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

368 all out then. Prior back to a bit of form...good to see Siddle rewarded with a fourth wicket.
Warner to open ? He ran off pretty quick...

158 overs less rain to go , so Clarke will want a lead of what ? 370 ?
And bowling tonight , presumably.

If the rain holds off it may be interesting this afternoon. Hope England attack at least early on , as the best way to stop runs is to take wickets !

all out for 50 duty.  and England win.

alfie this rain mate.. forget a result.  seriously. it is Wee weeing it down.

 
now cloud, moisture and movement.  aussie are in trouble.

159 run lead for the Ausis, i just can't look past a draw tbh.

Rogers and Warner

Interesting...

trebellbobaggins wrote:all out for 50 duty.  and England win.

That's the way Trebbs! Swann to do his best Laker impression, and England to cruise home by ten wickets this evening.

Genuinely speaking though, I think we can still win this, if the weather stays away.

guildfordbat wrote:As long as the weather behaves itself, an enthralling start awaits all in the morning. A game within a game.  
....

Well, we've won the minor game this morning. That could play a major part in us saving the major game. See no likely chance of us winning from here.

Excellent call - supported by Mike - about Warner opening second time round. Understand it but wonder. Australia would surely prefer to be 30-0 off 10 than 50-2? There again, maybe, they'll be 50-0?  .

Lol. It looks like we were both half wrong and half right. After rogers first innings(great SR) i think he deserves to open!

They will get a 350 lead and declare, going into the last day IMO.

"Excellent call - supported by Mike"

Child.

And by the way he called for warner to replace rodgers. He was wrong!

Duty281 wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:all out for 50 duty.  and England win.

That's the way Trebbs! Swann to do his best Laker impression, and England to cruise home by ten wickets this evening.

Genuinely speaking though, I think we can still win this, if the weather stays away.

 I think Clarke declared too early.  The game has changed now as they didn't skittle England.

it'll rain all day tomorrow so they have to end this innings this afternoon if still in.

NickisBHAFC wrote:They will get a 350 lead and declare, going into the last day IMO.

 and then sit there glum as it rains all day.

trebellbobaggins wrote: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?

Well if the weather is going to bury all but two sessions more this is done and dusted...but I think we must assume the forecasters will be proven wrong and a fair bit of play remains. Maybe not 158 overs , but...

Clarke will certainly want to bowl for a while tonight , so he has probably a maximum of about 50-55 overs to bat. If they can score close to four per over , that will mean a lead of 360-370 , which seems about right. Then if tomorrow allows a fairly full day it might be a tense finish.

Looks a bit dim out there on my TV , so I wonder if we are going to get rained on some time today ? My old memories of Manchester are it was always about to rain or raining  

mystiroakey wrote: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..

Fair enough Mystir.

I won't try and bash you over this but a point I forgot to mention in my previous post is that because its a computer simulation, running to the same set of rules, Hawkeye WILL be more consistent.

Can't say for accuracy, but knowing a bit about simulation software, I'd bet money on a good, experienced umpire being more accurate, over a series of tests (maybe not by much though).

Is it accuracy you're after or better consistency?

The reason I say this is because things like wind speed and direction, humidity/weather and the condition of the pitch all affect how a ball behaves.

Now those things aren't too hard to accurately simulate. But consider what the fielding side does to the ball, polishing it and deliberately scuffing up one side to get it to swing and spin more. Also, the ball will become deformed as a match goes on, as it is hit by the batsmen. This deformation will also affect how it bounces and moves through the air.

How on earth do you accurately model that in a simulation? I expect there are ways of approximating this, but I can't imagine they're super-accurate...hence the much-touted "margin of error".

Anyway, as you said, we shall agree to disagree. End of subject on my part.

5 runs off 3 overs. No rush boys.  

trebellbobaggins wrote:alfie this rain mate.. forget a result.  seriously. it is Wee weeing it down.

 
now cloud, moisture and movement.  aussie are in trouble.

Yeah but you're in Cornwall , aren't you ? Not exactly round the corner...

