The Ashes (Australia tour of England)

[Dutch]

Hats off to Stokes, but Perera's innings is still better, considering the gulf between SL and SA, and SL's record before that series. Also, England had 11 players who could bat.

Sorry but I have to very strongly disagree. Especially about the 11 players who can bat. The circumstances, the quality of bowling, the utter disregard of win percentages.....Stokes innings is uncomparable.

 

[StrongAsAnOx]

Ok ok I know I’m wearing England tinted (or Jack Leach’s) glasses here but that DRS ball-tracker looked off to me. It seemed to move twice, once off the pitch and then a little bit more towards the stumps very closely afterward. Full speed I ca see how it might have looked like it was sliding down leg.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Sorry but I have to very strongly disagree. Especially about the 11 players who can bat. The circumstances, the quality of bowling, the utter disregard of win percentages.....Stokes innings is uncomparable.

I didn't see Perera's innings, but he guided them home from 78 runs short with the last wicket. Talking about quality bowling: Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Olivier and Maharaj. I'd say they're pretty close to this Aussie line up..

I think it's fair to say both were great innings. I think the context of Stokes' innings, to essentially save The Ashes gives it greater meaning.

 

[CerealKiller]

I didn't see Perera's innings, but he guided them home from 78 runs short with the last wicket. Talking about quality bowling: Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Olivier and Maharaj. I'd say they're pretty close to this Aussie line up..

I think it's fair to say both were great innings. I think the context of Stokes' innings, to essentially save The Ashes gives it greater meaning.

Yes, if we look at context, this was better. But considering the quality of both teams, i think Perera just sneaks ahead.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

He’s a poor captain imo. Absolutely shocking from him to burn a review like that.

That was a terrible review but Cummins played his part in it. Paine was sure he didn't hit it which he did not, Cummins was sure it was pitching in line which it wasn't. So, yes the captain and keeper should turn that down but he wasn't the only guilty party and there's more to captaincy than just the DRS mate.

Forget burning the review - he was putting eight and nine men on the boundary for Stokes from a long way out, and wasn't bringing them in to pressure the single which meant that ones and twos were just flowing from balls four, five and six.

He'd have been better off using normal cricketing tactics against Stokes, or saving that putting four men out on the leg side, one in on the single and maybe a short leg and just banging it in short. At least limit Stokes' options and make his life as difficult as possible, but he didn't do either of those two things.

I think this is a very harsh post on Paine. If he had not put those men where he did, the game would have been over even quicker. Once they were 9 drop, Stokes just opened the valves and the match situation just free'd him up. When people like him are hitting them as well as he was, it's just a case of hope and pray to be honest. Stokes is not one of those WI T20 specialists who just has a one trick pony game, he has all the buttons and a temperament of a champion to boot. I could just feel it in that spell he bowled the other day that he wanted it very badly which is why I was predicting England to win.

I personally think, Paine did everything right and he just caught Stokes in his finest hour. They still created chances, but still, it was his hour/summer. Just see how he played Lyon for example- Because the ball was going away from him, he kept his arc limited from cover to long on, but the moment the quicks came on, he started using the long handle because they were bowling test match lengths. My only tiny criticism is that Hazlewood is the type of bowler who can get clattered when the slog is on and may be he could have put Cummins on for the entirety of the last wicket but the way Stokes was hitting them, he could have hammered him as well.

 

[Aislabie]

I think this is a very harsh post on Paine. If he had not put those men where he did, the game would have been over even quicker. Once they were 9 drop, Stokes just opened the valves and the match situation just free'd him up. When people like him are hitting them as well as he was, it's just a case of hope and pray to be honest. Stokes is not one of those WI T20 specialists who just has a one trick pony game, he has all the buttons and a temperament of a champion to boot. I could just feel it in that spell he bowled the other day that he wanted it very badly which is why I was predicting England to win.

I personally think, Paine did everything right and he just caught Stokes in his finest hour. They still created chances, but still, it was his hour/summer. Just see how he played Lyon for example- Because the ball was going away from him, he kept his arc limited from cover to long on, but the moment the quicks came on, he started using the long handle because they were bowling test match lengths. My only tiny criticism is that Hazlewood is the type of bowler who can get clattered when the slog is on and may be he could have put Cummins on for the entirety of the last wicket but the way Stokes was hitting them, he could have hammered him as well.

