3rd Ashes test Old Trafford

First topic message reminder :

SQUAD

Squad Alastair Cook (capt), Joe Root, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Jonny Bairstow, James Taylor, Matt Prior, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, James Anderson, Chris Tremlett, Monty Panesar

But Broad has done his job a nice hand to get England over the follow-on line. Swanny in now, if he should put together another partnership with Prior, that lead can be cut further down and England will be in with a chance in the last innings.

I think this is headed for a draw sadly. Consensus is its going to rain hard at some point

With or without rain. It would be very tough for aus to force a win!

Tomorrow gsc.

The result has to come today. Aussie need to bowl us out and declare right away and out us back in to skittle us if they really want this now.

Beeb say both Trebs

trebellbobaggins wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Well done england- Now to get on to 400 plus

Very unlikely now.

Good follow on save from broad but its over.

Aussie still more than far enough ahead to win this if the weather allows.

400 I think would have made it tough to get a result but a win is very much on here.

These two started well though today.

50 more and clarkes declaration looked wrong,  as it stands its probably correct.

I dunno. Swann can wield a bat. If he can stick around with Prior for half a day or so, we could bat the Aussies out of this (as in, take away any chance of forcing a result).

Can't see these 2 batting half a day Myst. Neither has a particularly conservative mindset

True dyre.

It's day four and we are still in innings one.

With weather on the way it looks an interesting one for Clarke.

Neither can I!!!!

but I could potentially see them batting this session and getting to 400!!

Think it'll be Warner time atop the order for Aus

England just on a massive counter-attack.

Swann hits Lyon for 6

Prior is dropped of Lyon. And of all the people, Steve Smith has dropped that.

Ryan Harris, having been smashed around a bit today morning, is replaced, and Peter Siddle is taken over.

And Siddle strikes. England 9 down.

Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

Another walk!!

End is nigh

Swann gone, edging to Haddin as the ball just moved a little bit. Anderson should give Prior some support and try and cut this lead down as much as possible.

Hood83 wrote:Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

Pray tell me, assuming no rain, how exactly do Australia win this game?

9 down now, all down to Prior!

Hood83 wrote:Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

No offense mate but Trebs was here first

Oh well - so much for that theory. Swann is gone for 11 and England are 353-9.

I was hoping for a rather more careful 30-40 from him.

Looks like the Aussies will be batting again very soon. At least we have the opportunity to get a wicket or two before lunch.

Swanny hasnt done much with the bat in ages.

Yeah it needed to be 400 as I think the time out of the game would have caused Aussie all sorts of problems. As it stands they can get a quick tion and put us back in.

Having said that.   Even batting poorly chasing a huge total on a ground  where batting first was a match winner England have managed to get to day four in innings one and a total between 300 and 400 and made a match of it.  So much better than the days when they'd have been out twice by end of day 3.

Good work from Prior and Broad to save the follow on with a minimum of fuss. Now need Swann to aid his mate to push on as close as they can get to the Aussie score.

The DRS thing rumbles on I see (sigh). I did like Mike's bit re unpredictability increasing with distance to travel - common sense suggests this is so anyway , and is why I was (a) unsurprised Clarke didn't review , and (b) glad he didn't , not just from a partisan England viewpoint but because I don't want to see that sort of lbw decision given...in my opinion it just isn't certain enough , and really can't be given by an onfield umpire , as it would always be a guess.
And I absolutely hate the idea that seems to be growing in some posters' minds that virtually all lbw decisions should be subject to third umpire oversight !

Back to the game ...Swann gone so Australia may be batting soonish...England seem happy enough to smash a few fours and walk off this morning...surely they don't think they can skittle Australia and still win this ?

GSC wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

No offense mate but Trebs was here first

Ha, fair enough, is there only room for one doom merchant?

That said, Jimmy has been known to drop anchor when necessary. Perhaps he can just block at one end while Prior keeps the scoreboard ticking over?

Duty281 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

Pray tell me, assuming no rain, how exactly do Australia win this game?

9 down now, all down to Prior!

Have a thrash, reach 300 hundred in front relatively quickly today and watch England's batsmen fold under pressure...I imagine.

@Hood or modern Aussie turns up, all out for a ton as Swann spins them out of the game and then watch England clip away at the total before the rains wash away the whole of tomorrow.

Hood83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

Pray tell me, assuming no rain, how exactly do Australia win this game?

9 down now, all down to Prior!