...just saw a TV shot outside the ground looking at some very dark and rainy stuff not too far away , so you may be right  

Depends how much of it there is , I guess.

There was a rather dark black cloud in the distance on one of those scorecard shots last over.

Think that could head over come Lunch

alfie wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote: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?

Well if the weather is going to bury all but two sessions more this is done and dusted...but I think we must assume the forecasters will be proven wrong and a fair bit of play remains.  Maybe not 158 overs , but...

Clarke will certainly want to bowl for a while tonight , so he has probably a maximum of about 50-55 overs to bat. If they can score close to four per over , that will mean a lead of 360-370 , which seems about right.  Then if tomorrow allows a fairly full day it might be a tense finish.

Looks a bit dim out there on my TV , so I wonder if we are going to get rained on some time today ?  My old memories of Manchester are it was always about to rain or raining  

 They've been wrong until now but honestly Alfie this rain is heavy heavy heavy and it's due to hit there later today or tomorrow.

there will be no play when it does.

http://www.raintoday.co.uk/

Won't be too long now according to the rain radar.

"Can't say for accuracy, but knowing a bit about simulation software, I'd bet money on a good, experienced umpire being more accurate, over a series of tests.

Is it accuracy you're after or better consistency? Wink"

by this logic you have to be against hawkeye and want it scraped . There is no other logical soloution from your POV.


I want accuracy and consitancy. I have made this point a million times.

Just because hawkeye has a marign of error , or just because hawkeye is less acurate when predicting a longer range. Is a complete strawman argument. You see the same goes for humans!!

There is no reason to have hawkeye here if it is less accurate than the human eye. NO LOGIC AT ALL.

Therefore it is almost crazy to suggest that because hawkeye isn't CONCLUSIVE that we go back to the umpire that is by DEFINITION even less CONCLUSIVE.. And the only reason it is here is Because the umpires are inconculsive

NickisBHAFC wrote:159 run lead for the Ausis, i just can't look past a draw tbh.

Assuming we don't let the Aussies rack up a big enough lead that they feel they can declare reasonably soon.

Wouldn't fancy England to hold out too long for the draw.

*has visions of England being 150-9 midway through Monday*

Not sure why people think England couldn't hold out a full day for a draw. They have only been knocked over fairly quickly once in this series so far , even if the batting has underperformed a bit by desired standards.
There is always pressure in the fourth innings when you can't win , but they held out (just) in New Zealand , and bat deep enough , so shouldn't be easy beats...
Pitch might get trickier I guess ; but mainly for the spinner , and the Aussie quicks proved more dangerous in the first innings.

Last day might be hard on nerves though...

You see told you Rogers should open

Reliable Rogers clattered.  The first of many.  Even Clarke will be beaten all ends up and sent back to think again.

alfie wrote:Not sure why people think England couldn't hold out a full day for a draw.  They have only been knocked over fairly quickly once in this series so far , even if the batting has underperformed a bit by desired standards.
There is always pressure in the fourth innings when you can't win , but they held out (just) in New Zealand  , and bat deep enough , so shouldn't be easy beats...
Pitch might get trickier I guess ; but mainly for the spinner , and the Aussie quicks proved more dangerous in the first innings.

Last day might be hard on nerves though...

 i'll be sat in the office unbothered that i'm missing the rain.  no nerves.

mystiroakey wrote:"Can't say for accuracy, but knowing a bit about simulation software, I'd bet money on a good, experienced umpire being more accurate, over a series of tests.

Is it accuracy you're after or better consistency? Wink"

by this logic you have to be against hawkeye and want it scraped . There is no other logical soloution from your POV. (1)


I want accuracy and consitancy. I have made this point a million times. (2)

Just because hawkeye has a marign of error , or just because hawkeye is less acurate when predicting a longer range. Is a complete strawman argument. You see the same goes for humans!! (3)


There is no reason to have hawkeye here if it is less accurate than the human eye. NO LOGIC AT ALL. (4)

Therefore it is almost crazy to suggest that because hawkeye isn't CONCLUSIVE that we go back to the umpire that is by DEFINITION even less CONCLUSIVE.. And the only reason it is here is Because the umpires are inconculsive (5)

1. You're assuming I expect it to be perfect. I don't. I simply see it as a tool that, if used properly, can remove some of the poorer umpiring decisions.


