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

Watching punter batting yesterday for the last time, I was wondering if he could play in today's game. But that's my feeling. Though there is no punter or Hussey this time but still this test match is one of the interesting test matches. Mostly angled toward DRS this thread is really an interesting one.

Watching punter batting yesterday for the last time, I was wondering if he could play in today's game. But that's my feeling. Though there is no punter or Hussey this time but still this test match is one of the interesting test matches. Mostly angled toward DRS this thread is really an interesting one.

First Ashes Test results since 1997:

1997 - England win by 9 wickets
1998 - Draw
2001 - Australia win by an innings and 18 runs
2002 - Australia won by 384 runs
2005 - Australia won by 239 runs
2006 - Australia won by 277 runs
2009 - Draw
2010 - Draw

Sixteen years since England last won the opening Test of an Ashes series - will that change tomorrow?

kingraf wrote:As a general rule... I think that the two threads have gone splendid, there have been debates, but thats what v2 is about... Been great fun commenting this test.

Hear hear.

Been journeying today. Some of you thought chasing 311 (25 runs more than has ever been chased here on a pitch with plenty to offer Swan) that the Aussies were 90-10 to win. 90-10. I would love to drink some of what you are having. Crazy

I dont think Trebs truely believed that Cheques

Missed the game today and the debates here as well.
But England in the better position at the end of day for. The crucial late strikes have made the m the favorits for day 5. But Australia aren't out of it. Haddin is a capable bat, and young Agar has shown he has something quality in his batting. Siddle, Starc and Pattinson are all fighters with the bat, and England should not expect an easy ride.
By the way Steven Finn bowling only 8 overs today, any concerns with him? I could see he went at only 2 an over, so leaking runs wouldn't have been the issue?

I'd ask if The Facts were McGrath but he's actually shown himself to be a fair and excellent analyst. I can only assume you are Michael Holding

Ha, mysti, people trying the old anti-mockers?

kingraf wrote:As a general rule... I think that the two threads have gone splendid, there have been debates, but thats what v2 is about... Been great fun commenting this test.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ha, mysti, people trying the old anti-mockers?

 yeah Trebs is legendary for it.

mystiroakey wrote:I dont think Trebs truely believed that Cheques

 I don't know what I believe anymore.  I've gone past insanity.

I have been a critical supporter of DRS all these years, and I still am one. But this test has brought my position less distant from those who reject it. The umpire's call system is a bad one, I am absolutely convinced now. The suggestion going around, and repeated by McGrath on TMS that I had brought up in the previous thread, that a certain %, say 50 hitting should be out, anything less should be not out. That takes out the existing arbitrariness with ball tracking to an extent. Without addressing this issue, I don't think I would really want DRS to go on in its present form for long. Also the makers of Snicko were promising a much faster device Weren't they in recent times? It is not part of the DRS technology as of now, I would like it to be integrated at the earliest.

"McGrath on TMS that I had brought up in the previous thread, that a certain %, say 50 hitting should be out"

exactly my view. No one could understand it when I mentioned it though! Glad some one else agrees!!

however i would bring the percentage down to 5% or less- dependant on hawkeyes margin of error

GSC wrote:I'm not sure the Aussies sat back as much as England recognised they werent going to blast them out and decided to build pressure. Scoring quickly is hard on this pitch.

The ball aged and did a bit more and Swann started to get some turn. It all helped starve the aussies at a crucial time.

root seemed like a decent enough part time bowler tbh. Much better to have than trott  or KP

I have not gone through all the comments today. Went back as far as page 17 so I am not sure I have read everything from the facts man. From whatever I've read, I have to say I am not convinced that all the attention he's getting is really necessary. I must say our standards for conferring the wum tag is not all that consistent.
Think we should take things a bit more easily. If things get really difficult, the moderators can act, no need to jump up and down with the wum tag the moment something not to the taste of the majority is put up.

msp83 wrote:I have not gone through all the comments today. Went back as far as page 17 so I am not sure I have read everything from the facts man. From whatever I've read, I have to say I am not convinced that all the attention he's getting is really necessary. I must say our standards for conferring the wum tag is not all that consistent.
Think we should take things a bit more easily. If things get really difficult, the moderators can act, no need to jump up and down with the wum tag the moment something not  to the taste of the majority is put up.

Looking at his post history, he's also a bit of a wum on the tennis board as well.

msp - I probally shouldnt say this but.

I have a feeling facts man is spaghetii hans..

I got what you were saying, Mystir. I agreed! 50% is a cop out, like I said. If the machine deviates by 5% max, I cant see why 50% is the measurement...