Have a thrash, reach 300 hundred in front relatively quickly today and watch England's batsmen fold under pressure...I imagine.

Can't see that happening, an Englishman is always happiest in a time of peril.

KP couldnt have been given out- That is a given and nothing to do with the DRS argument. But it cannot be used as a negative to hawkeye- Hawkeye is still supposedly more accurate than the Human eye in real time!

What we can't do is use the stuiation as a negative in any way shape or form. This one as you say is just common sense. And I am glad it is being applied , when it clearly isnt in many cases.

Also we dont need all possible lbw decisions reviewed- we just need to get rid of umpires call. Thats it. Straight forward.. The only reason Mike still wants it is nothing to do with logic but a miss placed respect for the Umpire

Umpires can and need to still be respected - but benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the batter not them. There will be the first to tell you they are not perfect!

If the guidlines are more consitant and we get fairer decsions no one will be having a pop at the umpires any way. So its a win win!

If nothing else, I am amazed I actually got a prediction right. I said at the end of the Aussie innings that England would struggle to match 500 and would most likely get 350-400.

*goes into "Smug Mode"*  

if this south westerly weather continues north then you won't be getting anymore play tomorrow.  it is pouring down.
 
Clarke has to roll the dice and put eng back in.

Disagree with you on umpire's call , roakey.

Will explain in detail why when we aren't in the middle of interesting cricket.

mystiroakey wrote:KP couldnt have been given out- That is a given and nothing to do with the DRS argument. But it cannot be used as a negative to hawkeye- Hawkeye is still supposedly more accurate than the Human eye in real time!

What we can't do is use the stuiation as a negative in any way shape or form. This one as you say is just common sense. And I am glad it is being applied , when it clearly isnt in many cases.

Also we dont need all possible lbw decisions reviewed- we just need to get rid of umpires call. Thats it. Straight forward.. The only reason Mike still wants it is nothing to do with logic but a miss placed respect for the Umpire

Umpires can and need to still be respected - but benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the batter not them. There will be the first to tell you they are not perfect!

If the guidlines are more consitant and we get fairer decsions no one will be having a pop at the umpires any way. So its a win win!

I think you're missing a point here.

The whole reason for having "Umpire's Call" is that Hawkeye isn't 100% reliable. There is a given margin of error and in those cases, the lawmakers have deemed it fairest to hand the decision back to the umpire. Its got nothing to do with respect.

Its then up to the umpire whether the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt...as was the case before technology was introduced.

"The whole reason for having "Umpire's Call" is that Hawkeye isn't 100% reliable"

how the heck have i missed that point?

I think you are missing the point!

IF hawkeye is more accurate than the Human eye - Then use it!!!!

Mikes argument is based around the ethos of the game!! and the mis placed respect for umpires.

"Its then up to the umpire whether the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt"

what does that mean!!!!!!

no you give them the benefit of doubt or you dont. You dont decide wether you do or not. Its a completely contradciting point!

I am sorry but this is getting ridiculas.

I cant keep talking to a brick wall. keep your heads stuck in the sand

I reckon eng have added a few more than Clarke would have visualised last night but he'll bee feeling like it's his game unless he's seen the weather forcast.

Prior managing to keep the strike well. 67/2 in that first hour = good for England.

I am not keen on these cat and mouse last wicket set ups where the fielding team offers singles to the remaining batsman and tries to save the boundaries.
As a bowler I have been known to rather forcefully inform the captain that I am just not bowling without a couple of catchers where I want them   I tend to get my way.

I see the logic , but I suspect it more often allows the batting team more runs than they would otherwise have made. Glad to see Clarke brought his fielders in at that latest over , even though he conceded a boundary...

Its about time for aus not runs.. So effectively forget boundaries and try and strike!!

all sports have human error. prior could make a mistake now and get out and so can the umpires. sport wouldn't be much fun if it were played by robots who didnt make any mistakes neither would cricket if you had to refer every decision, can be long enough as it is! its all part of sport, dont see the need to change something thats already being working for quite a while. tweaks needed at best

mystiroakey wrote:"The whole reason for having "Umpire's Call" is that Hawkeye isn't 100% reliable"

how the heck have i missed that point?

I think you are missing the point!

IF hawkeye is more accurate than the Human eye - Then use it!!!!

Mikes argument is based around the ethos of the game!! and the mis placed respect for umpires.

"Its then up to the umpire whether the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt"

what does that mean!!!!!!

no you give them the benefit of doubt or you dont. You dont decide wether you do or not. Its a completely contradciting point!

