4th Ashes Test Durham

First topic message reminder :

They're all at it again on Friday. Just as England are likely to chuck in a bad performance when everyone expects them to win (Leeds 09, Perth 2010/11, Manchester 2013) they usually bounce back next Test (Lord's and Oval 09, Melbourne 2010/11).
I'm taking England to win one of the last two Tests to ensure a series victory. Onions, it seems, will come in and that could be a good move. Still think this is not a very strong Australia team. It's just that they were an average team playing poorly in the first two Test while at Manchester they were an average team playing well.
Before Manchester, we were asking if Australia could improve/get back into the series. Well they certainly achieved the former if not the latter. Now we could ask - Can England start firing on all cylinders ?

Im not saying he isn't decent Mysti but all rounder takes wickets and make runs and he hasn't been doing either for a long time.
Like I say Bresnan for me but Watsons worth his place for Oz.

Flippin' 'eck!

Rogers living dangerously with his commendably attacking approach.

Survived 2 close appeals.

Is it possible to give a batsman out lbw if the appeal was for a catch, or vice versa?

Very confusing...

Rogers was given out caught, incorrectly by umpire Hill.

The LBW was secondary. So only way he could've been out was if the ball was hitting off stump full on.

Correct decision made

dyrewolfe wrote:Flippin' 'eck!

Rogers living dangerously with his commendably attacking approach.

Survived 2 close appeals.

Is it possible to give a batsman out lbw if the appeal was for a catch, or vice versa?

Very confusing...

the onfield thought he hit the bat. But if he didn't think that he may well have thought he was out lbw. thats the concern here. because the umpire got it wrong, the batter had to stay in

that umpire got it wrong. what a bloody surprise.  he's been terrible.

dyrewolfe wrote:Flippin' 'eck!

Rogers living dangerously with his commendably attacking approach.

Survived 2 close appeals.

Is it possible to give a batsman out lbw if the appeal was for a catch, or vice versa?

Very confusing...

Yes a review checks for all dismissals

Gerry SA wrote:Rogers was given out caught, incorrectly by umpire Hill.

The LBW was secondary. So only way he could've been out was if the ball was hitting off stump full on.

Correct decision made

I cant agree really- fact is if the umpire had correctly seen it didn't hit the bat- he may have called out lbw..

Further emphasises that the DRS tech is a good idea but the ICC have thought through neither the rules nor the training for using the tech properly at all. They literally just chucked it in with no forethought, as seen by the fact they didn't test HotSpot on modern bats

Well, in a roundabout way it seems the right call was made eventually.

DRS once again going some way to restoring its reputation.

Agree with ChequeredJersey that umpires should go through mandatory training in the use of the technology, so they are more familiar with its capabilities and limitations.

Good call on this occasion though...eventually.

Drs is great. And even if he was called LBW we have to say he would have been a little bit unlucky as it only clipped- point being though- it could have hit the stumps with 49% of the ball and still been not out.

Bringing to play the whole umpires decision i suppose- if it was just in or out based on a percentage - we wouldn't have this issue!

Somewhat farcical but in the end the right decision

Bresnan's turn. He might do well here.

Important forty minutes coming up.

"Good call on this occasion though...eventually."

Maybe in this case but that is only due to luck. as i highlighted above. This situation still highlights a problem

there was something like this in the SA vs Pak series was there not? Kallis was given out caught at short leg (off Ajmal). Replays showed he'd missed the ball but that it was clipping leg stump. On that occasion Kallis was given out, but it was explained to us that in fact the umpires had got it wrong. The guidelines are to assume all other modes of dismissal are given as not out in this case.

Don't really have a problem with this one, though I'm surprised Hill thought he'd nicked it in the first place (never looked like a nick). Bit odd though...

Yes you couldn't complain too much about that one , peculiar though it was. Lbw would have been very marginal.

Rogers living on the edge a bit , though...

mystiroakey wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:Rogers was given out caught, incorrectly by umpire Hill.

The LBW was secondary. So only way he could've been out was if the ball was hitting off stump full on.

Correct decision made

I cant agree really- fact is if the umpire had correctly seen it didn't hit the bat- he may have called out lbw..

I'm pretty certain that the umpire tells the 3rd umpire what he has given that batsmen out for before the review begins. So if he says I've given him out caught then that's the major decision that will get reviewed, the ball would have had to have been hitting completely to be given out LBW.

hampo171 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:Rogers was given out caught, incorrectly by umpire Hill.

The LBW was secondary. So only way he could've been out was if the ball was hitting off stump full on.

Correct decision made

I cant agree really- fact is if the umpire had correctly seen it didn't hit the bat- he may have called out lbw..

I'm pretty certain that the umpire tells the 3rd umpire what he has given that batsmen out for before the review begins. So if he says I've given him out caught then that's the major decision that will get reviewed, the ball would have had to have been hitting completely to be given out LBW.

exactly. the umpire cant say out either way. its one of the other, highlighting another problem

"there was something like this in the SA vs Pak series was there not? Kallis was given out caught at short leg (off Ajmal). Replays showed he'd missed the ball but that it was clipping leg stump. On that occasion Kallis was given out,"

another major issue-The inconsistencies of applying rules. That sounded exactly the same scenario

The rules are due to change late this year apparently. Taken from the BBC:
 

England were celebrating as they watched the ball-tracker on the big screen, thinking that Rogers was on his way. However, this was a case of the players not knowing the rules. To reiterate, Rogers was given out caught behind, not lbw, so the 'umpire's call' backed Hill's original decision not to give Rogers leg before. Are you as confused as the players? To make matters worse, I believe plans are afoot to change the rules later in the year, meaning future situations such as these would see Rogers given out.