It's not harsh on Paine at all. He did absolutely nothing to try to get Stokes out, instead he just retreated all of his fielders to the boundary and hoped for the best. Good captaincy is not hoping for the best.

And my issue isn't simply with the fact that he posted all of his fielders to the boundary - it's with the fact that he wasn't bringing anyone in to protect singles from the fourth, fifth and sixth balls of the over. This made Stokes' job far easier than it needed to be. For example, here would be an alternative set-up designed specifically for a bouncer plan, but also designed to get Stokes out if possible:


But there was none of that. Paine froze, and then jumped at the first chance to use his review even though the first thing his bowler said to him was "No."

And even then it wouldn't have mattered at all if Marcus Harris had held onto the catch, or if Nathan Lyon had grasped Cummins' throw for the run-out, or if Joel Wilson had given that LBW out. Stokes kept his head better than anyone else on the ground, but I don't see how you can pretend that "Paine did everything right"

 

[Jalen]

just a thought but from Joel Wilson's perspective, if he was unsure about giving Stokes out on the lbw appeal, he could've just given him out. Stokes would've reviewed and it wouldn't have been overturned. So benefit of the doubt he could've given it out because he knew England had 1 review and Aus had none left. No possible way Stokes wouldn't have reviewed anyways because they were the last batsman at the crease, even if it was plumb he would've reviewed it. Opinions?

 

[Ed Smith]

just a thought but from Joel Wilson's perspective, if he was unsure about giving Stokes out on the lbw appeal, he could've just given him out. Stokes would've reviewed and it wouldn't have been overturned. So benefit of the doubt he could've given it out because he knew England had 1 review and Aus had none left. No possible way Stokes wouldn't have reviewed anyways because they were the last batsman at the crease, even if it was plumb he would've reviewed it. Opinions?

I see what you're getting at, but surely his job isn't to guess and hope if he's wrong one of the sides reviews?

 

[Dutch]

I see what you're getting at, but surely his job isn't to guess and hope if he's wrong one of the sides reviews?

Exactly: his job is to say whether he thought it was out or not out, not do all kinds of calculations in his head as to how one team or another should use their reviews. He decided it was not out. Done.

 

[Dutch]

No one from the Australian side is talking about how the umpire cost them the game: no-one. They are looking at their own handling of things. I sometimes wonder whether all this technology has actually helped the game. I mean that from a neutral point of view. England have been on the wrong end of enough as well but cricket had been played for years without this stuff and everyone seemed to survive it.

 

[zimrahil]

No one from the Australian side is talking about how the umpire cost them the game: no-one. They are looking at their own handling of things. I sometimes wonder whether all this technology has actually helped the game. I mean that from a neutral point of view. England have been on the wrong end of enough as well but cricket had been played for years without this stuff and everyone seemed to survive it.

I don’t think VAR is helping football, well certainly not the way it is implemented anyway

 

[Aislabie]

I don’t think VAR is helping football, well certainly not the way it is implemented anyway

I would agree about VAR to be honest; it might be implemented better if it was put into the hands of the players, with only a certain number of incorrect challenges allowed in the match like you see in tennis and cricket. That way, if players really feel that they've been fouled, they can challenge it. If they don't then it's something of a tacit admission that they've dived. But I digress...

 

[StrongAsAnOx]

just a thought but from Joel Wilson's perspective, if he was unsure about giving Stokes out on the lbw appeal, he could've just given him out. Stokes would've reviewed and it wouldn't have been overturned. So benefit of the doubt he could've given it out because he knew England had 1 review and Aus had none left. No possible way Stokes wouldn't have reviewed anyways because they were the last batsman at the crease, even if it was plumb he would've reviewed it. Opinions?

No.

If the umpire is uncertain it is ‘not out’.

The problem with DRS, and I think DRS improves the game, is it really opens up the errors umpires make. Although, as per my previous post, I don’t think it was as plum as ball-tracker has made it look. I might (probably) be wrong, but if I’m not that’s a bigger worry for DRS

 

[Ed Smith]

Theres probably something to be said for not showing the DRS if there isn't a challenge on field. Especially not in the ground on the big screens

 

[Dutch]

Theres probably something to be said for not showing the DRS if there isn't a challenge on field. Especially not in the ground on the big screens

This!