England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Well done to Scott Boland, a very tidy job and added precious runs.

Another fantastic day in a fantastic test in a fantastic rivalry in a fantastic sport. Fantastic.

And just as the pattern has been throughout, when one team looked to be taking control, it just got yanked back. And it was Broad yanking it back with a brilliant spell. Labuschagne is the new Warner, as far as Broad's concerned.

174 to get. Seven wickets left. Still favouring Australia, but it'll be interesting to see how the bowling conditions are after the expected rain tomorrow. If they're anything close to what England's top order had to face yesterday, it could be curtains for Australia, but I'm not anticipating it to be that bad.

Will almost certainly be a delayed start. Hopefully the BBC's more pessimistic forecast doesn't come to fruition.

It'll probably go to the wire, that's the way the whole test has been shaping up. Might even be a tied test...

Ah, this is Starc at his best. Pope's second innings troubles continue courtesy of another crackerjack ball, this time from Starc, not Cummins.

So what was it about Pope fielding and batting at 3 all about? He fielded a bit, didn't field for much longer, batted at 3 and got his stumps smashed by Starc...

Starc generating some good speeds.

Root's getting a move on, without doing anything stupid like he did in the first innings. He's a naturally busy player, don't understand why he feels the need to be daft...

And I think that's the end of any hope. Root was looking in good touch, but Cummins gets one to properly lift and that's the third.

Root delivered in the first test and Smith didn't, but England didn't win. Root didn't deliver in the second test and Smith did, and Australia do win. Difference.

And that is gorgeous from Cummins to knock over Brook's off-stump. Sizzling over.

Aussies might get into the England tail by stumps.

Sadly, the Aussie seamers have simply looked a different class with the extra pace and bounce they are extracting in addition to no small bit of skill.

I've said it before but there are very few pace bowlers I've seen as rounded as Cummins. He's a genuine quick, incredibly accurate, swings it both ways, has a great wobble ball and can get reverse when available. When bowling like this he's as good as you'll see.

Starc's opening spell was blistering as well. Late swing at pace from the left-arm angle.

I dearly hope England can pull something out the bag here or at least get a win at Headingley to keep the series alive. To be completely honest it's been a fairly rubbish 2023 thus far and I was really looking forward to this series being 5 Tests of absorbing distraction. Whilst the cricket has been more even than a 2-0 score line would indicate, it would honestly be difficult to keep engaging in quite the same way if the series is dead from T3. If Australia finish what should be a procession from here then even a draw at Headingley would retain the urn.

Duckett has batted well in this Test to be fair. Another deserved 50 in the game. It's need to be a whole lot more for this to stay interesting though!

Annnnndddd, he's gone. Sad. I feel sad.

And reprieved. But I thought that was a fair catch. Seems harsh on Australia.

Yep, with how these have been reffed for a while now if the fielder is in control when it hits the ground then it's been ruled a fair catch. That seems inconsistent with the Cam Green and Steve Smith catch decisions. I'd be fuming if that went against England.

After that Steve Smith catch i'm happy to see that given not out.

Glenn Mcgrath on TMS being a right prat.

I thought the Steve Smith catch and that are both out given how those catches have been umpired for a long while now. It seems extremely inconsistent with recent interpretations.

I don't see how either can ever be considered out, both clearly grassed.

Someone at a higher pay grade than me is going to have to explain why this particular catch (in and of itself) is such a controversial issue. I thought it was just a bit of a schoolboy error from Starc and it was clearly not out. At least Smith had his fingers under the ball and the issue of whether or not it grounded at all was a grey area. In this case, Starc clearly had no fingers under the ball and ran it along the ground before he demonstrated control over its further disposal.

People are citing inconsistency, but I can't recall any catch quite like that, with the call clearly being pulled along the ground over a relatively considerable distance, which has been given out.

Well well well...nice little controversy to end the day

Some really wonderful bowling from Starc and Cummins to shoot out the first four . Crawley was a bit of a strangle, but the other three were real snorters ! I did wonder if Starc would really turn up in this innings ...and he certainly did. Quite a contrast to the first innings when he was going round the park - at least until the short stuff kicked off.

Kudos to Duckett for fighting back after being all at sea those first few overs . He and the determined one legged skipper have at least kept the game going into day five

At one stage I thought it might have been over tonight . But I don't suppose I will have to stay up until 4am tomorrow to see the finish

Well Duckett's survived a drop, another 'drop', and got an LBW overturned in between. Maybe it's fated for him to deliver a match-winning knock in this test?

257 to get tomorrow. That partnership has kept England in with the tiniest shout. Stokes somehow got to stumps despite Green being all over him. Duckett's mostly played the short ball well and with control. A good effort from the duo. Duckett came through a tricky start.

