Ashes 2015 - Australia tour of England July/September 2015

Just when England seem to be getting it right, we get ali in at 8 yet again when will they learn??? He isn't a slugger. Open the damn batting with him or send him at 3/4. How he is below slugger like stokes and buttler will forever be beyond me.

He actually batted at 7, which I think was fair enough in that line up. Taylor should be batting at 3 when Root isn't around. Although I think Ali is very much a T20 top three player, I don't think he's a brilliant one day batter. I think he's better off doing what he does in test cricket, which is bullying tired bowling with an old ball.

Stokes and Buttler aren't in great form, but both are well caps able of match winning hundreds on their day.

I'd convinced myself a month ago that Ali had to temporarily open in test cricket in the UAE. I've changed my mind now. Hales' technique looks so much more solid. I'd give him a go and probably bat Ali at 5 or 6. Then Rashid/Ansari can come in at 8.
 
Steve Smith is a huge potential and may well be a great captain in future. A player so determined and committed to his job and game. This is what I have liked most from Australian Players i.e. their determination and self-belief. In these two ingredients they hold the edge over world cricket players and that is why they have been on top for years. I remember how ordinary Steve Smith was and how dramatically he has become the backbone of the Aussies Squad. There are number of Australian players who were so ordinary at the start of their career and gradually become the important part of the squad, One fine example is Shane Watson, who is going through a bad phase currently I guess No. 6 won't suit him, He should go back at the opening slot with David Warner. Anyhow, feeling a bright future for Australia under Smith's Captaincy
 
Didn't see the Stokes dismissal, but sounds odd. Anyone think it wasn't out?

Jos Butler should be dropped from all formats, get back to the nets in the winter and work on his technique. He is someone who I really thought had it, but he has been woeful this season. Bairstow is a better batsmen and will only get better as a keeper as he plays games.

England missing Root badly.
 
TMS seem to think that it wasn't out, I'm in the gym and thus haven't seen it

Buttler should be dropped I agree, he should have been dropped for the last test imo
 
I can understand why Stokes was given out. He throws his hand out away from his body (which is falling backwards the other way) and does stop the ball which is heading towards the stumps. The problem is that there has to be intent, which is very subjective, depending on who you are and how you feel about it. I don't think it's an outrageous decision though, so I can understand it both ways.
 
I've seen some poor decisions but this is the worst. What's more is that if someone doesn't come out and say that they got it wrong, then this is going to set a dangerous precedent for the future. You're going to have bowlers hurling throws at batters when the ball is hit back at them hoping they're given out OTF. Stokes was clearly just defending himself which he is within his rights to do. The 3rd umpire should be sacked and if it had been any opposition other than OZ, I would have said 'shame on you' but I don't expect any less from them. Yet, when Stuart Broad won't walk after edging it, they will give you a thesis on sportsmanship.

The above point is fact, what I will state now is an opinion-

Jos Buttler was England's best performer upto the WC and is the VC and WK of the team. He will have a huge role in limited overs in the next decade for England and people just have to be patient with him. I've been watching him bat and while there's nothing wrong technically, he certainly doesn't know whether to attack or defend. Plonking that front foot across too much as well. These are minor things which click even during a game at times. No need to drop him. Bairstow needs to play. As does Billings.
 
Just watched the "dismissal" on YouTube. That's absolutely ridiculous. It's another case of playing something in slow-motion that removes the context of the dismissal. You see it all the time for catches that are referred and look not out in slow motion yet are clearly out when played at speed.

Stokes was just reacting to a ball being thrown at him and the ball wasn't going to hit the stumps anyway. There was zero intent to obstruct the field, Smith has lost his mind.
 
Didn't see the incident yesterday, but just watched a lengthy video.

Stokes' hand was well away from his body, so I think it's clear he wasn't "defending" himself. Having said that he was taking evasive action to spin round which would have taken his arm naturally in that direction. My gut feel is he may have exaggerated that movement.

I think letter of the law he was out, but it's very poor captaincy and sportsmanship to uphold that appeal.

There's enough there to give the benefit of the doubt and for the captain to withdraw the appeal, maybe with a warning that they won't be so nice next time.
 
the ball wasn't going to hit the stumps anyway.

This is an important point for me and where I think the umpires were very poor.

I actually think there was some intent on Stokes' part - his arm was moving in that arc as he spun but he does exaggerate that.