 

Hampo- we need that consistency in the decision process so I am all for that change

YESSS!!!

Broad strikes a 3rd time and its the massive wicket of skipper Clarke, caught by his opposite number!

AUS now 49-3.

Stewie's on fire at the moment!

BROAD

As I said, when Broad gets wickets, he really does get wickets

Broad gets the Big One  

What a spell  

mystiroakey wrote:"Good call on this occasion though...eventually."

Maybe in this case but that is only due to luck. as i highlighted above. This situation still highlights a problem

I agree its not perfect. The technology itself could stand some improvement, but I think the biggest problem is still the human element and how its applied.

If used intelligently DRS is a good system.

You can't give someone out on umpires call when the out was for caught

GSC wrote:You can't give someone out on umpires call when the out was for caught

whats your point?

The decision was correct however you spin it.

How do the Aussies go now without Clarke will be interesting. Another before lunch and they'll be right on the ropes

I'm for the change Mysti, just should have always been that way.

dyrewolfe wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Good call on this occasion though...eventually."

Maybe in this case but that is only due to luck. as i highlighted above. This situation still highlights a problem

I agree its not perfect. The technology itself could stand some improvement, but I think the biggest problem is still the human element and how its applied.

If used intelligently DRS is a good system.

the problem in this case is that the umpire thought it was nicked- it wasn't . However if the umpire had seen accurately that it wasn't nicked he may have given it out LBW.. The fact that it only clipped the stumps meant this would have been a harsh out(but still OUT). However if much more of the ball had hit he still couldn't have been given out- even though it could have been a very fair out!!

This case was lucky , but it still highlights the issue above. And as BBC have stated the rules will change so he would have been out.. We do need that consistency. SOmeone else pointed out that Kallis had the same situation but was actually given out- highlighting the inconsistencies of the way the rules are applied adding even more problems to the system

Someone said Broad should be dropped yesterday! England doing fine at the moment, proving once more that you shouldn't judge a pitch till both sides have had a go.

DRS has also proved its worth again.

GSC wrote:The decision was correct however you spin it.

How do the Aussies go now without Clarke will be interesting. Another before lunch and they'll be right on the ropes

The decision would have still been correct if the umpire called out on LBW - yet he would have actually been out!

Duty281 wrote:Someone said Broad should be dropped yesterday! England doing fine at the moment, proving once more that you shouldn't judge a pitch till both sides have had a go.

DRS has also proved its worth again.

Agree with the first. The Drs statement no.

mystiroakey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Someone said Broad should be dropped yesterday! England doing fine at the moment, proving once more that you shouldn't judge a pitch till both sides have had a go.

DRS has also proved its worth again.

Agree with the first. The Drs statement no.

Worked perfectly, there wasn't an edge, and there was too much doubt for LBW = a decision correctly overturned.

Rogers seems to be their backbone.  Get him (again) and get them.

Duty281 wrote:Someone said Broad should be dropped yesterday! England doing fine at the moment, proving once more that you shouldn't judge a pitch till both sides have had a go.

DRS has also proved its worth again.

 True though if this pair hang around they will race to the total.

It gets a little silly if we're asking Umpires to simultaneously judge whether someone is out caught and lbw. This was a remarkably unlikely event

Duty281 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Someone said Broad should be dropped yesterday! England doing fine at the moment, proving once more that you shouldn't judge a pitch till both sides have had a go.

DRS has also proved its worth again.

Agree with the first. The Drs statement no.

Worked perfectly, there wasn't an edge, and there was too much doubt for LBW = a decision correctly overturned.

not the point at all. if 49% of the ball had hit the stumps he would have still remained in. It was luck not the system working correctly

GSC wrote:It gets a little silly if we're asking Umpires to simultaneously judge whether someone is out caught and lbw. This was a remarkably unlikely event

It happens quite a lot actually

One more before lunch would be nice. How Rogers is still there is beyond me...he has hardly hit one out of the middle.

Smith has started OK though. Handling Anderson quite comfortably.

Swann missed out in his first over so maybe they will get through to lunch now...

Out of interest how many times has someone reviewed caught behind and been saved lbw on umpires call.

I think I'd be in favour of the party reviewing having to declare what they're reviewing.

GSC wrote:Out of interest how many times has someone reviewed caught behind and been saved lbw on umpires call.

not sure- but it happens a lot where we all know the batter is out one way or the other(before the system was in place) Or its just out and no one reviews!

They have stated on telly the rules will change and that will be out in the future. We do need that consitancy

After the early movement , things seem to have settled down. Think England might have to work pretty hard after lunch.
Will need to bowl some tight stuff , much as Australia did yesterday , and trust the pressure will get them wickets. I don't see them getting reverse for a day or two on this ground.
Lunch , 75/3
England's morning.

Aussies morning I would say.

Rogers got lucky and has not wasted the second life and he and smith look to build a big partnership.

They should ensure aussie get to 350-400.  will then be an easy win from there.

even morning considering the track and aussies position tbh

expecting a good 550 Roakey?

might as well be an innings win over England this one then.

I am expecting OZ to get 180-270.

Its a seamers heaven.. Anderson isn't quite getting the swing. But swann will be dangerous and broad is on form

rogers looks shaky but just keeps hanging on in there.  could be the thing that gets them to the lead.