3rd Ashes Test, Perth

First topic message reminder :

Western Australia next, which means staying up even later to watch the start of the third test.

You would think Perth is one place the Aussies should win, so what do we do?

Panic, and drop Swann, but leave Monty in? Or perhaps play four or five seamers? Has Stokes done enough? He showed plenty of attitude, so yes, he probably has.

Has Prior done enough to see him promoted to six, as Stokes isn't one..............yet? Maybe not but we have to try and win, and playing him at six, would enable us to play five bowlers again, with Monty dropping out.

Who comes in? Finn, the 90mph quickie, with a strike rate around 50? Reliable Tim? Just coming back from injury but will give 100%, won't get smacked around, and can bat a bit. Or rankin? This would be the biggest gamble imo, as he has no test experience.

My team:

Cook
Carberry
Root
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Stokes
Broad
Swann
Finn
Anderson

Tail might be a bit stronger with Bresnan included , Craig.

But I reckon Bell Stokes and Prior will have to do most of the heavy lifting.

As I said earlier, I would be happy if England got a draw from this match but only if the batsmen put in a good shift and equalled the Aussie batsmen. That would give them some confidence going into the last two tests.

alfie wrote:England seemingly becalmed at the moment.

Not dead yet - I give them credit for battling in this match , at the venue where they were supposed to fold up completely.  But they just do not seem able to actually take command. Australia can just sit in and wait for an error. Sooner or later...

Alfie - yes, definitely becalmed. I'm just returning after some shut eye - what happened to that positive intent being discussed earlier??!!

Fine work by the Australian bowlers as a unit it would seem. 4 of them - but not Johnson! - having a return of between 1/26 and 1/31.

Btw, I did respond about the 3 talls earlier but only after a computer glitch and when, I guess, you had gone out to play - hope you were amongst the wickets.   

Bell took that like a man.

Just put his bat away and took it straight in the chest..

And it didn't hurt Johnson. The batters are getting more and more used to him

Nachos Jones wrote:As I said earlier, I would be happy if England got a draw from this match but only if the batsmen put in a good shift and equalled the Aussie batsmen. That would give them some confidence going into the last two tests.

This is a renowned results pitch. It will deteriorate late on and so can't see this being a draw.

Not bad England. That is an even day.

Stumps. 180/4

Still a pulse   

England hanging in there and close on 180 for 4. Almost halfway there to the Australian total. One of the better days England have had in the series which tells us how bad the series has been for England. Stokes continues to impress me and if this pair can take England up to 250 then they may just fancy taking a first innings lead but that is a long way off.

It is annoying that day ended because bell and stokes had just managed the hard work. Once you work this pitch out it gets easier(makes kp's innings look even worse).

They will have to do the same tommorow. But this is the most positive I have been since the end of test 1 day 1..

Not sure why really. We love a collapse. But I can sense a different England.

alfie wrote:Stumps.  180/4

Still a pulse   

Yep, still a pulse but a long, long way from a return to full health. Barring something sensational tomorrow, we're going to have a first innings deficit. How much? Could certainly be in 3 figures if Bell or Stokes goes early in the morning.

Too soon to say the fat lady is singing. She hasn't even cleared her throat. However, I think she knows her way to the stage!

Time to be positive.

We have nothing to lose any more.

The weight will shift off our shoulders.

The truth is there are only 3 aus players that would get in our side if everyone was on form..

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:England seemingly becalmed at the moment.

Not dead yet - I give them credit for battling in this match , at the venue where they were supposed to fold up completely.  But they just do not seem able to actually take command. Australia can just sit in and wait for an error. Sooner or later...

Alfie - yes, definitely becalmed. I'm just returning after some shut eye -  what happened to that positive intent being discussed earlier??!!

Fine work by the Australian bowlers as a unit it would seem. 4 of them - but not Johnson! -  having a return of between 1/26 and 1/31.

Btw, I did respond about the 3 talls earlier but only after a computer glitch and when, I guess, you had gone out to play - hope you were amongst the wickets.   

