-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Cricket
- Thread starter bnm
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,800
82-1 Good start by the Aussies.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
After 21 overs, Australia going well at 81-1, with 76 put on for the first wicket. Chris Rogers on 62 not out from 100 balls with a good number of 4's already under his belt.
Buttsy
Established Member
Sounds like a howler on DRS again! Usman sounds like he was not out...
And it would seem that DRS has blown the whole thing up. Again. Stuck in the office so haven't seen it, but everyone seems to be saying it was a ridiculous decision.
Nonetheless the issues here are more subtle than many in the media (and indeed the teams) seem able to understand or prepared to acknowledge. Given the impossibility of proving a negative, I was convinced before (and am now even more so) that it's a complete waste of time for a batsman to call for a review when given out on the field and the point of dispute being whether he actually hit it or not.
And whilst the third umpire will no doubt be on the receiving end of plenty of stick, whisper it quietly but he might just have made the correct decision under the terms of reference of DRS. Just about everyone thinks (or says so) that the third umpire is there to decide if the batsman's out or not. The third umpire is actually there to decide if the on-field decision should be upheld or overturned. As we've seen in this series several times already, the two are by no means the same. The Australian team and most of the media seem stubbornly unable to understand this. Actually, I have sympathy for the players, asked to make decisions on using reviews in the heat of the moment. It takes a cooler head than is almost possible to leave the crease when you know you haven't hit it.
Maybe the third umpire SHOULD be there for deciding if the batsman's out, but he isn't. Quite probably he would have made a different decision (in Khwaja's case, and others previously in the series) if he WAS there to decide that. But one should be careful for what one wishes in all this. Changing the terms of reference of DRS to improve decision-making in this way could, in my view, make a bad situation worse. Do we really want the game umpired from the stands?
Umpires are clearly regarding DRS as something of a crutch (they too, perhaps, forget the subtleties in the definition of the third umpire's role). I very much doubt that the intrinsic quality of umpires has diminished. I am coming to the view that India may have it right. Scrapping DRS or at least (re-)limiting its use may well have the effect of improving on-field umpiring again. This may be the best way forward.
Nonetheless the issues here are more subtle than many in the media (and indeed the teams) seem able to understand or prepared to acknowledge. Given the impossibility of proving a negative, I was convinced before (and am now even more so) that it's a complete waste of time for a batsman to call for a review when given out on the field and the point of dispute being whether he actually hit it or not.
And whilst the third umpire will no doubt be on the receiving end of plenty of stick, whisper it quietly but he might just have made the correct decision under the terms of reference of DRS. Just about everyone thinks (or says so) that the third umpire is there to decide if the batsman's out or not. The third umpire is actually there to decide if the on-field decision should be upheld or overturned. As we've seen in this series several times already, the two are by no means the same. The Australian team and most of the media seem stubbornly unable to understand this. Actually, I have sympathy for the players, asked to make decisions on using reviews in the heat of the moment. It takes a cooler head than is almost possible to leave the crease when you know you haven't hit it.
Maybe the third umpire SHOULD be there for deciding if the batsman's out, but he isn't. Quite probably he would have made a different decision (in Khwaja's case, and others previously in the series) if he WAS there to decide that. But one should be careful for what one wishes in all this. Changing the terms of reference of DRS to improve decision-making in this way could, in my view, make a bad situation worse. Do we really want the game umpired from the stands?
Umpires are clearly regarding DRS as something of a crutch (they too, perhaps, forget the subtleties in the definition of the third umpire's role). I very much doubt that the intrinsic quality of umpires has diminished. I am coming to the view that India may have it right. Scrapping DRS or at least (re-)limiting its use may well have the effect of improving on-field umpiring again. This may be the best way forward.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Australia have moved on to 162-3 after 46 overs, with Clarke undefeated on 50. Swann has now taken 2-27.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Close of play...Day 1
Australia 303-3 from 90 overs
Clarke....125 not out
Smith..... 70 not out
These two have amassed a stand of 174 run so far.
Australia 303-3 from 90 overs
Clarke....125 not out
Smith..... 70 not out
These two have amassed a stand of 174 run so far.
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,800
Already this test is getting away from us, 6oo easily obtainable.
Some great cricket today - my wish to see things a bit more competitive appears to have been granted! I thought the Umpiring decision (Khawaja given out) looked like a bad one, nonetheless, he seemed to slow the game down. Australia pulled away once Clarke got out.
It's not over yet!
It's not over yet!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
BBC Weather say rain is due over the Manchester area on Friday in mid-afternoon. Saturday is still a day susceptible to rain.
Rich McLean
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,757
This match has draw written all over it, providing England don't collapse
CallySleeper
Established Member
Friday and Saturday could be hit by short sharp showers. Sunday + Monday looks like more persistent. And with 303-3 after first day my money's on a draw already folks barring horrific England collapse 
Edit glad my opinions and analysis are supported by at least one other poster ^^^
Edit glad my opinions and analysis are supported by at least one other poster ^^^
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
When the third wicket fell with only 129 on the board, memories of recent Australian batting collapses seemed ready to be a matter to be continued, so it was with much credit that poor shot selection was put well under control by the those two batsmen who decided a return to batting basics was something called for in this Test Match and their application to the job on hand has certainly paid dividends.