2. You're expecting too much. Computers are perfect at consistency, but accuracy is dependent on the complexity of the problem being solved and the competence of those who write the software.

3. Not a strawman argument at all - its only because you're expecting a perfect system, where none exists.

4. From your POV maybe. I agree that when its mis-used, or the umpires make poor decisions, in spite of the info it offers, yes it does introduce unwanted controversy. I will say again, if used properly, it is a useful tool.

5. Again, you're missing the point. Neither system is perfect. Humans make mistakes and computers are only as good as the data you give them. Hawkeye was supposed to eliminate the WORST decisions made by umpires - stuff that can be blatantly obvious even without TV replays. Hawkeye is good enough to show up obvious errors - it wasn't designed for marginal calls...which is where the margin of error can lead to inconclusive results.


We could simply scrap Hawkeye and go back to all-human umpiring...but I bet the clamour for its re-introduction would start after a few howlers.

Or we could persevere and hope for better versions to be introduced. Overall, I think its a good system, but has suffered from mis-use this series - both by the players and the third umpire.

Evening (or morning, depending on which part of the world you live in) all,

Just back from an excellent dinner.

Broad and Prior have seen off the major threat from England. I wondered at the time whether Clarke's declaration didn't fall a bit between two shoes: between scoring 600+ and committing to batting just the once, and declaring early and giving himself enough time for 3 further innings. I fear for Australia that I may have been right. Had Clarke declared either on 450-470 or on 600+ Australia would probably be in a better position. As things stand I think they will run out of time. Of course, as alfie pointed out, had Clarke declared on 600+ England may have opened up with a 150 run stand and batted through to safety comfortably.

I'm not surprised to see Warner open. I am slightly, but not entirely surprised to see it is in place of Watson, but I believe this is the start of Australia's best line-up as things currently stand. Will be interesting to see where Watson bats in the end. It is interesting to note that England have started with a third-man. They are clearly concerned about quick runs, rightly so.

Rogers out caught behind trying to dab one to 3rd man, and Khawaja in at 3. England could still very conceivably win this, particularly if Swann gets going.

Anyway I should catch up with a couple of posts.

guildfordbat wrote:

My wife is a mathematics graduate and has a certain appreciation of cricket (certainly more than some on here) but just cannot get the concept of ''umpire's call''. As you can probably tell, the fun never stops at Guildford Towers!   Anyway, I'll see if I can educate her further with your excellent post.

Do you happen to know how far down the track a batsman needs to be to be automatically deemed ''not out''? That is a factor which could well have inflenced Clarke's thinking on not reviewing the Pietersen lbw appeal. As I now understand it, Pietersen wasn't that sufficiently far down but Clarke would probably have been unsure - another factor to tip the scales against a review. As I said to Alfie, I just thought in the situation it was worth a punt by Clarke but, unlike some of the media, make no criticism of him for not doing so.

You probably don't much like my expression ''take a punt'' in deciding when to use DRS. I don't either. However, that unfortunately does seem how it is to be applied currently.

I believe it is now 3 metres, although it isn't so much automatically "not out" as an extra umpire's call if you like, in the sense that if you're given not out and contact was beyond 3 metres then it remains not out, regardless.

You are right in that it was "worth a punt" and you are right that I don't like that aspect of DRS. Had Clarke had 1 review left, then I think we would say it wasn't worth a punt (keep it for a potential howler), similarly if it was say Bresnan rather than Pietersen. This tactical aspect of DRS is something I really don't like. I still believe 1 review per team, with the caveat you don't lose it for umpire's call would get rid of a lot of that.