Starc was superb with the new ball, and Cummins backed him up a little while later. Some brilliant bowling, like KC says, highlighting the difference that extra pace can bring.

There's a small interest going into tomorrow, but Stokes, Duckett, Bairstow + the tail to get 257 v that Australian seam attack seems very unlikely. Would probably need a 50 from one of the tail at some point.

Enjoying the whinging Aussies in full cry again. They accuse us of being 'whinging poms', but they only accuse us of that which they are guilty of.

So England not quite finished. And until they bag Stokes' wicket, Australia wouldn't be sure... Good to see Stokes fighting it out like a proper test bat, even when he's clearly not fully fit. Good effort from Duckett as well. 257 on a day isn't surely impossible, but England have lost 2 wickets too many at the moment, need something dramatic...
Even without Lyon, Australia bowled largely impressively. Hazlewood wasn't at his best, but those last few overs from Green, he really was troubling Stokes out there. Starc and Cummins were just brilliant. Perhaps Australia should use Marnus and Smith a bit more, than giving quicks resting duties entirely to Head.

For a minute there it seemed like midnight had struck and England were back to being the team that opened up the job for McCullum in the first place. Good to see them hanging around, although it's still looking to be a rather sobering series after the giddy early days of the new regime.

Really don't get the Starc thing, he slides to catch the ball and carries on sliding whilst dragging the ball along the ground. How can anyone complain about that?

That catch of Duckett by Starc ruled N.O was an atrocious piece of umpiring.
That Starc caught it cleanly is no doubt.
That he was in control of the ball for long enuf before ball touched the ground can be doubted.
But we know by now ball touching the ground is not a problem...as long as "fingers are underneath the ball"

Ball was in Starc's large palm with fingers wrapped all around it.
Even when the ball hit the ground...ball down palm up.....fingers had to be around & hence under the ball.
( or in other words...the ball would have split out of hand if the fingers were not underneath)

Further I did not see umpire asking for 4 different angles to check "fingers underneath the ball" and stop it and zoom it.....

Atrocious decision.

Absolute rubbish KP.

Eng is all but out of this game....is the logical and 99% scenario.
BUT
I am a believer in god, fate, karma, divine blessings & Power of universe and with Stokes standing there...and with Eng's track record in chases under Stokes an the one in Headingley last time.....you can't rule Eng out...even though Stokes seems to have declined.

Back to logical observations.....
TOP-4 Root included falling for 50 odd broke the back
Only yesterday I wrote Harry does not have a defense, does not get behind the line of the ball and stays leg-sidish of the ball.
He did all of that in getting bowled
The spectacle of clean bowled of top order batters with stumps flying look like great bowling....which it is..but enabled by flawed technique of batter.

Ditto Pope...his feet stay rooted & he throws his hands at ball.
He needed in this case to move his left foot & left elbow forward...and then he would have encountered the ball on bat or bat pad....or might have still fallen LBW
Aus did not go for short-pitch barrage for most part of inning ....trying to use the ball pitched up while lacquer was on.
And last 15 minutes when they did they got Duckett and created half chances with Stokes
Eng fans can sleep with some hope intact.....but tomorrow morning it will be a short pitch barrage....and it will be interesting to see how Eng handle it.

88Chris05 wrote:Someone at a higher pay grade than me is going to have to explain why this particular catch (in and of itself) is such a controversial issue. I thought it was just a bit of a schoolboy error from Starc and it was clearly not out. At least Smith had his fingers under the ball and the issue of whether or not it grounded at all was a grey area. In this case, Starc clearly had no fingers under the ball and ran it along the ground before he demonstrated control over its further disposal.

People are citing inconsistency, but I can't recall any catch quite like that, with the call clearly being pulled along the ground over a relatively considerable distance, which has been given out.

The first thing to establish in all these catch debates is that the laws don't actually say the ball can't touch the ground once the catch has been completed. Which isn't as widely known as it maybe could be. The law is below:

The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his/her bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch, as described in 33.2 and 33.3, before it touches the ground.

For a fair while now the interpretation of that at the highest level with DRS and TV reviews is that once that catch is completed, i.e. the fielder is in control of the ball and their movement, the ball can touch the ground. So long as it is under control when it does so. See below:

The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.

In this case the TV umpire has clearly decided that Starc wasn't in control of the ball and/or his movement when it touched the ground. I'd argue he's definitely in control of the ball. Which leaves his movement. He's still sliding, it could be argued he puts the hand down to stabilise himself and control his movement. So he hasn't completed the catch, by the laws, when it touches the ground. The argument then being that if he turns his palm to face upwards that maybe the an elbow jars, the ball is knocked loose, etc.