Hi guildford

I read your response after returning (tired , and wicketless , alas , though I actually had perhaps my best bowling spell of the season ,somewhat unlucky and very economical . These days happen. And we have a chaseable target )

If I read you right , you feel England ended up with one too many fast bowlers in the party ? Given the paucity of trial games , you may be right ; especially with Stokes "stepping up" , and Bresnan returning. Whether Finn - who may well be so far off his game that he needs time out of the cauldron to adjust - Tremlett , who was perhaps a bit of a punt , in hopes he would come back to his best in time ...though I feel he actually bowled quite well in Brisbane. At a reduced pace certainly. But still. Or the untried Rankiin...but yes , it did appear to be a bit of a " well I am not sure , lets take all of them" decision.

I suppose my argument is that it mattered not a lot : clearly none of them have impressed on tour. So the attack picked was probably the best available. That it didn't manage to skittle Australia after having them 150/5 is down to several factors.
Good pitch. See England batting also. More batsman error wickets all round than players being cleaned up.
Decent Australian batting. Smith , much better judgement than usual. Haddin again : solid...had some luck. Warner off to a fast start again.
As Saker said , didn't get the length quite right.

But all round it wasn't a disaster. Up against it now , because the batting is still fragile. But that is not a consequence of bowling wearnest...the bowlers have been bailing them out for a while   

A problem in Australia is that England's two best bowlers , Anderson and Swann , are not well suited to the prevailing conditions. Last time Anderson did very well - because he is an outstanding bowler , despite the reservations of certain South African posters   ; but when the ball isn't swinging much and the batsmen are prepared to play him relatively carefully secure in the knowledge there will plenty of loose stuff at the other end , he is not going to run through the opposition. At least not without some scoreboard pressure - and that has been all the other way. Swann took seven wickets in Adelaide three years ago. But apart from that his record in Australia is rather ordinary. Like most visiting finger spinners.
And of course , the third seamer spot has been iffy...

Even so , all out 295 in Brisbane was OK. England batting was dire ; though they aren't the first touring team to be caught on the hop there. And in the end this 384 isn't awful , in this heat , after losing the toss. Adelaide was not good. Selection was wrong there - two finger spinners is just plain daft in Australia , don't care what anyone says.

Summed up : yeah they might have picked a better bowling squad ; but at the end of the day this lot could just about do the job if the batsmen could get their act together...and it would help if Cook could win a toss or two. When you're struggling a bit of luck doen't go amiss...

Tomorrow , perhaps , a look at the batting   

Honours even, I'd say. I can't see England scraping a lead, but for once, they won't be a country mile behind after day 2. I'd say if England cross 300, then they should rate their chances very high, for just as England couldn't keep getting bundled out, Australia can't keep scoring 300 from 120/5, they have to capitulate eventually.

Actually wouldn't need sensational to get up to 380. Just one partnership of around the 100 and a few other useful mini-stands.
Rare on this trip , but not in the area of Botham and Dilley 1981 - or Strauss/Cook/Trott 2010...

Won't be easy - and one wicket could spark a landslide. But if they could get up around the Australian total , the Australians would start their second innings under some pressure , for the first time in
the series...would be interesting to see how that would play out.

Both the England fan and the dispassionate observer in me says he'd like to see that situation   

Test firmly in the balance.

If England can just eke out parity or, better still, a small lead, then it'll become a one innings shoot-out just when England's bowlers, particularly Anderson, will come good.

If Bell and Stokes are still in come the new ball, then I really fancy England's chances of getting a 50ish lead. Then the likes of Prior (coming back to form), Bresnan, Broad and Swann should be able to take us over the line.

England to win, put money on it.   

Duty281 wrote:Test firmly in the balance.

If England can just eke out parity or, better still, a small lead, then it'll become a one innings shoot-out just when England's bowlers, particularly Anderson, will come good.

If Bell and Stokes are still in come the new ball, then I really fancy England's chances of getting a 50ish lead. Then the likes of Prior (coming back to form), Bresnan, Broad and Swann should be able to take us over the line.

England to win, put money on it.   

That sounds like the real Duty   

That sort of confidence deserves to be rewarded !