Another thing I would like to introduce is the batsman, bowler or umpire must nominate what the review is for:
- e.g. a batsman given out LBW who reviews should say why he is reviewing; he may nominate several reasons but then that costs him the same number of reviews.
- a fielding side which reviews a not out decision has to specify whether it is for caught or LBW;
- if an umpire gives something not out, and it is reviewed, he should say why he has given it not out. If he is mistaken, but it is umpire's call on something else (e.g. he says "I think he's hit it, but I'm convinced it's hitting the stumps" and it turns out that there's no edge, but umpire's call on the stumps) then the decision should be reversed. Of course an umpire can say "doubt on height, and maybe an inside edge" or similar.

Lunch one down with a lead of 183. Apparently Watson and Warner have swapped spots ?
Maybe they want to start with all the left handers. Leave the right hand players to combat Swann later on...

Could be a classical last day battle if this much discussed weather fails to arrive.

1. You are contradicting yourself on this stance!- If explained why- I cant keep repeating myself.

2. I am not expecting anything. I am taking all emotion and varibles out and just using logic.

3. completely strawman- you cant argue against a system and for one with a specific point- when you dont explain that the other system is also flawed by the same point

4. same point as your first

5. You are missing the point- WE DONT NEED HAWKEYE to deal with Howlers- Just a TV replay, hawkeye is needed for things that arnt holwers.. Please understand this basic point. You have to stop arguing on your stance. I think i have made it very clear..(btw this should hopefully be the point that will get you on the right way of thinking- and why the the "drs should only be used for howlers" crew needs to understand that no other tech is needed for that line of thinking just a tv replay is needed. And if you were arguing logically that would be the stance you should take!


I think its a great system- But we need to start using logic as highlighted in my posts to improve it

Excellent! The early breakthrough...just what we needed.

Hopefully Warner won't stick around too long (England fielders and bowlers will be in his ear and psych him out early on )

Mike is complicating the review system a bit too much for me there  

" nominate several reasons but then that costs him the same number of reviews " ?
He only has two : and what constitutes a reason ? " missing on height" and "going down" ...it might be both ; one or two strikes ?
With respect , I think that is a little impractical.
Though I agree an umpire should be able to check specific issues around a decision himself , I am not too sure about your example in the review system - it rather calls for a discussion between fielding captain and umpire before deciding whether to review , does it not ?

I think I am going to take a break from this DRS stuff until the match is over or a massive rain delay occurs ...is starting to do my head in.

mystiroakey wrote:1. You are contradicting yourself on this stance!- If explained why- I cant keep repeating myself.

2. I am not expecting anything. I am taking all emotion and varibles out and just using logic.

3. completely strawman- you cant argue against a system and for one with a specific point- when you dont explain that the other system is also flawed by the same point

4. same point as your first

5. You are missing the point- WE DONT NEED HAWKEYE to deal with Howlers- Just a TV replay, hawkeye is needed for things that arnt holwers.. Please understand this basic point. You have to stop arguing on your stance. I think i have made it very clear..(btw this should hopefully be the point that will get you on the right way of thinking- and why the the "drs should only be used for howlers" crew needs to understand that no other tech is needed for that line of thinking just a tv replay is needed. And if you were arguing logically that would be the stance you should take!


I think its a great system- But we need to start using logic as highlighted in my posts to improve it

Could you clarify points 1 & 2? Exactly how am I contradicting myself?

I was under the impression I was arguing against your position on "Umpire's Call" when it came to the use of Hawkeye and trying to explain how it worked, so that you'd understand why there is a "margin of error", hence the need to be able to hand the decision back to the umpires on some occasions.

I may have got mixed up on the issue of DRS for "howlers" and agree TV replays should suffice for those.

Again, its NOT a strawman argument because both system are flawed, but for different reasons. Humans are flawed when it comes to consistency, whereas Hawkeye has limitations on accuracy. Put them together and you should get a better overall standard of umpiring (in theory anyway).

Obviously, it hasn't quite worked out that way this series.

dup

Haha you don't think that humans are flawed for accuracy. Oh dear!!

Look you are never going to get this are you.

