Ashes second test, Lords, continued.

First topic message reminder :

Please continue here guys.

Clarke and Khawaja showed a bit of Grit... But the rest of this team is a shambles! Michael Clarke was the best batsmen in 2012, and you have to believe he will find form, but its so much harder to find form as a captain when youre team gives you sleepless nights.

Olly wrote:They were saying on Sky earlier you could probably make a more competitive Aussie team from the Aussies who are over here playing county stuff/covering it than the one actually playing!!!

1.Quinney
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Voges
5.Hussey
6.Burns
7.Gilchrist
8.Warne
9.Copeland
10.Magoffin
11.McGrath

Isn't bad actually!

Its hard for Clarke knowing as well as captaining the team, you need to score big most innings to drag them to any sort of total.

Khawaja had a good innings, but can he reproduce when it actually means anything?

They lost this despite having England 28/3 on a road on day one...and again 289/8...
Their batting on day two defied belief.

The batting really is very poor , as we thought before the series , though at least Khawaja has put his hand up in this innings. If they can win a toss at Old Trafford and get in first , they might do a bit better.

But I wouldn't put money on it.

Whens Fawad joining up with the Aussies.

1 of he and Lyon must play at OT

Olly wrote:They were saying on Sky earlier you could probably make a more competitive Aussie team from the Aussies who are over here playing county stuff/covering it than the one actually playing!!!

Even if they just brought McGrath and Warne back it would probably make a huge difference...although the likes of Langer, Gilchrist and Ponting wouldn't go amiss either.

kingraf wrote:Clarke and Khawaja showed a bit of Grit... But the rest of this team is a shambles! Michael Clarke was the best batsmen in 2012, and you have to believe he will find form, but its so much harder to find form as a captain when youre team gives you sleepless nights.

Agreed. No single player can carry a team...even one as brilliant as Clarke.

Must be hurting him, knowing how far standards have slipped.

Agar playing with freedom again.

And as I was saying before all the excitement kicked off : Root does look like a serious fifth bowler. Which England haven't had since Freddie packed it in.

Obviously he won't do a lot of damage except on pitches that spin ; but he looks as if he can at least hold up an end for a spell. Another way in which his arrival has boosted this team.

Big Bres thinks he has Agar, not out but reviewed

No hotspot, sound though

Given out. Bres has Agar and his 4th wicket of the match

Agar out haahhahahahahhaa

Well played Umpire!!!

hmm given out on noise I guess.

the young man seems to just play freely. sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Wow - Agar out for a brisk 16.

Tim "Trundler" Bresnan gets his second wicket.

Nothing on Hotspot, but apparently the umpires heard a sound and saw a definite deflection, so he goes and Australia are down to 154-7.

Not long now...

Might be more upset he knows that might be his last test innings for a while.

Do the 3rd umpires in this series understand technology?

Baffling

Glenn McGrath not a happy bunny

Olly wrote:Do the 3rd umpires in this series understand technology?

Baffling

Probably not. They should just hire a bunch of 10-year-olds instead.

On the bright side, KPF has something to whinge about.

Think Cook might have made a mistake on drs there...no hotspot I can see...

But they give it out ! Agar looks stunned .

Certainly looked like a deflection...and a noise too...but hard to give it out without the telling mark ...Obviously Agar genuinely felt he didn't hit it , though I cannot imagine what else caused the sound : but I don't see how an infield decision can be overruled on that ?

Australia will be joining India in calling for the drs to be scrapped after this.

Olly wrote:Do the 3rd umpires in this series understand technology?

Baffling

 Lets not question it, its in our favor!!!!!

will this be the Rootham Test then?

Agar does look a batter though, might come back in a year or two as a specialist. His had starts, but isnt really converting, because he doesnt know how to build a mega innings.

Its weird. DRS has been around for some time but I can't ever recall there being this much controversy over so many reviews, as there has been this series (and we're only into the 2nd match).

Do you think its a combination of poor usage by the players of their reviews, coupled with poor judgements by the umpires?