Taken in isolation this test is actually very evenly poised, maybe just tipping in the aussies favour due to the fact they have the runs on the board and england will have to bat last on what should be a deteriorating pitch. However, in the context of this series, given what happened in the previous tests, I just don't think england look like they believe they can win from here. You could visibly see the confidence drain from the english players when the aussie lower order were repairing there first innings, almost like they knew more than 300 was a bridge too far.

Alfie - thanks for the response. Shame about the wicketless day - if you ever bowl some filfth in the future, hope you pick up a fourfer then!   

Yes, you read me well and I don't believe we are more than a Root edge (  ) apart. [Sorry my post - quickly produced a second time - was a bit scrambled.]

I don't dispute that the batting has been by far the major problem in this series to date. However, I feel it's right to review all areas of preparation and the squad chosen once the series is done including, in particular, the '3 talls' and why none of them were deemed appropriate to play at Perth. The decision not to play any of them in this Test may be correct but was it still correct to include them all in the tour party at outset?

I acknowledge (as I did at the time) that Tremlett did better in the first Test than I expected but I am still unconvinced that he is sufficiently fit for purpose. He shouldn't be out there in my view (and that of most regular Surrey followers).

Did the factors keeping Finn out of the Perth Test apply when he boarded the plane for Australia? I don't know but if they did, he also shouldn't be out there.

Has Rankin developed as a bowler throughout this series? Probably not (unless work in the nets has been fabulous). My gut feel is that he may have come on more if he hadn't been behind both the other two in the pecking order.

The 3 talls is not the ultimate factor I agree but not one that should be ignored either.

On luck and captaincy, Vik Solanki was asked at a Surrey members' forum last year what was the most difficult part of captaincy. He replied, ''Winning the toss.''

I concur with big Vik... winning the toss is incredibly difficult. As a captain I was an unfortunate victim of Murphy's 50/50 90 principle. There is a 50/50 chance of winning the toss, so naturally, I lose it 90% of the time

Bit more on the bowling then : I think England have pinned a lot of hopes on Finn. Still have those hopes , but it is undeniable that the young man has lost his way. And he needs to find it again fastish , if England are to prosper away from home. ( In normal English conditions I fancy Anderson Broad Bresnan Swann can do the job for another year or two anyway. And Onions is still around   

But when they next go to SA I think a fit and firing Finn will be desirable. Stokes has done enough to suggest he has a future , by the way. Might need a fair bit of firepower though.

guildford , you mentioned a left armer - Barker ,was it ? Haven't heard a lot before ...do you see him as a real prospect ? Certainly some left arm stuff would be handy...

I sort of agree with you the original selection was a bit untidy ; but that is just history now so I am more interested in the present and future. And I am not too unhappy with the current lineup , especially for Melbourne and Sydney. (just hoping they are still "live" games !)

But the future is ...interesting. In the Chinese curse sense   

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Test firmly in the balance.

If England can just eke out parity or, better still, a small lead, then it'll become a one innings shoot-out just when England's bowlers, particularly Anderson, will come good.

If Bell and Stokes are still in come the new ball, then I really fancy England's chances of getting a 50ish lead. Then the likes of Prior (coming back to form), Bresnan, Broad and Swann should be able to take us over the line.

England to win, put money on it.   

That sounds like the real Duty   

That sort of confidence deserves to be rewarded !

Australia are feeling the pressure, and they're gonna crumble under some English pressure! Anderson's bound to come good.

All in all, I think England can chase up to 275 on this wicket in comfort for the win, but up to 320 would still be doable.

this wicket doesn't crack badly, if I'm English, I'd say if everyone bats responsibly, then even 350-400 is reachable (although not fait accompli)

If Stokes can get going in the morning, I feel he could score pretty quickly. Was certainly impressed by the character he showed in that final hour of play, not only was he blocking, but he did show some counter attack.

Really like the look of Stokes. Hopefully he gets a good run in the side

Yep stokes looks good.

When we see future talents like root and stokes the doom is lifted.