Duty281 wrote:

msp83 wrote:I have not gone through all the comments today. Went back as far as page 17 so I am not sure I have read everything from the facts man. From whatever I've read, I have to say I am not convinced that all the attention he's getting is really necessary. I must say our standards for conferring the wum tag is not all that consistent.
Think we should take things a bit more easily. If things get really difficult, the moderators can act, no need to jump up and down with the wum tag the moment something not  to the taste of the majority is put up.

Looking at his post history, he's also a bit of a wum on the tennis board as well.

If it is really, absolutely necessary, I am sure the moderators can step in and do the needful. But in general, a more open approach wouldn't really harm us I feel.

I think the criticism of the Clarke review was harsh, a) in light of the shifted goalposts on the spirit of the game

B) he probably did it because he doesnt trust his batters... 161-3 to 166-6 vindicates that mistrust.

mystiroakey wrote:msp - I probally shouldnt say this but.

I have a feeling facts man is spaghetii hans..

Mysti, as I am mostly limited to cricket boards, that one doesn't really strike a chord. A colourful character I suppose?

mystiroakey wrote:root seemed like a decent enough part time bowler tbh. Much better to have than trott  or KP

 and hopefully they can work with him to become really useful.

Its against the rules to call others other posters so I will take it back. Welcome The facts.





But on the subject of spaghetti hans.. He was actually quite a decent and funny poster sometimes. But he created loads of accounts and ruined the whole GOAT comp, Not a good thing to do. Bang out of order really and pretty sad

kingraf wrote:I think the criticism of the Clarke review was harsh, a) in light of the shifted goalposts on the spirit of the game

B) he probably did it because he doesnt trust his batters... 161-3 to 166-6 vindicates that mistrust.  

He said he'd thought he hadn't nicked it and Smith was also unconvinced. I think he was being genuine and it was only a feather afterall. He seems a pretty honest guy Clarke. His interview on the verdict was very good.

yep agreed I think he just didnt realise he knicked it!

mystiroakey wrote:Its against the rules to call others other posters so I will take it back. Welcome The facts.





But on the subject of spaghetti hans.. He was actually quite a decent and funny poster sometimes. But he created loads of accounts and ruined the whole GOAT comp, Not a good thing to do. Bang out of order really and pretty sad

Welcome indeed, The facts. Hope you will be an entertaining and informative participant in the cricket. And I hope you restrict the flaming to acceptable limits, not that I found anything beyond it in the post I've read.
Creating multiple accounts and attempting to sabotage discussions is certainly way out of order and I am sure it would have been dealt with.

Clarke never realizes an edge!. Bit of Broad in him, and I am not exactly referring to what happened with Broad yesterday.

Dont want this to descend into a game of comparatives, though I do think he at the very least knew he was in trouble.

I like Clarke, and I base a lot of my game on him, so I do think hes a nice enough guy...

liverbnz wrote:

kingraf wrote:I think the criticism of the Clarke review was harsh, a) in light of the shifted goalposts on the spirit of the game

B) he probably did it because he doesnt trust his batters... 161-3 to 166-6 vindicates that mistrust.  

He said he'd thought he hadn't nicked it and Smith was also unconvinced. I think he was being genuine and it was only a feather afterall. He seems a pretty honest guy Clarke. His interview on the verdict was very good.

Agree 100% with this. An edge that was that slight will not have been felt, he may have heard it but his bat could of clipped his pad or anything. Fully within his rights to review that decision.

Dont worry Msp, I think everyone here knows Broad's review mannerism, he sees rays of light even when the middle stump is gone...
''You wanna check the No Ball?''

In fact I think awful reviews are referred to as Broad-esque reviews...

The highlights of today's play emphasised for me that England have done well in deciding on whether or not to review decisions.

we have  missed one and that was roots from being to prudent, but overall we are one of the best reviewers

Think RSA are also pretty decent reviewers, its that 47 in 20 overs runs isnt enough time to use two reviews...

Regardless of whether England win or not tomorrow, they are seriously going to have to look at their lineup for the next test. For a start Joe Root just doesn't look ready to open the Batting yet against the bully-type of Fast Bowlers in the current Aussie Team (Pattinson, Starc and Sid Vicious). As for Steven Finn, the less said about him the better! - I have never seen such a more overrated England Fast Bowler with a poor control of line and length since I first started watching the game back in 1985, and this includes players like Neal Foster, Graham Dilley, Devon Malcolm, Angus Fraser, Darren Gough, Steve Harmison all of which at least didn't always frustrate the hell out of you by continually serving up rubbish/mickey-mouse long hops down the legside which even no-hoper tailenders like Umar Gul can easily thrash/dispatch to the boundary for a 4 or a 6.