As I say, the technology has been around for a number of years, but never has their been this level of criticism of it.

GSC wrote:On the bright side, KPF has something to whinge about.

 Thank God for that.  This was looking far to clean a win.  At least now we can call it lucky even if it was a massive margin of victory.

trebellbobaggins wrote:will this be the Rootham Test then?

Root's Ashes I think...hopefully...

so they picked Agar as  a bowler but he hasn't threatened.  does one batting cameo justify his selection at Old Trafford?

I think the umpires have made some poor decisions.

I don't think the Aussies making some poor reviews is really 'controversial'

trebellbobaggins wrote:so they picked Agar as  a bowler but he hasn't threatened.  does one batting cameo justify his selection at Old Trafford?

Not really. They'll need at least 1 genuine spinner.

Tbh, if I'm Aus, why not Ahmed and Lyon.

What have they got to lose at this point?

GSC wrote:I think the umpires have made some poor decisions.

I don't think the Aussies making some poor reviews is really 'controversial'

But they do seem to have been hard done by in a number of reviews, where their players have been given out, when they probably shouldn't have been.

I know England have had one or two rough decisions but the Aussies seem to have had a few more. Just put it down to home advantage?

I think theres room for the rules to be optimised, but doing away with DRS seems a backwards step.

Outside of this series and India, DRS really hasnt been a big deal.

GSC wrote:Tbh, if I'm Aus, why not Ahmed and Lyon.

What have they got to lose at this point?

You could do. I mean Siddle/one of Pattinson, Harris or Starc and Watson as the seamers, then Smith/Ahmed/Lyon as spinners

just seen a tweet that the Aussie innings still trails Root.

GSC wrote:I think theres room for the rules to be optimised, but doing away with DRS seems a backwards step.

Outside of this series and India, DRS really hasnt been a big deal.

I definitely wouldn't want to see DRS abandoned but I do think it has suffered though poor reviewing and poor calls from the umpires, this series.

Maybe they just need to look at how and when reviews are used and maybe some more stringent criteria for using the various technologies at the umpires' disposal.

According to Bumble, DRS is 5% more accurate.

GSC wrote:According to Bumble, DRS is 5% more accurate.

5% more accurate than what?

Ordinary Umpires.

Haddin out lbw to Swann. No reviews

Swann strikes again for his 3rd wicket and Haddin is out, offering no shot, for 7.

Aus have no more reviews and are now 162-8.

England almost there.

5% more accurate than umpires, I assume Wolfe

kingraf wrote:5% more accurate than umpires, I assume Wolfe

Hmm. Would have thought it would be more than just 5%. Suppose it goes to show how good umpires are, despite how close some calls can be and the players' shenanigans to sway their decisions.

But have there really been many wrong decisions against Australia ?

For all the fuss , just the Broad catch at Trent Bridge ( the only other clear errors which were not fixed on review were the Agar stumping - and some would say that was fair enough anyway - and the Trott lbw ; both against England !)

In this match Rogers got a raw deal - but he could and should have referred it... and now Agar. Considering Australia's batsmen are offering so many chances this is hardly out of the ordinary...

They are feeling put upon , but really most of their problems are of their own making

And Haddin now as well ! But again - if Smith and Hughes hadn't squandered their reviews trying to game the system...

No sympathy.

Joe Root just dropped one, has to be dropped from the England squad.

Root drops Siddle.

Drop him!

Not a clue what Haddin was doing.

Its only Five percent because, to get on the ICC elite panel you need a minimum of 95% accuracy....

GSC wrote:Not a clue what Haddin was doing.

Shame is the ball was turning so much it would have actually missed the stumps.

If only they hadn't used up all their reviews...

kingraf wrote:Its only Five percent because, to get on the ICC elite panel you need a minimum of 95% accuracy....

Wow - pretty stringent.

Hang on a sec though - that can't be right.

If DRS is 5% more accurate than human umpires that must mean it is 100% accurate...which we know it isn't as it has a built-in margin of error that puts the decision back in the umpire's hands.

I was wondering the same thing as soon as I typed it..