I am sorry but this is getting ridiculas.

I cant keep talking to a brick wall. keep your heads stuck in the sand

Simply put, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the words "Margin of Error".

You seem to be under the impression that Hawkeye is more accurate than the human eye.

Now, since I don't know how the system is programmed and what variables it uses to calculate ball trajectories, I can't possibly say.

However, umpires are human and therefore can make mistakes, mis-judge things, or even miss them altogether. Also, like Hawkeye they have to use their eyes and brains to calculate the probable trajectory of the ball, in order to give a decision.

All Hawkeye does is calculate the probable trajectories of balls, once they have left the pitch. Essentially, its like a video replay, using a computer simulation.

Like all computer simulation software, there is a margin of error built-in, since its pretty much impossible to factor in /accurately evaluate every factor that could influence the ball's speed and direction of travel.

That is why the option to hand the decision back to the umpire exists, for those occasions where the projected results are inconclusive.

I really don't see why you have a problem with this.

Duty281 wrote:Prior managing to keep the strike well. 67/2 in that first hour = good for England.

Was an excellent hour indeed , though they would have hoped to have kept Swann in for the potential to get over 400.

Expected them to save the follow on , on this still fairly placid pitch. But they did it in some style. Game not over yet (unless this rain arrives eventually) But Clarke has a decision to make when he bats again , and even if most of the allotted hours are played they still have to take ten English wickets.

On a pitch on which sixteen wickets have fallen in 288 overs.

this on bbc tms "Why are people so happy England have saved the follow-on? Australia only need to bat for a session & they'll set a mean target."
 
so time out of the game when this pouring rain in the west is heading north and likely to wash out tomorrow isn't a factor at all then?
 
the target would mean nothing then. Eng would need to bat a session and we'd have a draw.  Maybe he's another victim of the bad days staring blankly into the distance and dribbling expecting 50 all out every time like me.
 
I still hope Clarke shows intend and declares with the confidence his boys can bowl out England cheap.   Go on boy.. gamble.

Duty281 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Aus have won this short of a huge and prolonged downpour. Amazed anyone sees it going any other way.

Pray tell me, assuming no rain, how exactly do Australia win this game?

9 down now, all down to Prior!

Have a thrash, reach 300 hundred in front relatively quickly today and watch England's batsmen fold under pressure...I imagine.

Can't see that happening, an Englishman is always happiest in a time of peril.

It's when we should win easily that we fold. EG. The Champions Trophy Final run chase

I have brought up margin of error more times on this subject than anyone else- so dont try and make such ludicrous errors of judgement against me!! Its not about perefction is about WHAT SYSTEM IS MORE ACCURATE. Human eye or Hawk EYE!!

Please take you time and read the below! Read it 10 times if needs be.. I am not going to right an essay!! But it is very straightforward


1.Hawkeye was brought in because the human eye in real time is not good enough.

2.It would be worthless to bring a system in that is worse than the human eye.

3.we have to therefore accept its better than the human eye.

4.If we cant accept that . Hawk eye cannot be used at all.

5.If we can accept that it is better than the human eye in real time. It goes against any logical reasoning that just because hawk eye predicts the ball to only hit the wicket with less than half of its size to go back to the umpires call..


consitancy is another big point. That I have explained in detail in previous posts.

end of argument from me. If people can't get this basic logical thinking then I would rather not discuss it anymore!

Not going to stress myself out over it from this point on. I respect and like everyone on here including Mike.. Agree to disagree , I just hate it when people misinterprete the points being raised..

Prior gone, Siddle with his 4th wicket. England bowled out for 368, Australia lead by 159.

Oh well, Prior is out on 30 and England are 368-all out.

I imagine they would have liked to bat a fair bit longer than this, but hopefully our bowlers can keep things tight and nick an early wicket or two before lunch, just to stop Australia getting off to a flying start.

ah shame. I thought they might even hit 400.

well that's too early for England.    yes tomorrow looks like you can forget it but today could be enough for the Aussies to set England a huge total and hope England collapse.

having said that.. if the rain hits this afternoon Clarke can forget it and go home, the rain won't be gone for a few days once it settles.

bbc have written England off all the way through this and still are.

I can see why but we've probably two sessions at best left in this match and two innings have soaked up much of 4 days.  why the massive assumption it's an aussie win?

How aggressive will Clarke be with his declaration is the question? 100 more runs? 150? 200?