Ashes: First Test

First topic message reminder :

It's weird...no thread on T1 yet
Ashton Agar will play is the breaking news.

alfie wrote:There is no perfect solution to the lbw review system.  The more you make the on field umpire's view irrelevant , the more you encourage reviewing every decision...which will lead to reviews being burned early , often as not , and then you are back with the old "manual" system as there are no reviews left...becomes a bit of a raffle then.
Except then there would be a call to increase the number of reviews , and we surely don't want that ?

I am bit in confusion, when the call goes the field umpire's way. Earlier Rogers was given out even when ball way way outside leg, and now Root survived. So what is the rule regarding reviewing LBW decision? 

Soooooo Compton  

We're not going to win this test.

Thats got to be out?

Root has been moved up too early. Maybe Compton should have been picked?

Bit even down the order root can't give us what agar gives Aussie. England look outmatched.

Scrumpy wrote:We're not going to win this test.

Thats got to be out?

We never were, two years of increasingly poor batting performance, weak bowling, Aussie with a class attack and better batting depth and now a world class young man better than anything eng have.

Botham will look an ass, Aussie could whitewash eng instead.

Strangled down the leg side is Joe Root. The first stint as opener hasn't quite worked for young Joe. Have they got another one? Trott might be gone first ball. Trott should be out here. And yes he's gone.

Dreadful!

A well, good win Aussie. Hopefully this will force a rethink of the whole eng setup.

Yeah were doomed. Pure crap from England.

I feel for Compton, Root should have stayed where he was.

So much for safe trott.

Engs failure to deal with a young batsman and poor poor batting lineup has lost the first test and likely the ashes.  Too late now to rebuild.

Why did anyone think a side with so many poor and formless players would win?

The bad old days are back. As I fear, a new era of Aussie dominance has arrived.

Oh my, I thought he hit that. England are in trouble. We were cruising it about 4 hours ago! I thought Trott hit that as well.

11/2, net minus 54 for 2. Lots of work to do for England - Cook, KP, Bell, Bairstow, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, and Finn will need to conjure up 250+ runs from somewhere.

Not over by a long stretch yet though - it won't stop the knee-jerkers though.

Time for KP to put on the genius version, he really has some work to do here.

pfft. you just couldnt write this script. My optimism has gone for a burton

Wow Wow Wow....Superb delivery from Starc...Aleem Dar thought for a nick but was dis approved by hot spot. But in the reply there was a bit deflection after the ball passed bat. Hotspot could not figure out that. Trott was bit surprised...Questions on Hot spot now..Guys want your views..

Apart from that now England Struggling at 11-2 at tea. More 54 left, a wicket or two and Australia will have a hold on the game.

Will this game make it to day 4?

mystiroakey wrote:pfft. you just couldnt write this script. My optimism has gone for a burton

No mysti, stick with me on this one. Optimistic to the end.

Our 2 best batsman are at the crease. Our leader is at the crease. England will manage. England will find a way.

2 50/50 decisions have gone Australia's way today:

1) Agar's stumping (still looks out)
2) Trott's LBW (massive inside edge)

Runs they have cost England? At least 150 probably.

Since we on the topic:

My issue with UDRS is simple. If the fielding team appeals for an LBW decision, and the umpire gives it not out because he thinks there was an inside edge, or pitched outside leg, but thinks its hitting the stumps... If and when the review shows that there was no inside edge, or it pitched in-line... then the wicket
impact being umpires call shouldnt result in a not out decision. To me this is a easy out for Umpires. Its a very easy situation to remedy. If the umpire gives it not out, get simply tells the TV umpire why he gave it not out. The conversation would go like this...

team appeals
Umpire:not out.
team calls for review
Umpire:"I have given it not out because I think there was an inside edge, its a hitting the stumps though"
TV umpire reviews.
TV umpire: "There was no inside edge, but it hit in line and it hit the stumps, on field call"
umpire: on your bike batsman.

No reason for a batsman to stay in just because of a technicality. If

I just dont know if i can do it.However I checked out our odds and we are 2.44 for the win. That is so low..(doesnt say much about aus to be fair!!)

But this has drained me today.. I am feeling like Alex delarge from clockwork orange today. At this rate any mention of cricket is going to make me feel ill..

trebellbobaggins wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:We're not going to win this test.

Thats got to be out?

We never were,  two years of increasingly poor batting performance, weak bowling, Aussie with a class attack and better batting depth and now a world class young man better than anything eng have.