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,800
Had our batsmen been in form we might have had a slight chance but it's a loss or a draw if we're lucky.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
How dare Australia not lose a wicket when 333-3 was reached.....Have they no respect for superstition....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Australia finally declare when the clouds begin to arrive....527-7 dec (146 overs)
Clarke..... 187
Haddin..... 65 not out
Starc....... 66 not out
Swann 5 for 159.
England 47-0 (23 overs)
Cook 34 not out
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Australia finally declare when the clouds begin to arrive....527-7 dec (146 overs)
Clarke..... 187
Haddin..... 65 not out
Starc....... 66 not out
Swann 5 for 159.
England 47-0 (23 overs)
Cook 34 not out
Last edited:
Arglwydd Golau
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,448
How dare Australia not lose a wicket when 333-3 was reached.....Have they no respect for superstition....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Australia finally declare when the clouds begin to arrive....527-7 dec (146 overs)
Clarke..... 187
Haddin..... 65 not out
Starc....... 66 not out
Swann 5 for 159.
England 47-0 (23 overs)
Cook 34 not out
How I wish that England were still 47-0, those two late wickets really did put Australia very much on top. No matter how hopeless they might appear to be, one shouldn't ever write them off, and England's propensity for shooting themselves in the foot...(think Headingley 2009, Perth 2010/11) means that, however unlikely it might be, Australia still have a chance in this series.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Well, take consolation that one of the two was Breslin, in as nightwatchman.
Not the best of showings by Yorkshire batsmen today
Not the best of showings by Yorkshire batsmen today
Still time for Johnny Baaaaarstow to shine!!!...
Cook looks adamant to get a big score having the captain's responsibility with such a big score to chase and let's hope KP can play his way to 50+ responsibly without taking on the big shots.........then send in Broad & Swann once the follow on is passed to make a century partnership in roughly around 40 balls......
, then rain, match drawn= ASHES REMAIN IN ENGLAND, 
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
1000 on Saturday morning. I don't know what the weather is like at Old Trafford, but the promised rain has just arrived over the Prestbury area, but with blue sky and white "fluffy" clouds following on behind it.
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,800
64-3 Trott out, I think if we can get a draw out of this game we should be very grateful.
All the silly talk about the Aussies being rubbish is just that - rubbish.
All the silly talk about the Aussies being rubbish is just that - rubbish.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Lunch arrived with England on 119-4 (57 overs) but Cook has fallen for 62. The England run rate is noticeably slower than that achieved by Australia when they batted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
***********************************************
Close of play....
England close on 294-7, still needing 34 to avoid the follow-on.
Where is the rain that was promised earlier in the week for Friday and Saturday..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
***********************************************
Close of play....
England close on 294-7, still needing 34 to avoid the follow-on.
Where is the rain that was promised earlier in the week for Friday and Saturday..
Where is the rain that was promised earlier in the week for Friday and Saturday..
The first Test in Manchester not to be done by the weather for 100 years?!
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,800
Isn't it a bit sad that we're praying for rain.
CallySleeper
Established Member
Classic British get out clause
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
....or just expecting what was promised by our "reliable" weather forecasters..
No amount of prayer can seem to aid our weather "pundits", who seem to break more promises than any Government in power in Britain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyone remember this posting that I made some time ago...which led to me being well and truly chastised for making ?
Should Australia manage to dismiss England before they save the follow-on, will Clarke take the same advice that was given to me and NOT enforce the follow-on to save "wear and tear" on his bowling attack, but to ensure that Australia bat on again ?
Always willing to have my "captain's" cricketing knowledge of some 40/50 years expanded...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
**********************************************************************************
The angels appear to be on England's side....
England 353-8
Prior 20 not out
Swann 11 not out
I know it is now irrelevant, but the situation in the two matches was quite different - time available, difference in scores, weather forecast, quality of bowlers. This is what makes cricket such a subtle game.
BTW, I do wish we didn't comment like football supporters, for whom a side is only either superb or rubbish. The England batsmen have scored fewer than Australia in this innings, but this doesn't mean they are no good (Bairstow apart
). The England bowlers had an off innings collectively, but this does not mean they are suddenly worse than the Australians.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
England 368 all out (139,3 overs)...2.63 runs per over
Siddle 4-63
Starc 3-76
Australia have a lead of 159.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Australia 172-7 (36 overs)...4.77 runs per over
Lead is now 331 runs
BAD LIGHT STOPPED PLAY
Siddle 4-63
Starc 3-76
Australia have a lead of 159.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Australia 172-7 (36 overs)...4.77 runs per over
Lead is now 331 runs
BAD LIGHT STOPPED PLAY
Last edited: