The Ashes: 1st Test, Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England:
Alastair Cook*, Joe Root, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Jonny Bairstow,
Matt Prior†, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Steven Finn, James Anderson

Australia:
Shane Watson, Chris Rogers, Ed Cowan, Michael Clarke*, Steve Smith, Phil Hughes,
Brad Haddin†, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson, Ashton Agar

Kinggraf the umpire should have checked that one out. But he felt it wasnt out so he didnt- maybe the third umpire should have told him down the mic it was out and he could have reveresed his decision- maybe this is something that needs looking in to- very bad umpiring for the 3 days. England have still however had the worst of it.

I didnt see the dismissal, so I have to ask: Did the ump actually raise his finger?

It wasnt a dismissal. Are you talking about broad?

Yes Broad... Did the umpire dismiss him?

Yes Broad... Did the umpire dismiss him?

No, he somehow missed it completely.

yeah i'm not wrong to think it's still in aussies favour right now if Boycs does too.

50 more and who knows.

The umpire missed a blatent edge.

broad styled it out.

Aus had no reviews left

broad remains IN

Then I guess its fair enough on Broad, absolved imo. But the umpire comes off looking like an idiot.... Did the two umpires at least discuss it??

Caught at first slip as well... Must have been thinking ''Thats some prodigous swing''

trebellbobaggins wrote:yeah i'm not wrong to think it's still in aussies favour right now if Boycs does too.

50 more and who knows.

Bell, Cook, and Pietersen have shown us that if you get in, it's difficult to get out.

Cook got a good ball. KP chopped on. Bell's still there.

Time is no problem for Australia. I think they won't get above 220 though, England's bowling is too good, aud Australia's top and middle order is in a bit of a sorry state. With the exception of Clarke of course.

Clarke will know it all lies in his hands, and thats when he's at his best. Im backing a Clarke ton... Wether the groundsmen, barmen and wood choppers he plays with can elevate themselves is a different story

Didn't go straight to first slip Raf. Took a huge deflection off Hadden.

England to set around 320 to win. Swann to take 5, England to win by around 100 runs.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up mate.

Another amazing day's cricket.

The big talking point is Stuart Broad clearly edging it to slip but not being given out. A lot of people calling him a cheat for not walking but in my opinion the umpire is to blame for missing it. Perhaps Broad never walked as England were still angry over the Trott and Agar decisions yesterday and saw this as a bit of payback? England now in the box seat and looking good to build a lead of 300+ and I can't see this Australian side chasing down a total that big.

--England have appeared the more resolute, desirous and hungrier of the two teams and rightly at this point they are on top in this game.
Aided by a big slice of luck a howler that cannot be compared to the more marginal pieces of good fortune Australia had.

--Pattinson and Starc have just not hit the top gear with combination of speed, direction, control and swing all packed in one spell. One of the elements have been missing in every spell and hence they have't produce the Andersonsuqe spell so far.

--Siddle was underused...and Watson inspite of looking thretaning with the prodigious reverse he had...wasn't used as an attacking option.
Agar is prodigious, brimming with talent but is raw...will learn many tricks and mature with age and exposure. Can develop in what jadeja has for India as an allrounder.

--Pitch has no demons nor will crumble badly like subcontinental pitches and under normal conditons even upto 400 should be chasable.

BUT there is pressure of a BIG game...and England's overall intesity is a notch or two higher....making Eng favourites from here.

PS* that a howler wasn't averted beats the underlying principle on whihch DRS operates..regrdless of any long justifications for "the Broad event"

True KP fan England are in the ascendency but even you must be surprised/disappointed that this match has been so competitive considering how much this Australian side was written off.

Its an interesting point on DRS. Clarke opted to use it on a flier and therefore didnt have it for the howler.

I'd say Australia have outplayed England but Englands better team has kept them in it.

One things for sure is both with and without the technology the umpiring has been dire in this game.

I still think the stumping yesterday given how important momentum is in cricket was the most influential decision so far. I did not want to see it evened out by a diabolical decision the other way though.

GSC wrote:Its an interesting point on DRS. Clarke opted to use it on a flier and therefore didnt have it for the howler.

I'd say Australia have outplayed England but Englands better team has kept them in it.

I wouldn't blame any individuals in this event...all occured within the laws of the game w.r.t DRS implementation.
but the DRS implementations laws have failed as they stand now...because clearly there was a howler that wasn't overtunred.

so the underlying principle...DRS is meant to avert howlers....fails

I think drs is here to avert some howlers . it does probally prevent 95% of them as it stands..

therefore it passes.. less howlers happen than they did before!

however time to give teams more reviews to limit the howlers even more.(maybe 1 or 2 more)

this happens in all sports by the way- it happens in tennis as well.(howlers still happen when players waste reviews). we cant just give them unlimited reviews because it will slow the game down..

However what is becoming apparant is that 'using reviews' is becoming part of sport and in fact a skill that if you are good at it could be the difrerence between winning and losing!

I think 2 is the right number to be honest. Give too many and you will see a lot more speculative reviews which will just hold the game up.

Clarke is partly to blame here, using up reviews on some pretty terrible shouts.

the only way howlers can be averted if all out decisions are given directly by the 3rd umpire...
and leave just one on field umpire for other regulators activities

KP_fan wrote:the only way howlers can be averted if all out decisions are given directly by the 3rd umpire...
and leave just one on field umpire for other regulators activities

Nice in theory but given the incompetent idiots doing the third umpiring in this match I would rather they didn't have any more to do.

I think this is about standards tbh and they clearly need to improve. On field and off field umpiring simply not good enough in this match.

Kp that still wouldnt avert all howlers- how would that have got broad out today. Or do you suggest every delivery(NO and O are reviewed)

This would be very time consuming - and very complicated with the tech we have at the moment- eventually it could be a possibility

--I believe there should be two TV umpires watching every delivery..and automatically press the  OUT button if they see out.

--if for some cases the TV umpires want to see more replays they press the PAUSE button and put the game on hold.

--if they have a doubt and want a reconformation they call the onfield ump and ask...like did you hear the nick ?
also takes the appealing and excessive appealing out of the game.

it might take a bit more time.....but there have to be some prices ton pay..like start the game half an hour earlier every day......or keep 85 overs in a day

it may take up to two minutes for an umpire to review something out . if they do this on loads of deliverys it would hold up the play massively.

All we need is reviews - thats it but more(4 is adequate). and better umpiring standards.

Untill tech can make it very simple to umpire in play- through tech it self and with as minimal human interaction as possible then leave as is.

DRS is there for howlers, not for speculative appeals. Clarke started the day with 1 review (in my opinion he shouldn't have even had that as he used one on the Trott LBW), and opted to use it on a ridiculous LBW appeal against Bairstow. One that was sliding way down leg.

Maybe Clarke will now learn in future of the value of keeping 1 of your reviews back for the umpiring howler and not wasting them on speculative appeals.

More reviews means you get far more speculative reviews, hence also slowing the game.

Give captains 1 and they'll only use it for nailed on howlers

I also think we could also think about getting rid of the 'umpires decison' on lbw's and just say if 75%(or a well thought out percentage- i dont think 50% is right tbh) of the ball hits its out and if it doesnt its in.

GSC wrote:More reviews means you get far more speculative reviews, hence also slowing the game.

Give captains 1 and they'll only use it for nailed on howlers

Agnew suggests this in his column with the BBC, and it's a suggestion that I wholeheartedly agree with.

4 reviews wouldnt waste as much time as in play reviewing - that could waste 2 hours a day and totally disjoint the game..

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:More reviews means you get far more speculative reviews, hence also slowing the game.

Give captains 1 and they'll only use it for nailed on howlers

Agnew suggests this in his column with the BBC, and it's a suggestion that I wholeheartedly agree with.

 i would almost garantee it would kill DRS and many decisions would be wrong..We would go backwards

Its about trying to make this game as fair as possible.

Neither is a particularly good solution Myst.

Ok i could handle 1 review if we took lbw's out of the equation and just went with hawk eye- therefore LBW's wouldnt waste a review

mystiroakey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:More reviews means you get far more speculative reviews, hence also slowing the game.

Give captains 1 and they'll only use it for nailed on howlers

Agnew suggests this in his column with the BBC, and it's a suggestion that I wholeheartedly agree with.

 i would almost garantee it would kill DRS and many decisions would be wrong..We would go backwards

Its about trying to make this game as fair as possible.

DRS is for howlers. Too many captains waste reviews on purely speculative appeals. That's not what the system was designed for. It also has a knock-on effect of slowing the game right down.