Botham will look an ass, Aussie could whitewash eng instead.

Well treb, You changed your words from what you told me after CT final.

And regarding this England still have KP, Cook, Bell and Prior to come. Each one of them are match winners. Regarding, batting like Ashton is seen once in 10 to 20 matches, where a number 11 score so much of runs. Regarding bowling England still can fire. A target of 250+ in the fourth innings here will be difficult for Australia. After the cracks on the pitch will wide up, Swann will do a lot of trouble.

Duty281 wrote:2 50/50 decisions have gone Australia's way today:

1) Agar's stumping (still looks out)
2) Trott's LBW (massive inside edge)

Runs they have cost England? At least 150 probably.

 root could have been out sooner- but i suppose it didnt cost any runs

The hotspot side camera is out of action (hmm suspect!), so should Trott have been given the benefit of the doubt, like the stumping?

i SUPPOSE if anyone can get us out of a hole its these two batsmen..

Duty281 wrote:2 50/50 decisions have gone Australia's way today:

1) Agar's stumping (still looks out)
2) Trott's LBW (massive inside edge)

Runs they have cost England? At least 150 probably.

Agree with you Duty here. Remember, Bell's stumping in CT final by Dhoni was similar to that of Agar's stumping and we have two different results.

Regarding Trott a big deflection was there after the ball passed the bat. Still hot spot thinks different. Question on Hot Spot?

But after all this England in big trouble.

I think if we set them a 250 target it becomes a 50/50 game.

that means we need 310

that was a rubbish decision from Erasmus, simple. Front on you see a pretty decent deflection when the ball passes the bat. Dar has given it not out on that basis (can't think Dar was thinking it wasn't hitting the stumps), but he's made the call based entirely on the front-on hotspot?!?! Makes no sense whatsoever, sorry, that's a howler...

I said this morning that if Aus get a lead of 60-70... Its worth two-three wickets...

That awesome moment when I get completely spot on

I am no pessimist , Duty...but I reckon this one is over.

After that Agar innings , I think it is written...

Would love to be proved wrong , but I can see England struggling to get any sort of serious lead ...this could be finished some time tomorrow.

Series as a whole is a different matter ...England can regroup. But their selectors will have more to think about than Austraia for a change.

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:2 50/50 decisions have gone Australia's way today:

1) Agar's stumping (still looks out)
2) Trott's LBW (massive inside edge)

Runs they have cost England? At least 150 probably.

Agree with you Duty here. Remember, Bell's stumping in CT final by Dhoni was similar to that of Agar's stumping and we have two different results.

Regarding Trott a big deflection was there after the ball passed the bat. Still hot spot thinks different. Question on Hot Spot?

But after all this England in big trouble.

but the mark would be on the side of the bat, which we just couldn't see, sure front-on there's nothing, because it's a pretty thin nick, but for me that's ridiculous umpiring. England should campaign to get rid of third umpire decisions at this rate

The hotspot wasn't on because Sky were showing a repeat o the Root dismissal and they can't record at the same time... Unbelievable.

front on that just looks like a clear inside-edge to me, don't get that decision at all...

Even worse about Trott's decision is that it overruled the on-field umpire. But on what basis? It's so blindingly obvious, on the first viewing, on the fifth viewing, on the tenth viewing, that Trott absolutely smashed the cover off of it.

It's not a problem with DRS. It's a problem with an incredibly blind 3rd umpire.

This is almost as bad as those cheating Saffers turning the stump cam noise down when Smith smashed one to the keeper down there...  

you could tell by Dar's reaction that he was a bit surprised TBH, he'll have seen the front-on replays, and will have been congratulating himself on making a fine decision (live I gave it out). Dar gives it out, and then gives a bit of a shrug, as if to say "what can you do?"

alfie wrote:I am no pessimist , Duty...but I reckon this one is over.

After that Agar innings , I think it is written...

Would love to be proved wrong , but I can see England struggling to get any sort of serious lead ...this could be finished some time tomorrow.

Series as a whole is a different matter ...England can regroup. But their selectors will have more to think about than Austraia for a change.

Lot of legs left in this game yet. This partnership between Cook and KP is crucial to the game. If they can bat till stumps, the game takes an entirely different complexion.

Always some one else's fault, ey?? I remember people saying Rogers must just take his medicine, these things happen... Guess it different when youre 11-2 effectively -55/2....

