Sri Lanka in England 2011
- Thread starter Lassana Dias
- Start date
Sadly it appears so, even more sad is that he is opening the bowling when surely it should be Anderson and TREMLETT.
Interesting comments in the cricinfo commentary :
Stuart Broad will share the new ball. That's interesting because Chris Tremlett has bowled much better than him in this series and this is his former homeground
And despite Anderson taking a wicket in his 7th over, I'm gobsmacked he's bowling that many consecutive overs returning from injury
Gotta laugh at the BBC, prattling online since 11.40 and still the latest fixture link on their site goes to the last Test
And their homepage makes no mention of one of the few ACTUAL EVENTS happening in sport right now compared to rumours about ?22m and general gossip and speculation 
Thought this one was better:
'Enlightening words from Andrew Strauss, who also confirms that Steven Finn is dropped for James Anderson, which means Stuart Broad gets another chance to increase his bowling average.'
I do think we maybe need a further refinement on DRS.
A "can't tell" decision would result in the on-field call being sustained and the team not losing a review. England have suffered in the past from referring players who were out and losing a review because hot spot didn't show it.
A "can't tell" decision would result in the on-field call being sustained and the team not losing a review. England have suffered in the past from referring players who were out and losing a review because hot spot didn't show it.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
Fark the rain 
lewissaffin
Club Cricketer
Nice to see Shane Warne in the Sky Sports commentary box once again. He hasn't a terrible amount of relevance to the series but he is insightful and entertaining to listen to.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
warne grates on me sometimes. goes off topic way too many time
We're on top, shame we dropped a wicket taker for, well, a passenger I think their lower order is pretty feeble so it probably won't cost us, but just think how much easier it is to take wickets with three good quicker bowlers and not two and a lame duck who does take the odd wicket, but isn't it summed up farcically when everyone is willing him to take one like the fat kid who's no good at sports batting and everyone wanting him to get a run somehow........................
He may well bag 2-3, but India will take him to the cleaners.
And I'm now expecting him to take the next wicket, won't make what I say any less true but it will still count as sod's law
I think their lower order is pretty feeble so it probably won't cost us, but just think how much easier it is to take wickets with three good quicker bowlers and not two and a lame duck who does take the odd wicket, but isn't it summed up farcically when everyone is willing him to take one like the fat kid who's no good at sports batting and everyone wanting him to get a run somehow........................He may well bag 2-3, but India will take him to the cleaners.
And I'm now expecting him to take the next wicket, won't make what I say any less true but it will still count as sod's law
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
great to see the contrast between anderson and tremlett. anderson is the artist and tremlett the brute, in the correct conditions these 2 could be a great opening pair. broad just tried too hard and sprayed it around. Finn seems the better choice.
Am I the only one who wouldn't be bothered about waiting those extra couple of minutes for snicko?
I don't see how a "can't tell" decision could work like that, it's just too vague. Not only could you hear a nick, but the seam rotation was different after passing the bat. I didn't see anything on Hotspot, but it isn't the best on small edges, which is where Snicko comes in, I say wait for it. Test cricket has to adapt, for that time lost, make it the drinks break, or take time out of Lunch/Tea. Flexibility is needed.
People can blame DRS, but it's only as useful as the person on the end of it interpreting it. As with many similar technologies.
Ultimately, I say wait for snicko and get the game to move quicker, the amount of faffing the Sri Lankan batsman was doing was ridiculous. It's about time the ICC take a tougher stance on over rates and actually starting to penalise teams who fail to meet the over rate target (which would be a changeable target in relation to injuries/DRS, etc) which should be a base of 15 an hour.
--------
Tomorrow is going to be very wet, we might have a morning session, but that's about it.
Also, it's very odd when you see weather on the telly, then an hour or so later, you get the same weather.
Overall, England will be the happiest, the weather tomorrow, Saturday and Monday is making this a draw barring a side being bowled out for under 300 runs over both innings, even then, I think that's going to be a push on time.
I thought we were better today than at Lord's, but still a bit wayward for my liking. Tremlett in particular was very impressive, Broad was better, but still not what we need from him.