DRS is for howlers not checking every delivery that looks like it might have pitched in line

Give them one and it'll be reserved for howlers only. Burn it on a speculative and fall prey to a howler and you left yourself open to it

TBH i think its more about thinking how to improve the game of cricket.

This match has shown up a lot of problems. almost all of them

the age old one.

Someone gets out from hawkeye showing a smaller part of the ball hitting the stumps than another ball that hits more and that batter stays in.. Now dont get me wrong i understand why this is ok. But when we take everything we know about cricket away it seems crazy. It actually is simply crazy that that can happen..

The third umpire overturns a correct decison.. This is beyond crazy

Broad stays in because australia uses up there reviews.. Well that is life and i suppose he will know learn not to waste reviews!!

Root hasnt used a review which would have kept him in because cook was to prudent with our reviews(also as big a mistake as australia wasting theres if you think about it!!)

Problems with 1 review.

.Chosing when to use it -

1. Do you use it speculatively on a top order batsmen at the start of the game

2. Do you wait for a howler that may not happen and possibly just end up using it on a bolwer at the end of the game for no gain whether the review is successfull or not


I think most good captains would still have to take the risk to save the top order batsmen to be honest. When you way up the pros and cons.. Something Agnew has clearly not thought about!

The current number of reviews is fine

Shane Warne, that rather decent spinner that used to play for Australia a few years ago, has said on twitter that it's the umpires job to give you out, and Broad was correct to stand his ground.

Shane has also said his poker tournament has finished, so he's joining up with Sky for the rest of the Ashes. I wondered where he was!

Nice one . Luv a bit of warney!

After going one way and another for most of the time, now England have finally established a position of significant advantage at last in this game. Not quite dominance, but a significant advantage nevertheless. With England's bowling quality and Australia's batting troubles, 300+ could be very demanding for the Australians.
Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook, 2 of their best started the repair job, and although both posted important half-centuries, they couldn't finish the job they started. Jonny Bairstow didn't take over from them, and Matt Prior lost way after a good start. But Ian Bell, who's test form has been rather patchy over the last year and a half came to the party at last with a very important hand. Solid support from Stuart Broad, who seems to have rediscovered the fact that he can actually bat. The 2 of them still have some work to do tomorrow. If they push that lead to around 310-320, the advantage could be converted into a position of dominance. Australia could still win from there on, but that would take an innings of freak brilliance and there is very little you can do against that.
Pattinson was getting the ball to reverse, and Starc also got a few going. Watson was control himself. But in general, the Australian bowlers weren't consistent enough. Despite that terrific first innings with the bat, Ashton Agar hasn't quite justified his selection over Nathan Lyon with the ball, his primary responsibility.
As for the other important bit of play today, that not out decision of Broad, I couldn't believe Aleem Dar, the best umpire in the world missed that edge. I respect walkers, but I have no complaints if they don't. The likes of Michael Clarke has absolutely no right to complain one bit. He had done something similar in the last Ashes as already refered to by some others, and in the rather infamous Sydneygate test in 2008, the one image I just can't forget is him waiting on at the crease after absolutely clubbing one to slip.
Also Clarke should learn to use the DRS better. Its not like gambling with a parttimer or a particular field placing or an interesting declaration on the first day with 9 wickets down. The 2nd review Australia lost was an absolute waste and then it came back to haunt Michael Clarke.

Can anyone tell me why third-man has become such an unused fielding position? Ian Bell would only be about 60 odd* now instead of 95* if Clarke had stationed a man there!
especially on a slow pitch like this, where driving is proving a little difficult, and given that the late cut is one of Bell's favourite shots, why encourage him to play it, particularly when he'd been in for a while?

Kp did well playing down the pitch- maybe that was his reasoning!

Really hope Bell gets 5 more in the morning to make a well deserved century, played brilliantly today under a lot of pressure both in the match and personally as, like I've mentioned before, his record over the last 18 months hasn't been great.

do you have ginger hair as well - or do your like to smoke 12 skined joints from south london

Carrotdude wrote:Really hope Bell gets 5 more in the morning to make a well deserved century, played brilliantly today under a lot of pressure both in the match and personally as, like I've mentioned before, his record over the last 18 months hasn't been great.

If Clarke doesn't put a third man in a couple of late cuts'll do it