Australia tour of England June-August 2012

[Doodlesweaver]

well i figure if the ashes is still a test series, then five or six different players might come into the side

It's played in England. We got flogged in the last Ashes in Austraia, what do you think will change to make the Aussies competitive in England? I guess you can really hope for a long, hot, cloudless summer, that's the best bet as our batsmen have so much trouble handling anything other than that against this attack.

Can't tell me that Punter, Cowan or Haddin would have coped any better than this lot of batsmen.

 

[Owzat]

Toss was too much of an advantage to win, despite comments from pundits at times that 175+ would be challenging it never really was.

Got to at the notion this is now nine wins in a row, erm we didn't win the last ODI. If it were rearranged either for the next day, or for the end so this was ODI #3 then I could go along with it, but it sits in the records and the series is 3-0 not 4-0.

Don't know how official records view it, but it is a nonsense to suggest we've won nine in a row when we didn't win the previous ODI.

 

[aussie1st]

Would like to see Steve Smith get another go at it as well.

Should get that wish in the final game with Watson's injury. Probably means Wade to opener although I wouldn't mind if Smith got a gig at 3 but that means Forrest being moved down.

 

[barmyarmy]

Time for tiered cricket so we don't have to waste our time playing minnows...

 

[Owzat]

Ironically they seemed to lack conviction

I think the daft limit on referrals for ODIs needs reviewing, allowing only one mistaken review is harsh, especially when conditions are as they were and early wickets can decide a game in no time. I feel the number needs reviewing in ALL formats, the point was to eradicate mistakes and how can it if a team loses their review and can't review later mistakes?!?!?!

Of course you can argue they shouldn't "waste" their reviews, but as borderline decisions can come at crucial times it is not surprising they will make mistakes if the umpires can. Imagine an umpire makes a borderline LBW decision in favour of the batting side and the bowlers are forced to review it, and what if that had gone in favour of the bowling side instead. This switches the onus on whose referral is at stake.

Personally I think all close decisions should be referred to the third umpire by the onfield umpire(s), even if only for one review. Excess appealing should be penalised by sin binning the offender, and indeed likewise for any very apparent time wasting offences.

At the moment the system is exposed as a kind of "tactic", that the teams have to decide when to use them and only if they can.


Not sure England winning this series 4-0/3-0/3-1 proves much for England's credentials, in English conditions with it being just the one dayers. Besides anything else you don't play the same sides in a series at the World Cup, you play different sides from one game to the next and it is highly unlikely if not impossible you'll play the same side in two consecutive games.

A triangular or quadrangular series in the host country before the competition would be more use, when did England last play a series with more than two sides involved? (outside of the World Cup) Winning nine games out of 10 is all well and good as a record, or non-record, but when it comes to the World Cup England falter nine times out of 10...................

 

[barmyarmy]

Vic Marks was making my argument about not losing a review if it stays umpires call. The Clarke/Hussey thing was stupid.

 

[puddleduck]

Got to at the notion this is now nine wins in a row, erm we didn't win the last ODI. If it were rearranged either for the next day, or for the end so this was ODI #3 then I could go along with it, but it sits in the records and the series is 3-0 not 4-0.

I do think you're slowly losing the plot

I'm not sure what part of NO RESULT is confusing

 

[Owzat]

I do think you're slowly losing the plot

Not at all, I think some people are just too keen to ignore what they can to make things look better. For instance some Liverpool fans tried to say Kenny's first match in charge shouldn't count because he hadn't had time with the team. This is slightly different but still the principle is similar

I'm not sure what part of NO RESULT is confusing

You can't ignore the result of an ODI because you want to, that makes no sense at all. Four matches into the series we are 3-0 up not 4-0 up therefore we've only won three games not four. Who won the no result? no one, therefore it breaks up England's winning run.

For those in doubt "the plot" was not hard to find :

"A no result is effectively the same as a draw"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result_(cricket)#No_result

I am guessing some are trying to say it doesn't count because there was no toss, or some such bullshine technicality. If you're going to start fiddling stats we may as well give up on a stats based sport.

----------

Vic Marks was making my argument about not losing a review if it stays umpires call. The Clarke/Hussey thing was stupid.

I know Tests have more overs than ODIs, but doesn't mean the umpires can't make as many mistakes and the way reviews are used at the moment it is harsh to punish someone for something very close. I think other commentators have said it is harsh to lose a review for closes calls.