Have to say, Test cricket needs to be more flexible on days like today, we could have played till well beyond 8pm and given the public another 15 overs for their hard earned cash. These are the sort of changes the ICC are going to have to make to keep Test cricket as attractive as possible.
That wouldn't work I'm afraid. If so, bowling teams would ALWAYS refer a not out caught behind shout. If it was out, they'd get the wicket, but if it wasn't then the 3rd umpire would probably be forced to use the 'can't tell' decision. The only way he could say that it definitely wasn't out is if there was a large amount of daylight between bat and ball all the way past the batsman.
And despite Anderson taking a wicket in his 7th over, I'm gobsmacked he's bowling that many consecutive overs returning from injury
I assume it's just the rabid English fan in you hoping for him not to get hurt
Because honestly, if you can't bowl 7 overs straight then there's no way that you should be passed 'fit' to play - unless you're named Shaun Tait of course...They couldn't refer them "always", not with only two to play with. The limit on the referrals worries me infinitely more than the odd referral that might not get the answer "absolutely" right, and I think the margin of error is a lot smaller with than without the system.
For me it is more worrying if mistakes are made and not referred, due to the limits on referrals the only logical reason why they wouldn't be. I'd like those who have the facility ie TV, to report how many LBWs full stop are right or wrong and split by those referred and those not. And of course produce a figure for what percentage are referred. Do the same for catches etc, but in principle the hardest ones will be LBW.
So it would be say :
Number of LBW shouts
Percentage referred
Percentage of referred correct (assume near 100%)
Percentage of unreffered correct
Do likewise for all referrals and then you get a picture of how well it works.
I assume it's just the rabid English fan in you hoping for him not to get hurt
It's SENSE. Firstly you only have three seamers so you need to rotate while conditions favour their type so they don't get tired. Secondly you don't needlessly bowl someone seven overs in a row if you have the choice and they hadn't taken a wicket in their previous six, especially when returning from injury. Tremlett or Broad if bowling well, sure, but Anderson has had no cricket I believe since the 1st Test......................
Of course a bowler should be able to bowl seven overs straight, but when you're rotating a three man attack and that bowler has come back from injury, isn't it a bit more sensible to let someone else bowl seven straight? Of course part of the problem was choosing Broad to bowl from the other end. If a footballer were coming back from injury, a star striker, they might start the next game but only a fool would play them the full 90 minutes. Sure they can play 90 minutes, but the point is you wait until they are back up and running and into their groove before using them as if they hadn't been injured
I don't know how many of you caught the analysis on Broad on C5 highlights. They showed where he pitched and it was interesting, might have been more comprehensive had they shown where Tremlett and Anderson bowled and the length their wickets came off (in comparison to where Broad bowled)
But the essence was Broad bowled 52% of his balls short (of a length) and only 16% full. Only FIVE of his deliveries would have hit the stumps according to C5, although we don't know what Tremlett and Anderson were like, but they took wickets and Broad didn't and THAT is the key factor (the point of bowling is to take wickets not to not concede many runs)
----------
They also highlighted his Test stats from and including the Ashes :
8 wkts @ 59.25 (SR 121.88, ER 2.92)
They did mention his injury problems in fairness to him, but at the end of the day we won't get awarded a draw because he wasn't fit or whatever
In that same period here's the figures for other England bowlers :
Broad : 8 wkts @ 59.25 (SR 121.88, ER 2.92)
Tremlett : 27 wkts @ 24.11 (SR 46.33, ER 3.12)
Anderson : 29 wkts @ 24.66 (SR 53.21, ER 2.78)
Finn : 18 wkts @ 33.50 (SR 49.56, ER 4.06)
Swann : 25 wkts @ 32.44 (SR 70.92, ER 2.74)
Sure he hasn't bowled as many balls/overs as most of them, Swann and Anderson bowling twice as much near enough, and Tremlett an extra 46 overs, but Finn has bowled less overs and taken twice as many wickets. Still his record is pretty poor for the number of balls he has bowled, it's not as if the other bowlers have had massive advantages playing Bangladesh or something when he's been absent
Last edited:
Similar threads