The reason I feel it's harsh is that we've seen many of these catches given in recent years when fielders have seemed to have a lot less control of the ball or their body at the point the ball makes contact with the ground. But in those cases the catches have been deemed complete and given.

(This next bit isn't relevant to this specific catch but rather ones such as Smith in England's first innings or Cam Green's in the WTC final. I.e catches close to the ground where the debate is over whether a fielder gets their fingers under the ball in time.)

The wider debate of how that law is interpreted gets even messier as cameras on the boundary edge can't actually be trusted to show whether the ball makes contact with the ground in many catches close to the deck due mainly to foreshortening from the cameras. The best example of this was done by Tony Greig as a commentator for Channel 7. He stands where a slip fielder would, puts his hand on the ground, lays a ball on top of his fingers that isn't touching the ground at all. All that is shown from a camera next to him on the ground. The same is then shown from the camera on the boundary edge that we'd see it from during a match and it looks like the ball is just lying on the turf.

With catches such of Smith's in this Test for instance it can look like the ball makes contact with the turf from a camera on the boundary edge due to foreshortening when actually it didn't at all. The only realistic way you could remove that problem whilst using TV reviews is to say that fielders can't have their hand in contact with the ground when taking a catch. Which is a gigantic change in the laws.

By allowing the officials to make a call based on when the fielder is in control of the ball and their movement with those catches close to the ground it permits a best use of the technology within the limits of said foreshortening. Rather than a black and white, "did it touch the ground at any point?", in which case the technology couldn't be used as it can't reliably show whether the ball actually contacted the ground in many of these catches.

That isn't relevant to this particular catch but it does inform why the law is interpreted that way and why I personally feel it is correct to be interpreted that way.

That's not to say I agree with the umpiring of these catches entirely. Before this summer I hated that they removed the 'soft signal' from the on field umpires for instance, putting all the decision making for those catches on the TV umpire. Which I think is completely wrong as it ignores the limitations of the cameras, which could be mitigated by input from the umpires on the ground.

Soul Requiem wrote:Absolute rubbish KP.

Yep. I adore Starc but clearly not out for me. It was only the ball being held against the ground that gave him full and final control. Had the ball squirted out of his hands at that moment, I don't think any could claim it was out. That it didn't was aided by the ball being grounded.

I would add that this needs to be judged on its own merits as shown. Decisions given - whether rightly or wrongly - for past incidents don't come into it.

PS and Edit: I hadn't seen Carlos' post when I submitted mine. Carlos' is excellently thorough although I disagree with his bottom line judgment and stand by what I posted. Harsh or not, I'm not satisfied Starc had control when the ball was grounded.

As for the game at hand. I fear we're f***ed.

Maybe Duckett and Stokes edge the total up to around 200 before a wicket falls to give a glimmer of hope. Maybe Bairstow goes berserk. Maybe the tail rally. Lots of maybes.

It's the hope that kills you.

I don't think there can be any real dispute over the catch. The Laws sometimes seem a bit oddly worded ; but I think it is pretty clear that the intent of the two clauses is that the catch must be "completed" ie ball and body motion under control , without the ball touching the ground. Starc was still in his dive ; so far from being in control of his own movement : had the ball spilled out no one would have claimed the catch. Instead , he clearly put the ball to ground - which essentially made certain he continued to hold on to it. But he needed to have his fingers under it...and he didn't.
I think some of the outrage is caused by seeing it all in slow motion : gives the impression he held the ball for ages when in fact it all happened very quickly.

I see comparisons with the Smith catch but I don't think they are accurate. Smith did some juggling ; and pretty sure the ball brushed grass at some point - but crucially he had his fingers under it at all times so it wasn't actually grounded. That is probably the case with a lot of slips catches , in truth. The one under consideration here is quite different

Anyway the lawmakers have officially confirmed that the umpire got it right so I think we can put the argument to bed...

As to the game , yes , I think England are cooked. Losing a couple of wickets to the new ball would have been OK - but four is just too many. Especially with that tail.

Still room for a miracle but this is Lord's not Headingly (which is where all true miracles take place)

Like KC , I am sad that if this is in fact 2-0 there is a strong chance that the series could be done by next week.  Would be a pity because there has been a lot of very captivating cricket from both sides over the 9 days so far : I for one was looking forward to more tense and exciting stuff whoever came out on top. Australia have certainly outplayed England in this game (barring that potential miracle !) and deserve the win. But Edgbaston was one that could have gone either way (indeed had England held their chances - or even a few of them - they'd probably have won easily. So I don't think there is any massive gulf between the teams : just one has been a bit smarter this week.