Tennis have three per set, with only line calls involved. While you could conceivably have a deuce-advantage-deuce.............. ongoing game, the likelihood is you won't have more than around 100 rallies/points per set which if you call them deliveries in cricket would be 17 overs give or take.

Whether to go up to three for ODIs and Tests, maybe two for T20s I wouldn't like to say, but would it do any harm? As has oft been pointed out in commentaries since reviews, batsmen do only have one "life" each and 10 wickets to lose as a side so greedy counts at the top of the order may waste reviews because they don't want to be out, not that they are not out. While the coach and captain might have strong words about it, it is the lower order that can suffer when a bad decision does come along.

I think it better they have 1-2 too many reviews than not enough. Sure you don't want frivilous reviewing, but with tight calls as they often are it should be aiming at taking out the bad calls not penalising the sides for using their reviews.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Not at all, I think some people are just too keen to ignore what they can to make things look better. For instance some Liverpool fans tried to say Kenny's first match in charge shouldn't count because he hadn't had time with the team. This is slightly different but still the principle is similar



You can't ignore the result of an ODI because you want to, that makes no sense at all. Four matches into the series we are 3-0 up not 4-0 up therefore we've only won three games not four. Who won the no result? no one, therefore it breaks up England's winning run.

For those in doubt "the plot" was not hard to find :

"A no result is effectively the same as a draw"

Result (cricket) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am guessing some are trying to say it doesn't count because there was no toss, or some such bullshine technicality. If you're going to start fiddling stats we may as well give up on a stats based sport.

----------



I know Tests have more overs than ODIs, but doesn't mean the umpires can't make as many mistakes and the way reviews are used at the moment it is harsh to punish someone for something very close. I think other commentators have said it is harsh to lose a review for closes calls.

Tennis have three per set, with only line calls involved. While you could conceivably have a deuce-advantage-deuce.............. ongoing game, the likelihood is you won't have more than around 100 rallies/points per set which if you call them deliveries in cricket would be 17 overs give or take.

Whether to go up to three for ODIs and Tests, maybe two for T20s I wouldn't like to say, but would it do any harm? As has oft been pointed out in commentaries since reviews, batsmen do only have one "life" each and 10 wickets to lose as a side so greedy counts at the top of the order may waste reviews because they don't want to be out, not that they are not out. While the coach and captain might have strong words about it, it is the lower order that can suffer when a bad decision does come along.

I think it better they have 1-2 too many reviews than not enough. Sure you don't want frivilous reviewing, but with tight calls as they often are it should be aiming at taking out the bad calls not penalising the sides for using their reviews.

The teams are not using the DRS for that. They are chancing it to see if the close ones come out in their favour. Why give them more opportunities to do that?

 

[puddleduck]

People are saying it doesn't count because it was a no result. All no results don't count in stats in any way. Runs scored, wickets taken etc are removed. It is not a draw. You are clearly losing the plot, who the hell uses negative reps haha I would suppose that perhaps you're struggling to conceive of a time where England could potentially be 1st in all 3 rankings, and your brain is shutting down.

 

[barmyarmy]

Are you sure individual player stats don't count? Obviously if there is no play but but surely they count if wickets are taken, runs scored etc.

 

[puddleduck]

Pretty sure all records are removed when it's a no result. Must be a completed game of some kind.

Edit// Although apparently that was changed 5 years ago... So I guess I could be wrong

----------

Quote from wiki - "A match can be abandoned if weather or other conditions prevent any play from occurring at all. If the bowler of the first over of play has not started his/her runup when the officials decide to abandon play then the result is termed 'abandoned without a ball being bowled'. Such a game is not included in official statistical records.

Before July 2004, the same result occurred if the toss had been taken but the match was abandoned before a ball was bowled. Since 2004, the International Cricket Council for International matches has decreed that a match where the toss takes place but which is abandoned without a ball being bowled is either a draw or (for a limited-overs match) a no result. Such games are now included in statistical records, counting, for example, as a game played by the teams and nominated players."

 

[angryangy]

If a scheduled match wasn't actually played, then it's as relevant to say those teams failed to win as it is to say that any two teams had a result in that game.

 

[puddleduck]

Yeah but England haven't won 9 in a row because somewhere in the world other teams have played games of cricket in between those games which England didn't win. Or something else that borders on gibberish

----------

Seriously though. Wonder why it was changed? I guess something to do with the toss constituting the start of a game and as such caps etc have been handed out at that point, and thus would need to be removed from a player if the game was later abandoned with no result or something?

 

[barmyarmy]

Well I guess it would be annoying if you hit a century and then it was scrubbed off the records because of rain.