You lot just contradict after contradict and then have the balls to tell me I don't understand certain aspects!

I am happy to acknowledge that Hawkeye is better than the human eye on accuracy(we have to be or we have to scrap it(as i have pointed out to you!!)- I really would love to see the inner workings and the auditing process! but it isn't out there!!). If we used Hawkeye instead of umpires call we would be consistent. THIS IS NOT saying its more consistent(it is but that isnt the point here)- It is saying we could change the DRS rules to make DRS decision making more consistent!!

Rain is sniffing around up there now.  Not the heavy stuff which is on the way but it's coming.

I would actually like to ask all the "holwer only crew" why they think there is any point in having hawkeye!

I think it highlights a massive contradiction.. Thanks to Wolf for getting that nugget out of my brain!

mystiroakey wrote:Haha you don't think that humans are flawed for accuracy. Oh dear!!

Look you are never going to get this are you.

You lot just contradict after contradict and then have the balls to tell me I don't understand certain aspects!

I am happy to acknowledge that Hawkeye is better than the human eye on accuracy(we have to be or we have to scrap it(as i have pointed out to you!!)- I really would love to see the inner workings and the auditing process! but it isn't out there!!). If we used Hawkeye instead of umpires call we would be consistent. THIS IS NOT saying its more consistent(it is but that isnt the point here)- It is saying we could change the DRS rules to make DRS decision making more consistent!!

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said humans weren't flawed in terms of accuracy...of course they are.

I just think a good umpire has a better chance of making correct calls, on more occasions, than a computer system that relies on dozens of variables (the more variables, the greater the risk of errors).

Given your responses on this, I think you genuinely don't appreciate fully how Hawkeye works and how it can complement the skills of an umpire...

again...IF used properly.

I will agree however, we could probably do with some rules on the use of DRS, to stop frivolous use of it.

"I think you genuinely don't appreciate fully how Hawkeye works and how it can complement the skills of an umpire..."

As I said . (I wont get personal) But there isnt any point discussing this with anymore tbh. I genuing feel the same about you. You keep contradicting your points and have nothing valid to say.. lets just drop it.

Tone it down boys, if you aren't going to find a middle ground about the issue, let it go.

I would have thought they would have attacked a bit harder tbh!!! They are slowing down a bit..

Warner lucky to survive an appeal there?

Hotspot seemed to suggest he edged a ball there - well one image did anyway. No audio on Snicko though.

England lose the appeal and Warner survives.

I didn't see anything on hotspot, didn't seem an audible edge, no deviation, right call in my mind.

Biltong wrote:Tone it down boys, if you aren't going to find a middle ground about the issue, let it go.

I thought we were being quite civilised myself...maybe a bit boring though?  

We hadn't got as far as name-calling anyway...

England lose a review... They are convinced Warner hit that.

I suspect they are right. Was a noise and Snicko suggests it was at the right time... But nothing showing on the bat edge so it was unlikely to be overturned...hotspot is either getting everything right contrary to many opinions or is having a "bad" match  

Batter should get benefit of the doubt in that case.So correct decsion- problem is though- would all the 3rd umpirers have called it in!!! I think there may have been something on hot spot. but tbh it just isnt working this test anyway!! It has a mind of its own!!

When's the rain coming?

Hopefully it wont. Struggling to work out aussies tactics here though.. They seem to be meandering

mystiroakey wrote:Hopefully it wont. Struggling to work out aussies tactics here though.. They seem to be meandering

Warner hasn't had much time in the middle lately and Khawaja probably doesn't want to get out cheaply after his last innings.


From BBC text:

The most farcical aspect of DRS as it currently functions is the fact that after two minutes of reviewing, Snickometer often pops up after the decision has been made and renders the previous two minutes utterly futile. No wonder Warner's smiling..."

Might explain why Snicko isn't part of DRS...or possibly an argument for its inclusion?

Warner is playing a busy innings. England need to get him soon. Australia 56-1, leading by 215.

Australia not exactly pelting along, and they do need to pelt along to have a hope.