Duty281 wrote:Even worse about Trott's decision is that it overruled the on-field umpire. But on what basis? It's so blindingly obvious, on the first viewing, on the fifth viewing, on the tenth viewing, that Trott absolutely smashed the cover off of it.

It's not a problem with DRS. It's a problem with an incredibly blind 3rd umpire.

But man hot spot?????? What was wrong with that. No sign of ball hitting the bat. I don't know whether hot spot camera is not working or something else.

kingraf wrote:I said this morning that if Aus get a lead of 60-70... Its worth two-three wickets...

That awesome moment when I get completely spot on

 but bowling last is also worth 2-3 wickets!

kingraf wrote:Always some one else's fault, ey?? I remember  people saying Rogers must just take his medicine, these things happen... Guess it different when youre 11-2 effectively -55/2....

Rogers was out though. No problems with that dismissal.

The 3rd Umpire will never be a 3rd Umpire again, two very big mistakes today.

Cheating Saffers turning down the stump mike....

Remember Kallis' dismissal in England last year? One hand of the bat?

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Even worse about Trott's decision is that it overruled the on-field umpire. But on what basis? It's so blindingly obvious, on the first viewing, on the fifth viewing, on the tenth viewing, that Trott absolutely smashed the cover off of it.

It's not a problem with DRS. It's a problem with an incredibly blind 3rd umpire.

But man hot spot?????? What was wrong with that. No sign of ball hitting the bat. I don't know whether hot spot camera is not working or something else.

Seemed the side-on camera wasn't working properly for whatever reason. Anyway, you shouldn't need hotspot when you can see it with the naked eye.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:that was a rubbish decision from Erasmus, simple. Front on you see a pretty decent deflection when the ball passes the bat. Dar has given it not out on that basis (can't think Dar was thinking it wasn't hitting the stumps), but he's made the call based entirely on the front-on hotspot?!?! Makes no sense whatsoever, sorry, that's a howler...

Not totally certain there was a deflection there...looked like it on viewing front on , but the bat might have come down after the ball had passed...angles can be deceptive. Though Trott seemed to be sure he got an edge...

However , if the on field umpire thinks there was an edge (which I presume he did ) then I think the TV chap has no right to over rule without the definitive side-on hotspot shot.

As has been said , there was probably more room for doubt there than on the stumping decision. Not that the two are in any way related. But Erasmus probably would not win a popularity contest in the England dressing room right now...

kingraf wrote:Cheating Saffers turning down the stump mike....

Remember Kallis' dismissal in England last year? One hand of the bat?

Nope.  

kingraf wrote:Cheating Saffers turning down the stump mike....

Remember Kallis' dismissal in England last year? One hand of the bat?

He was being sarcastic.  

i agree with the first decison(re the stumping)

Even if it cost us 145 runs!!!

it couldnt be proved out- however trotts wasnt out so a mistake there- TBH though I really am not bothered about that it is what it is. Engalnd still have the ability to get to 330 plus and as long as we do that we turn big favs on this pitch with swanny and jimmy

Mystir... Probably true, but its very dependent on how long Eng bat, if Aus start chasing by lunch, I think its worth a wicket. If Australia only start batting late day3 early day4, its probably worth 2-3...

kingraf wrote:Always some one else's fault, ey?? I remember  people saying Rogers must just take his medicine, these things happen... Guess it different when youre 11-2 effectively -55/2....

hold on, these are completely different situations. Rogers was given out as the umpire thought the ball was hitting the stumps. The technology backed him up, albeit that it was a close call. Trott was given not out on the basis that he hit the ball (I presume - either that or Dar had an attack of blindness as the ball was clearly smashing into the stumps). Technology (i;e. replays) were a little ambiguous, as hot-spot (from front-on) showed no evidence of bat, but the front on slow-mo suggests a pretty clear nick, which would have backed up the on-field call.

Technology is meant to support the on-field umpires in these dubious cases, and in the Trott dismissal you feel Erasmus has taken it onto himself to change the call with (IMO) not nearly enough evidence to do so (quite the opposite in fact).

Had Rogers been given not out initially, the decision would have stood, and I'd have had no problem with that. Equally, had Root's LBW been given I'd have been fine with that. This however felt different.

I figured... DUTY, hence the emoticon. I just made minor mental note, and typed key words....

JDizzle - Its okay... It didnt help you one iota, so you wouldnt remember it.