Hopefully 4th test we can get away with 4 bowlers and try out ballance as well. I think he could impress us.

kingraf wrote:this wicket doesn't crack badly, if I'm English, I'd say if everyone bats responsibly, then even 350-400 is reachable (although not fait accompli)

Well SA chased down 400 here a few years back , did they not ? They did have a rather handy batting lineup   

Way to go ...let us get close on the first innings before worrying about an ultimate victory target.

I am hoping for Broad to be honest. If he gets some runs tomorrow in an attacking fashion then I can see him flying through the Aussie batting line-up. Its happened many times before when Broad gets his tail up so that to me is the only way I can see England winning this test.

The more you think about it then it does get less gloomy from an England point of view.

They stand on 180 for 4 with Stokes and Bell at the crease. If this pair can put on a 100 partnership and get up to 240 and then Prior shows his Adelaide (second innings) form and chip in with a 50 then England will be close to 300. Broad showed a little more with the bat in those second innings at Adelaide and if he and Bresnan can chip in with even 20 or 25 runs each England should achieve parity and maybe even a small lead.

To achieve all of the above England will need to get to lunch on 260 for 5, tea for 350 for 8 and bowled out for 400 would be a very good effort. Wear down the bowlers and make them graft in the heat.

It looks ok for England..

As long as the batters can put on an extra 180, then jimmy could be lethal. There is swing going on.

180-4 is rubbish.

Well done Joe Root, another good innings.

NickisBHAFC wrote:180-4 is rubbish.

Well done Joe Root, another good innings.

Well actually it was better than Australia managed after they had won the toss and chose to bat. And yes you are right how dare Root be caught behind off a ball he never hit.

180-4 is  good for England at the moment. All about context nick.. Root got robbed in this innings and before today had the best England average of the season.

NickisBHAFC wrote:180-4 is rubbish.

Well done Joe Root, another good innings.

This is just a poor attempt at wumming. KP_Fan you need to give him some lessons

Lets be honest, I think we would have all taken 180-4 at the start of today's play and bowling the Aussies out for under 400.

Bell is there and he could thrive on this pitch and Stokes played a cracking little knock at the end. These two just need to see off the opening 40 mins then crack on. Prior in next who discovered a bit of form last innings with Bresnan, Broad and Swann throwing the bat, could easily add 50-60 to the score. I think we'll just get a lead and hopefully have Aus 2/3 down by the end of play.

CaledonianCraig wrote:End of the day for me the real mistake was made by the umpire. If he had not given it out and it had been reviewed it wouldn't have been overturned either.

 
yo maan  ....DRS suckkks....especially when it bites my back.
when it bites yours.......technology is not meant to be a 100%.....umpire's call prevails etc come out
 
I believe the DRS malfunctioned here ( as it does so many times)...but umpire saw and knew the truth

alfie wrote:Bit more on the bowling then :  I think England have pinned a lot of hopes on Finn.  Still have those hopes , but it is undeniable that the young man has lost his way.  And he needs to find it again fastish , if England are to prosper away from home. ( In normal English conditions I fancy Anderson Broad Bresnan Swann can do the job for another year or two anyway. And Onions is still around   

But when they next go to SA I think a fit and firing Finn will be desirable.  Stokes has done enough to suggest he has a future , by the way.  Might need a fair bit of firepower though.

guildford , you mentioned a left armer - Barker ,was it ? Haven't heard a lot before ...do you see him as a real prospect ?  Certainly some left arm stuff would be handy...

I sort of agree with you the original selection was a bit untidy  ; but that is just history now so I am more interested in the present and future. And I am not too unhappy with the current lineup , especially for Melbourne and Sydney. (just hoping they are still "live" games !)

But the future is ...interesting.  In the Chinese curse sense   

Alfie - yeah, I am probably looking a bit too much backwards. I would just feel better and more confident about the future if some of the present issues surrounding this tour party were to be acknowledged at the end of the series.

