamers 2/338 between them I'd have thought spin would have been order of the day.....................
----------
That's missing the point though, when they only have two reviews it can make them hesitant and errors go through unchallenged even though the whole point is to get rid of errors.
Whether players use it right, or not, is neither here nor there. The objective is to get decisions right, the best way to do that is not make it almost "tactical" with players either fancying a wicket, thinking it is close, hoping for the best, or whatever motivation causes wasted reviews.
I think this has more or less put a lid on a whitewash, even if England were to say score 400 and bowl the aussies out cheaply they'd still need 150-200 runs or more and that will take up a fair few sessions - about the only way I could see us winning is knock the aussies over cheaply on an 'unlikely to bowl 'em out cheap' pitch.
And for all the bowling selection 'controversy', Bresnan 1/114, Broad 1/108 and Anderson 0/116 - as I say, "much of a muchness"
Surprised Root didn't bowl more overs, considering Swann took 5/159 and the seamers 2/338 between them I'd have thought spin would have been order of the day.....................----------
That's missing the point though, when they only have two reviews it can make them hesitant and errors go through unchallenged even though the whole point is to get rid of errors.
Whether players use it right, or not, is neither here nor there. The objective is to get decisions right, the best way to do that is not make it almost "tactical" with players either fancying a wicket, thinking it is close, hoping for the best, or whatever motivation causes wasted reviews.
Cricketdude
Chairman of Selectors
Aussies will be well pleased with 500+ even if their declaration timing was a bit odd with two batsmen at the crease well set. I might well have batted on another 20-30 minutes myself, left a good number of overs to bowl and added maybe 30-50 runs and setting a follow on nearer 400
But the extended bowl at the end worked in a way, the aussies bowled enough overs to get those two wickets they wouldn't have had they batted on a bit. Fair enough it was more than I advocate, but point is England might have had a chance to make runs, but at the end of the day the aussies got two wickets and England could have scored 80-100 and still the aussies would be the happier.
And Bresnan makes my earlier point about the DRS perfectly, Bresnan afraid to use a review because he is a lower order batsman and England only have two. The system is flawed, the media can push the ICC/MCC to review the application and move on.
I wonder if umpires aren't just guessing on half their decisions, I mean clear edges and LBWs they can make a call on, but swishes and some LBWs they seem to be a bit hit and miss, excuse the pun on whether the batsmen or ball are hitting or missing I think the only way forward is to give the reviews to the umpires, not review absolutely everything, but all wickets definitely and some of the uncertain/close catch/LBW calls.
I mean the batsmen would with most catches know if they've hit it, but sometimes they won't and is it more important the batsmen are given out when out and not out when not out, or the batsmen don't ask the question by dint of limited reviews which they can't be wrong.................?
It's supposed to be to prevent (glaring) errors, I can't see why Bresnan was given out so this counts and it stuck. If it fails its purpose once it is failing, it consistently doesn't serve its purpose. Consider it against "goalline technology" and you get several mistakes per Test even with technology/DRS, without "goalline technology" you'd get a use for it every nth game where n is probably as high as 100 or more.
But the extended bowl at the end worked in a way, the aussies bowled enough overs to get those two wickets they wouldn't have had they batted on a bit. Fair enough it was more than I advocate, but point is England might have had a chance to make runs, but at the end of the day the aussies got two wickets and England could have scored 80-100 and still the aussies would be the happier.
And Bresnan makes my earlier point about the DRS perfectly, Bresnan afraid to use a review because he is a lower order batsman and England only have two. The system is flawed, the media can push the ICC/MCC to review the application and move on.
I wonder if umpires aren't just guessing on half their decisions, I mean clear edges and LBWs they can make a call on, but swishes and some LBWs they seem to be a bit hit and miss, excuse the pun on whether the batsmen or ball are hitting or missing
I think the only way forward is to give the reviews to the umpires, not review absolutely everything, but all wickets definitely and some of the uncertain/close catch/LBW calls.I mean the batsmen would with most catches know if they've hit it, but sometimes they won't and is it more important the batsmen are given out when out and not out when not out, or the batsmen don't ask the question by dint of limited reviews which they can't be wrong.................?
It's supposed to be to prevent (glaring) errors, I can't see why Bresnan was given out so this counts and it stuck. If it fails its purpose once it is failing, it consistently doesn't serve its purpose. Consider it against "goalline technology" and you get several mistakes per Test even with technology/DRS, without "goalline technology" you'd get a use for it every nth game where n is probably as high as 100 or more.
rjgplmalolan
School Cricketer
the rule should be 5 reviews for the match . for 2 innings so that the batsmen wont waste it when they play with the tail . also , ive got a feeling that there should be specialist tv umpires and specialist field umpires .
I guess they just wanted England to feel the drudgery of going out to field again. Interesting to stop the innings at that point, I'll agree. England were basically giving away free runs from the lunch break onwards (there were 4-5 guys on the fence to Haddin straight after lunch). I think Australia could have gotten towards 600 and still had a pretty good bowl at England for an hour. I can see the advantage of having more time to bowl England out though...
Thought Lyon looked pretty sharp. If he can keep his line and length consistent, then he should reap some benefits. He fed Cook's cut shot far too often last night, fortunately for Lyon he didn't get punished on the scoreboard. KP will be the danger for him, I can Lyon getting defensive quickly if Pietersen attacks him successfully.
Must say I got some pleasure from seeing the 'best bowler of the era' going for 0/116. That's Jimmy Anderson apparently, as Wasim Akram proclaimed last week No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au) Anderson's a good bowler, but man is he being hyped.