However the umpires should have said clearly to Smith - "look we think letter of the law he is out but this kind of dismissal is not good and as the ball wouldn't hit the stumps all he's done is save you 4 other throws. Are you certain you want to go through with this?"

This takes a bit of sting out and gives Smith a time out to reflect. Going to the 3rd umpire then giving it straight out was very poor, weak umpiring. All 3 should be stood down for a long time.
 
Totally agree, on-field umpires should have approached Smith waaaaay before it was sent for review. Smith should not have followed through with the appeal regardless, it's just poor for the game of cricket and just another example of the bully-mentality that Australia seem hell-bent on playing the game in. I doubt the dismissal made all that much of a difference in the bigger picture anyway.

Australia won't go outta their way to endear themselves to the wider cricketing world any time soon.
 
Absolutely - anybody except Australia or Sri Lanka under Ranatunga* and the appeal would have been withdrawn.


*Oh, and England under Collingwood
 
The two bits I would like to add here is that first of all, Stokes was out obstructing the fielder and not handled the ball. Handled the ball cases are usually very clear, and rarely leave room for interpretation.

Here are some examples -




I think we can all agree that these handled the ball dismissals are quite distinct from what was the case with Stokes. The most similar dismissal I could think of was this -


I think this is clearly the most similar dismissal to the Stokes one. The batsman out of the crease and the fielder has thrown the ball at the stumps, which was intercepted by the batsman. Now one of the arguments made here is that in Stokes' case the ball would not even hit the stumps. I think its clear that even with Inzi the ball was going wide. So I think the accuracy of the throw doesn't enter into question here.

What the Umpire has to decide is whether the interception (regardless of the accuracy of the throw) was deliberate or not. In Inzi's case there a case couldn't be made. The throw was hardly a fast one, it was missing the stumps in any case, and in any case Inzi could easily have moved out of the way, but Inzi chose to bat it away regardless.

Therefore the deliberate nature of the action cannot be in question. With Stokes because the throw was from much closer and much faster, the question of intention does arise. Was Stokes attempting to intercept the ball or move out of the way.

Not lets look at Stokes' dismissal.


I think that if we see the Ben Stokes replay, the ball is aimed reasonably in the direction of Stokes. (In between 2 and 3 seconds into the vid, its clear). This is even more clear if we see the slow motion of it (at 26 - 28 seconds into the vid). I think it would have missed Stokes had he remained still, but in that short a period, a batsman can hardly be expected to judge to within Centimeters the path of the ball. Stokes has seen the ball come in his direction, and with a reasonable chance of hitting him on the right shoulder or arm. If you see at 2 seconds Stokes' right arm is reasonably close to the leg stump. So that the ball could hit his arm was a possibility, and even though it would have missed it eventually, Stokes cannot be expected to make that accurate an assessment in less than a second. Thus Stokes felt he could be hit and instinctively has raised his left arm to stop the ball, while also moving his body out of the same immediately.

Now by the time the ball has reached him, he has acting on instinct moved well out of the way of the ball and so when the impact happens, the left arm stops the ball so far away from the body, that it has fooled the 3rd umpire into thinking that there was no need for Stokes to have stopped the ball, as it is nowhere near hitting him. However what he has forgotten is that just a few milliseconds earlier Stokes right shoulder was not far from where the ball was stopped. I think Stokes' quick movement has gone against him there. Had he been a slow mover, or had he not moved at all (second 26 in the vid), and just stood there and stopped the ball, it would seem that the ball was coming right at him, and thus he was right in taking evasive action by catching the ball.

I think all things considered, it was an unfair decision.

Is Steve Smith to be blamed in all of this, I disagree strongly. Smith has had the same time as everyone else to decide what happened. He in that split second saw Ben Stokes' arm reach out and stop a ball heading for the stumps. Just as Ben Stokes cannot be expected to definitely decide his action in that split second, neither can Smith. He in a split of a second saw Stokes stop the ball from hitting the stumps. Whether it was deliberate nor not how can Smith decide. He has appealed and the final decision was the Umpire's. He felt Stokes' action was deliberate and should be given out. Why must Smith get flack for this is beyond me. He had the same reaction time as everyone else, and saw what he did for a fraction of a second.
 
^ Just to round off the above argument. Here is this vid -


David Hussey was clearly handling the ball there, but it was ruled n.o, and it was deemed that Hussey was protecting himself. I personally disagree and what Hussey did is as blatant as ball handling/obstruction will ever get. However, if Hussey was n.o., then there is no way that Stokes was out either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top