I've seen Barker 2 or 3 times 'live' and a few times on the box. Also read up on him a bit now. He's a big strong guy, just turned 27. Originally played pro football for Blackburn without making the grade and then switching to cricket. He was recommended to Warks by David Lloyd who spotted him playing for Accrington where he was born of West Indian parents. Been very effective in the last 2 seasons for Warks with his left arm swing bowling; top of their averages in 2012 with 56 fc wickets at under 21 each as the Bears won the Championship, and 46 in 2013 from only 11 matches at below 23 each. Whole hearted competitor and strong hitter of the ball as well; saw him wallop a century for the Bears at Guildford this summer. There's a rawness about him which possibly has put the selectors off but I think he's worth closely looking at. Surprised nothing much appears to have happened in that regard as he's a consistent performer. Not as fluent a batsman as Woakes but imo a better bowling all rounder. Pretty sure that Hoggy would disagree in view of his bromance with Woakes    but I do know that Fists of Fury is a big fan. He (Barker, not Fists) is the godson of Clive Lloyd which probably explains one of his middle names being Hubert!  

--I said this in T1 and in T2....this England side can score about 270ish to 300ish when not blown away by Johnson.and the extrapolated trajectory in this innings seems to be heading just to that mark.
 
a couple will score fifities.....and a few 20s and 30s.....but that's about the potential.... in that range.
 
 
--so the bowling should bowl out the opponents to about 225-250 to be competitive...but even when they have the opponent on the mat as in 132-6 and 140-5 in T1 and T3......the bowling lacks the fire-power on these pitches to blast the opponent's lower middle order out.
 
--Why??
bad defensive choices in the bowling department......instead of age wide wisdom  of picking bowlers on strike rate ( balls / wkt) they pick bowlers on "who has the highest batting average and lowest runs per over"
 
---in England the same bowling unit had more bite because of custom made pitches so Swann and Anderson were getting more purchse.....and except in Lords the wins were narrow and defeats avoided by weather luck.
 
--anyway...if they want to play an exciting brand in WI....they've gotta get some managers who can change the forumla

Ok, I've got my tin hat on!   

Having seen countless replays of the Root incident, I think he feathered it. Incredibly difficult to tell (and I understand mysti effectively saying - give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman) but can understand the onfield umpire giving it out on one viewing (and hearing) in real time. Despite the general and often justified loathing on here of Tony Hill, I don't believe he was wrong to uphold the original decision. There are many things to slate Hill about - just don't believe this is one of them.

I suspect reaction would have been less if the batsman given out had been or resembled an Australian bar room brawler instead of an English choir boy.

KP_fan wrote:--I said this in T1 and in T2....this England side can score about 270ish to 300ish when not blown away by Johnson.and the extrapolated trajectory in this innings seems to be heading just to that mark.
 
a couple will score fifities.....and a few 20s and 30s.....but that's about the potential.... in that range.
 
 
--so the bowling should bowl out the opponents to about 225-250 to be competitive...but even when they have the opponent on the mat as in 132-6 and 140-5 in T1 and T3......the bowling lacks the fire-power on these pitches to blast the opponent's lower middle order out.
 
--Why??
bad defensive choices in the bowling department......instead of age wide wisdom  of picking bowlers on strike rate ( balls / wkt) they pick bowlers on "who has the highest batting average and lowest runs per over"
 
---in England the same bowling unit had more bite because of custom made pitches so Swann and Anderson were getting more purchse.....and except in Lords the wins were narrow and defeats avoided by weather luck.
 
--anyway...if they want to play an exciting brand in WI....they've gotta get some managers who can change the forumla

You're not right in the head I swear

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:End of the day for me the real mistake was made by the umpire. If he had not given it out and it had been reviewed it wouldn't have been overturned either.

 
yo maan  ....DRS suckkks....especially when it bites my back.
when it bites yours.......technology is not meant to be a 100%.....umpire's call prevails etc come out
 
I believe the DRS malfunctioned here ( as it does so many times)...but umpire  saw and knew the truth

Error no. If DRS corrects just one wrong decision per test it is definitely doing its job. One less wrong decision is better than leaving it in the hands of on-field umpires who can make many errors. Heck in the heat of Perth we have seen umpires miscount balls in an over at least twice and miss no balls so evidently they WILL make errors on key decisions as well.