1 test GB- 1 test..

However if we move him back down.

1. if bell keeps up the play- he can open
2. trott can open - he just doesnt want to
3. kp can open- but its not his most effective position

I wouldnt bring compo back in - I thin k bairstow needs a chance- because at the end of the day- We have to blood the youngsters and put faith in them- we have to think about the long run!

"Darren Gough"

To put him in that list is just wrong mate- just wrong. he was class

hampo171 wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

kingraf wrote:I think the criticism of the Clarke review was harsh, a) in light of the shifted goalposts on the spirit of the game

B) he probably did it because he doesnt trust his batters... 161-3 to 166-6 vindicates that mistrust.  

He said he'd thought he hadn't nicked it and Smith was also unconvinced. I think he was being genuine and it was only a feather afterall. He seems a pretty honest guy Clarke. His interview on the verdict was very good.

Agree 100% with this. An edge that was that slight will not have been felt, he may have heard it but his bat could of clipped his pad or anything. Fully within his rights to review that decision.

That's more or less what he said. He heard the bat clipping his pad but not the feather.

msp83 wrote:I have not gone through all the comments today. Went back as far as page 17 so I am not sure I have read everything from the facts man. From whatever I've read, I have to say I am not convinced that all the attention he's getting is really necessary. I must say our standards for conferring the wum tag is not all that consistent.
Think we should take things a bit more easily. If things get really difficult, the moderators can act, no need to jump up and down with the wum tag the moment something not  to the taste of the majority is put up.

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying, but the fact is the Cricket section has been very peaceful and tolerant for a long time, I doubt there were ever more than a handfull of reports I have dealt with on the cricket section, compared to literally hundreds on the rugby thread.

I guess the good behaviour on the cricket section has made you guys spoilt, so carry in boys, make me proud.

mystiroakey wrote:1 test GB- 1 test..

However if we move him back down.

1. if bell keeps up the play- he can open
2. trott can open - he just doesnt want to
3. kp can open- but its not his most effective position

I wouldnt bring compo back in - I thin k bairstow needs a chance- because at the end of the day- We have to blood the youngsters and put faith in them- we have to think about the long run!

If I was England selector rather than Geoff Miller, I would bring in Luke Wright to open the innings like what Shane Watson does for Australia. I would also bring in Adil Rashid and get him to bat at number 11 as our answer to Ashton Agar.

Shouldn't we see if Agar's innings was in anyway representative of his normal ability or just a freak innings before we start to highlight him as the danger man to focus on? Seems ludicrous to assume that is his normal innings. Watch him and be wary that he can bat certainly, but don't pick players purely as a counter for him based on one innings that should have ended on 6

mystiroakey wrote:1 test GB- 1 test..

However if we move him back down.

1. if bell keeps up the play- he can open
2. trott can open - he just doesnt want to
3. kp can open- but its not his most effective position

I wouldnt bring compo back in - I thin k bairstow needs a chance- because at the end of the day- We have to blood the youngsters and put faith in them- we have to think about the long run!

Well I think Baristow should get one more chance. He batted really well if compared to Root, though root is emerging star but I think Compton should be back in the team. He supported Cook in India and then batted like gem in NZ. I think selectors should give him a chance above Root.

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:1 test GB- 1 test..

However if we move him back down.

1. if bell keeps up the play- he can open
2. trott can open - he just doesnt want to
3. kp can open- but its not his most effective position

I wouldnt bring compo back in - I thin k bairstow needs a chance- because at the end of the day- We have to blood the youngsters and put faith in them- we have to think about the long run!

Well I think Baristow should get one more chance. He batted really well if compared to Root, though root is emerging star but I think Compton should be back in the team. He supported Cook in India and then batted like gem in NZ. I think selectors should give him a chance above Root.

Agree there, bring back Compton to open with Cook, move Root back to 6 and send Bairstow back to play for his County side Yorkshire to get more batting match practice.

Apparantly its swinging conditions in Nottingham this morning...

Predicitions lads

for me aus to really make a game of it and get 90 more- but england just winning out.

2 wickets from anderson, 2 from broad.

So Root gets 30 and then a strangle down the leg side that he would have been not out on review and he's not good enough? Perhaps we should wait for more evidence of him 'failing' before we jump to conclusions.

Camberwell carrot dude

The timing of when to take the new ball will be the telling point in today's play.This decision may turn Cook grey.Mind you,Brearley didn't do too badly and work as Santa offers a post cricket job opportunity!