Pet peeve that got my goat last night...I was really annoyed by England's go slow tactics before each break. The Anderson over before lunch took about 8 minutes I reckon, as they wasted as much time as possible to make it the last over. The Bresnan one before tea was pretty bad as well, must have taken 5-6 minutes too. And yet England won't see a mite of punishment for bowling only 52 overs in 4 hours because the innings finished before close of play. They could have got an easy extra 2 overs in if they'd just bowled normally before the breaks - the 2 overs we were short for the day. I think the overrate should be on a per session basis. If you don't bowl at least 28 overs each session without a good reason, there should be consequences.
TBA
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Apparently there's rain on the way for Days 4 and 5. Not sure how much but could take some play out of the game.
For me England need to bat 5 sessions (with a decent RR 3-4) to retain the ashes. 5 sessions would take us to tea tomorrow and at 80 runs per session, place us close to evens on first innings with 4 sessions to go.
England cant really afford to lose more than 5 wickets today...
For me England need to bat 5 sessions (with a decent RR 3-4) to retain the ashes. 5 sessions would take us to tea tomorrow and at 80 runs per session, place us close to evens on first innings with 4 sessions to go.
England cant really afford to lose more than 5 wickets today...
rjgplmalolan said:
Guessing you didn't give that a lot of thought, if you mean per batting/bowling that's only one more than they get already so not going to make a world of difference. They aren't psychic so won't know if they'll need them later on, if anything it may encourage them to waste them more as they've a "spare".
Better to check ALL dismissals given out, that way the umpire could edge towards giving it out with the safety net there. At the moment whether he gives it or not leads to the dreaded "umpire's call" and means the same delivery would be given out or not out on his call - that is a big FLAW in the system that the number of reviews wouldn't address.
It can't help that the bowlers will see the non-dismissals and feel hard done by because dorkeye shows it hitting the stumps but goes "umpire's call". Replays are invariably what brought about the reviews, TV showing the public and pundits that errors are made, but the same evidence is still available and getting decisions wrong via DRS doesn't make having DRS any better. You'd be better banning TV from replaying decisions and ditching DRS.
It's been hot for a few weeks so rain may not be so bad in terms of the outfield.
England will need to get close to the follow on total, passing it may resign this Test to a draw so the decision to declare and not put those extra runs on may prove a mistake.
Time may not have been an issue, but England would rather only face a follow on target of low 300s than nearer 400, especially if the aussies then have to make enough to force a tough target AND have enough time to bowl England out on a pitch they made over 500 on.
There's also the factor of an England win looking very unlikely, so what are the batsmen batting towards? Predominantly survival, so motivation will have to be dug deep. I'd have considered sending in Bairstow not Trott, simply to give him a good chance of a hundred and Trott may need to stave off the follow on which I'd back him over Bairstow.
If wickets fall nicely for the aussies, and I don't mean a collapse but at good times/timing, they could have a second new ball to nick out Bell/Trott and then have a go at Bairstow, an out of sorts Prior, and the lower order. May be a small window of opportunity, but England need to still be batting well after 80 overs and if the next couple of wicket partnerships bat well then 50 overs isn't a bad guesstimate as to around when they might both be gone and England 4+ wickets down.
For me where England have 'gone wrong', and it isn't unusual, is not picking up regular wickets. 214 for the 4th wicket, near 100 for the 8th unbeaten, they conceded 398 runs for just four wickets after Rogers was out and needed just to plug away. It's what the aussies need to do, they can afford to spin away and rotate the seamers from the other end until the new ball is available.
And of course they have not only Smith, but Clarke as well. They surely won't make the same mistake as England of using one spinner and only four other spin overs................. especially with KP and Root in the side.
And WTF was with Trott bowling one over? Have we not long established his wicket threat is minimal, while wobbling the ball about a bit might be handy, it needs to be late swing, maybe quicker, or at least not just 'dobbers'. Spin was the better way to go
rjgplmalolan
School Cricketer
yeah indeed , i meant per 5 per batting and bowling .
aussies must be pleased with that session, couple of batsmen out which is a rate you'd hope for on what looks a good batting track. Couple more this afternoon and England could be in real trouble.
aussies will want to get England out for something like 250-300 if they can, although they may yet regret not batting on a bit. England will need to knuckle down and hope to add at least another 200 runs, force the aussies to make a tough decision as to if to follow on (if an option) or the tough one of when to declare if setting a target.
Draw may become favourite if England are still batting at the close, even if they then miss the follow on target it means the aussies either bowl and England use up 4-5 sessions for the game to peeter out into a draw, or they have to rack up a quick 200+ and leave not many sessions to win. In that sense the afternoon is a big two sessions, even on a flat wicket batsmen can toss their wicket away, get one that keeps low or deceives them, they only get one life (wicket), even runs against your name doesn't stop players getting out on these pitches sometimes.
aussies will want to get England out for something like 250-300 if they can, although they may yet regret not batting on a bit. England will need to knuckle down and hope to add at least another 200 runs, force the aussies to make a tough decision as to if to follow on (if an option) or the tough one of when to declare if setting a target.
Draw may become favourite if England are still batting at the close, even if they then miss the follow on target it means the aussies either bowl and England use up 4-5 sessions for the game to peeter out into a draw, or they have to rack up a quick 200+ and leave not many sessions to win. In that sense the afternoon is a big two sessions, even on a flat wicket batsmen can toss their wicket away, get one that keeps low or deceives them, they only get one life (wicket), even runs against your name doesn't stop players getting out on these pitches sometimes.
Similar threads