Just to prove my point - without DRS a key decision today may have already cost England the Ashes. Smith edged behind when on 111 but was given not out but review system overturned it and allowed England to get through into the tail and bowl them out for less than 400. In KP_Fan's ideal world Smith would have got an extra life and Australia may have posted a score around 500.

Guildford I agree with what you say .

Root may have edged it.

The on field ref obviously thought it was out and gave him out. The off field ref couldn't see any proof that he didn't hit it, therefore stuck with the decision.

However my concern here is the same one with the umpires benefit of doubt in regards to lbw's

I don't like the fact that on 50/50 calls it goes the way of the umpire, when the umpire may give a decision in one day but the exact same decision out the next day. We are effectively tossing a coin.

I would much rather have a clear rule.. If the batsmen isn't proven without reasonable doubt to be out he is not out..

guildfordbat wrote:Ok, I've got my tin hat on!   

Having seen countless replays of the Root incident, I think he feathered it. Incredibly difficult to tell (and I understand mysti effectively saying - give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman) but can understand the onfield umpire giving it out on one viewing (and hearing) in real time. Despite the general and often justified loathing on here of Tony Hill, I don't believe he was wrong to uphold the original decision. There are many things to slate Hill about - just don't believe this is one of them.

I suspect reaction would have been less if the batsman given out had been or resembled an Australian bar room brawler instead of an English choir boy.

Guildford, I am quite curious as to how you arrived at the call that Root did edge that one? From whatever I've seen of it, it just didn't seem like it, and Bumble on commentary said that he thought Root missed it.
My gripe is not so much with Hill, the poor fellow just isn't up to it, reading that he got appointed to the elite panel had given me an almighty shock, its the ICC that has to take responsibility for this downright disaster, Hill's appointment just confirmed that the lot at the ICC are a set of good for nothing jokers!.

Missed the last half hour of play but thankfully Stokes and Bell avoided any further damage. Stokes has a good temperament, and some worthy qualities for an all-rounder, the bowling part is more developed at this point of time though both aspects of his game need further work, the lad is already a very good fielder.
The way things have gone in this series, I am not too confident about England. Day 3 should be the best to bat on in this track. England should somehow manage to bat at least half of it. If they bat the day with intent, they should reach close to the Australian score. If they could limit the damage to 50-60, then they would be in the game. Bell, Stokes and Prior will have to do most of the work. Tim Bresnan is picked as the 3rd seamer also because of his batting, hopefully he'll provide the lower order with some much needed spine.
Its advantage Australia at the moment, but England aren't out of it. First time we can say that about England after 2 days of a game in this series.

KP_fan wrote:--I said this in T1 and in T2....this England side can score about 270ish to 300ish when not blown away by Johnson.and the extrapolated trajectory in this innings seems to be heading just to that mark.
 
a couple will score fifities.....and a few 20s and 30s.....but that's about the potential.... in that range.
 
 
--so the bowling should bowl out the opponents to about 225-250 to be competitive...but even when they have the opponent on the mat as in 132-6 and 140-5 in T1 and T3......the bowling lacks the fire-power on these pitches to blast the opponent's lower middle order out.
 
--Why??
bad defensive choices in the bowling department......instead of age wide wisdom  of picking bowlers on strike rate ( balls / wkt) they pick bowlers on "who has the highest batting average and lowest runs per over"
 
---in England the same bowling unit had more bite because of custom made pitches so Swann and Anderson were getting more purchse.....and except in Lords the wins were narrow and defeats avoided by weather luck.
 
--anyway...if they want to play an exciting brand in WI....they've gotta get some managers who can change the forumla

Like Monty Panesar in the second test you mean?   

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just to prove my point - without DRS a key decision today may have already cost England the Ashes. Smith edged behind when on 111 but was given not out but review system overturned it and allowed England to get through into the tail and bowl them out for less than 400. In KP_Fan's ideal world Smith would have got an extra life and Australia may have posted a score around 500.

Exactly. All DRS has done with the Root dismissal is it has kept it the same, no better or worse than had there been no DRS.

With Smith's decision - and why no clamour that he didn't walk? Oops, he's not English is he?- DRS changed the decision and made the game better.