The risk being that England just might lose heart after this  - possibly heavy - defeat , following from the "one that got away".  If they do fall away mentally things could get really ugly. And even my Australian born sister says she would much prefer to see another 2005...

https://twitter.com/final_word_pod/status/1675237894611427334?s=46&t=a_jGIcK3VYcofc1g-OhyyA

Geoff Lemon absolutely nails why the Starc “catch” was correctly given not out here.

I think the general rule with Aussie catches should be this, can you slide some sandpaper under the ball? If yes, it's out and if no, it's not out.

king_carlos wrote:As for the game at hand. I fear we're f***ed.

Maybe Duckett and Stokes edge the total up to around 200 before a wicket falls to give a glimmer of hope. Maybe Bairstow goes berserk. Maybe the tail rally. Lots of maybes.

It's the hope that kills you.

No hope for me unless Stokes and Duckett are still there with 150 left to win. I expect Australia to win by lunch.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:As for the game at hand. I fear we're f***ed.

Maybe Duckett and Stokes edge the total up to around 200 before a wicket falls to give a glimmer of hope. Maybe Bairstow goes berserk. Maybe the tail rally. Lots of maybes.

It's the hope that kills you.

No hope for me unless Stokes and Duckett are still there with 150 left to win. I expect Australia to win by lunch.

Would expect nothing else from our resident pessimist

Of course , you may well be right this time !

Now, now, I'm not a pessimist, I just tell it as I see it.

Stokes and Duckett keeping the hopes alive so far. Australia did come close a few times, but the 2 have managed to survive and add some runs in the process, chipping away...

Australia trying the short-pitched stuff, but there's not much bounce or life, it's pretty slow, and Duckett in particular is looking in good control when they try that.

Starc's first spell was superb, the English duo did well to get through it.

Of course, this is where Australia miss Lyon. Someone who is a genuine wicket-taking threat, would probably stem the run flow (relatively speaking), and allow the seamers to rotate at one end. Australia would like something from Hazlewood in this spell, a fairly quiet series by his standards so far.

Duty281 wrote:Australia trying the short-pitched stuff, but there's not much bounce or life, it's pretty slow, and Duckett in particular is looking in good control when they try that.

I suppose the problem for Australia is that, if the ball has died off and going short is the only way to make something happen, England need a lot of runs but don't really need to score all that quickly (yet). Australia had a degree of pressure on them to push on and give themselves time to get 10 wickets; even if England don't want to draw there's no need to chase hard until after tea.

Duckett has played the short well so far and in truth his lack of height means they're having to bowl fuller to get it under his armpit which is taking out the uneven part of the surface.

Stokes up to his old tricks again... nearly 4 overthrows.

Steady start from Duckett and the other Ben. And I'm having nightmares here! Target under 200 now.

Bit of extra lift there, good grab by Carey. The drinks break strikes, I guess.

oh dear

not sure what bairstow is doing there, rubbish way of getting out but not sure the aussies done anythig wrong

That just isn't cricket.

Slightly reminiscent of Geriant Jones getting run out in Perth in 2006, but that one was pure doziness (he was waiting on a LBW shout and didn't put his foot back in the crease to a Warne delivery). On this one Bairstow thinks the ball is dead and has wondered out of the crease. Letter of the law it's out, but not sporting, not cricket, and disappointing from Australia.

Pathetic again from the Aussies, win at all costs and all that, claiming grounded catches and now that.

Bit dim from Bairstow but I thought we were better than that honestly

Duty281 wrote:That just isn't cricket.

Slightly reminiscent of Geriant Jones getting run out in Perth in 2006, but that one was pure doziness (he was waiting on a LBW shout and didn't put his foot back in the crease to a Warne delivery). On this one Bairstow thinks the ball is dead and has wondered out of the crease. Letter of the law it's out, but not sporting, not cricket, and disappointing from Australia.

I feel the same about it. Doesn't seem right to me.
A bit opportunistic from Carey. Umpire should have called "over" more quickly.
Anyway, that's the laws of the game.

dont think ive ever heard lords so hostile, probably a good thing it happened here than any of the other grounds

Oh dear...

Jonny should have been more alert ...left his crease too quickly. And Cary , to be fair , rolled the ball in pretty much straight away. But he was obviously going gardening , thinking the ball was dead .

Don't think I'd have appealed in that situation. But this is a winner takes all Test Match ...

Crowd won't be happy.

Think that's killed any chance for England.

compelling and rich wrote:dont think ive ever heard lords so hostile, probably a good thing it happened here than any of the other grounds

Would have been a riot at Edgbaston.

It's killed the series to be honest, England were never winning that game but it will be remembered for that. I'd rather lose than win like that.