Well done DRS.   

I saw the Root dismissal but not the DRS replays. Did hotspot and snicko not show anything? is that what root was so unhappy about?

Hotspot and snicko showed up nothing but was a very small line on snicko and all the third umpire is there for is to say definitively that on field umpire was wrong. Slight snicko line I feel put enough doubt in his mind not to change it. If the third umpire had been asked by umpire to check as he wasn't sure Root had hit it it may have been overturned but as we know the system doesn't work like that....yet.

mystiroakey wrote:Guildford I agree with what you say .

Root may have edged it.

The on field ref obviously thought it was out and gave him out. The off field ref couldn't see any proof that he didn't hit it, therefore stuck with the decision.

However my concern here is the same one with the umpires benefit of doubt in regards to lbw's

I don't like the fact that on 50/50 calls it goes the way of the umpire, when the umpire may give a decision in one day but the exact same decision out the next day. We are effectively tossing a coin.

I would much rather have a clear rule.. If the batsmen isn't proven without reasonable doubt to be out he is not out..

Cheers, mysti.

To be fair, you've always maintained this view. Personally, I don't have a problem with 'umpire's call' but appreciate some consider the concept nonsensical and take the view that you should be able to tell from a filmed recording alone whether a batsman is out or not out; therefore, you have a precedent that should automatically apply if the same situations occur again.

I would add though that ''if the batsman isn't proven without reasonable doubt to be out he is not out'', that would tilt the balance in the batting side's favour and possibly too much.

Guildford, what is needed with DRS is a reasonable amount of consistency, and benefit of doubt to umpire is not bringing that, all that it is doing is to bring in lots and lots of confusion.
And by the way, what has really made you think that Root had edged that one?

msp83 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Ok, I've got my tin hat on!   

Having seen countless replays of the Root incident, I think he feathered it. Incredibly difficult to tell (and I understand mysti effectively saying - give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman) but can understand the onfield umpire giving it out on one viewing (and hearing) in real time. Despite the general and often justified loathing on here of Tony Hill, I don't believe he was wrong to uphold the original decision. There are many things to slate Hill about - just don't believe this is one of them.

I suspect reaction would have been less if the batsman given out had been or resembled an Australian bar room brawler instead of an English choir boy.

Guildford, I am quite curious as to how you arrived at the call that Root did edge that one? From whatever I've seen of it, it just didn't seem like it, and Bumble on commentary said that he thought Root missed it.
My gripe is not so much with Hill, the poor fellow just isn't up to it, reading that he got appointed to the elite panel had given me an almighty shock, its the ICC that has to take responsibility for this downright disaster, Hill's appointment just confirmed that the lot at the ICC are a set of good for nothing jokers!.

Msp - contrary to what Lloyd said, Strauss (still trying too hard to please too many people too much of the time) said he thought Root ''just feathered it''. Strauss' view doesn't mean Bumble was wrong (and I know I've quoted Bumble in support of a few things recently) but it probably justifies my stance at outset in stating ''it was incredibly difficult to tell''.

You ask - how did I arrive at my call? Here goes. I never saw the ball pass and miss the bat. Furthermore, from all the recordings I did watch, I couldn't foresee how it reasonably would have done - that was the real crux for me. I'm sorry that's a rather legalistic answer but it's an honest response and the best one I can give to your difficult probing question.

The weakness of my reasoning - and I accept it's far from insignificant - is that I didn't see (or am not convinced I saw) the ball actually touch the bat. I am though as reasonably convinced as I can be that it did. A matter of opinion. Mine may not be right but it is considered. I accept your's is considered too even though a different conclusion has been reached.

A point I did try to make earlier - which maybe hasn't been picked up - is that I think we should be wary of reading too much either way into how the batsman / bowler /fielder react to an appeal. On the SKY breakfast highlights programme, Stewart sought a camera focus on Haddin's facial reaction as he claimed the catch but conceded it was inconclusive. Understood where Stewart (and I like the guy and normally his reasoning having met him a few times) was trying to go but feel it's a potentially error strewn path.