England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

If Pope can't play I'd probably prefer Foakes coming in, taking the gloves, myself. Maybe:

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Brook 4.Root 5.Bairstow 6.Stokes (c) 7.Foakes (wk)

It means a rejigging of the order but gets better players in the XI than Lawrence at 3 IMO. Particularly when I'm not that convinced by Lawrence against higher pace. Given the 15 man squad that isn't on the cards though.

If Wood is genuinely fit I'd like his pace in the attack but would probably ere towards the seam heavy attack again if the 4  below are good to go:

8.Woakes 9.Broad 10.Wood 11.Tongue

If Wood isn't fit then:

8.Moeen 9.Woakes 10.Broad 11.Tongue

Which does have a lot of batting depth on the upside.

if england had taken all the chances given we could be closing in on a 3-0 lead in this series

Now Root puts one down...

And another dropped catch, this time by Root. Fairly decent chance as well that should have been taken.

England's fielding has been embarrassing this summer

That's another unforgivable miss at this level. Or at county level.

Big part of losing the first test was missing chances. Not getting much better...

Spent all that time on the decision and still got it wrong.

Ah, it's Joel Wilson as TV umpire for this one. I understand now. He's in the middle for the next two tests.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England's fielding has been embarrassing this summer

It's been rubbish for a fair while now. Incredibly frustrating.

I think around the time folk started mentioning Craig Overton's impressive slip fielding as a reason to pick a seamer was the canary in the coalmine for me. We've not had a good cordon for a long time now.

How often outside of test matches do these guys field in the cordon? They play no first class cricket and it's rarely a position after the first few overs in white ball cricket.

Oh dear. Now Root shells a regulation slip catch.... All the Aussie bats getting two goes...

Really has been an area England just haven't got right this series. I think Olly is probably right about Bairstow by the way , re just that little drop off in mobility. Which is why I was always a little doubtful whether having him return to keeping immediately was a great idea. We are stuck with him for this one though so hopefully no more errors and it doesn't flow on to his batting...

Not easy for the bats right now so England have to continue pressing. Both these fellows are dangerous when set.

Soul Requiem wrote:How often outside of test matches do these guys field in the cordon? They play no first class cricket and it's rarely a position after the first few overs in white ball cricket.

The same's true of the vast majority of fielders in the cordon for other Test sides though. England players hardly playing CC once established is hardly new either. Yet we've seen far better cordons since the inception of central contracts.

13 missed chances for England this series plus two wickets off no balls. 8 for Australia and 1 off no balls.

Still on for a sub 250 score here if England can focus and not let any more chances go begging.

I like the way the bowlers have been rotated this morning, more chances will come I hope.

Marsh looks very eager to make the most of his reprieve. Scoring rate will skyrocket if these two get in this afternoon.

Have to see how he bowls of course ; but Marsh is already looking an improvement on Green for Australia with the bat.

Ironically Bairstow has taken a wonderful grab down the leg but it's off the thigh pad

And now nearly lbw ...high I think. No review. Good bowling from Woakes though.

Need to nip one of these out soon.

The Aussies are going at some rate as well, close to four an over.

Just one or two wickets soon and the Aussies will be in big trouble.

They still need to do something about umpire's call. Not an issue with that being given not out as it was so marginal but if Bairstow gets the exact same ball, is given out and reviews, he's out. You can't have two different decisions for the same situation.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:How often outside of test matches do these guys field in the cordon? They play no first class cricket and it's rarely a position after the first few overs in white ball cricket.

The same's true of the vast majority of fielders in the cordon for other Test sides though. England players hardly playing CC once established is hardly new either. Yet we've seen far better cordons since the inception of central contracts.

13 missed chances for England this series plus two wickets off no balls. 8 for Australia and 1 off no balls.

For all the talk of whether Bazball is the correct approach, it's looking like the fielding will be what lets us down more than anything else in this series.

Soul Requiem wrote:They still need to do something about umpire's call. Not an issue with that being given not out as it was so marginal but if Bairstow gets the exact same ball, is given out and reviews, he's out. You can't have two different decisions for the same situation.

Disagree as umpires call is there due to ball tracking not being perfect. There are flaws in the system, which Hawkeye admit, hence the on-field umpires decision correctly being taken into account IMO.

The important thing is getting more decisions right. Getting all of them right isn't possible.

It isn't a perfect system but it's less imperfect than it was previously.

As for two different decisions for the same situation. Is that not the case for all sports? The same scenarios get different decisions from umpires and referees all the time in all sports.

What is it with England and Marsh brothers? He averages 25 in Test cricket from a large sample size. He's passed 50 only 5 times in 55 innings. He looks brilliant now.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:They still need to do something about umpire's call. Not an issue with that being given not out as it was so marginal but if Bairstow gets the exact same ball, is given out and reviews, he's out. You can't have two different decisions for the same situation.

Disagree as umpires call is there due to ball tracking not being perfect. There are flaws in the system, which Hawkeye admit, hence the on-field umpires decision correctly being taken into account IMO.

The important thing is getting more decisions right. Getting all of them right isn't possible.

It isn't a perfect system but it's less imperfect than it was previously.

As for two different decisions for the same situation. Is that not the case for all sports? The same scenarios get different decisions from umpires and referees all the time in all sports.

So it's either out or not out, you can't have a situation where it's both depending on the original decision. You either trust the technology, if you're saying ball tracking isn't perfect, how can you be given out on a marginal call?

Mitch f*cking Marsh everytime

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:They still need to do something about umpire's call. Not an issue with that being given not out as it was so marginal but if Bairstow gets the exact same ball, is given out and reviews, he's out. You can't have two different decisions for the same situation.

Disagree as umpires call is there due to ball tracking not being perfect. There are flaws in the system, which Hawkeye admit, hence the on-field umpires decision correctly being taken into account IMO.

The important thing is getting more decisions right. Getting all of them right isn't possible.

It isn't a perfect system but it's less imperfect than it was previously.

As for two different decisions for the same situation. Is that not the case for all sports? The same scenarios get different decisions from umpires and referees all the time in all sports.

So it's either out or not out, you can't have a situation where it's both depending on the original decision. You either trust the technology, if you're saying ball tracking isn't perfect, how can you be given out on a marginal call?

The exact same thing happens without Hawkeye though. The same ball could get two different decisions on tight calls when we solely relied on the umpires. We just didn't have a clue before ball tracking.

The point being more decision overall are right since DRS. We know that ball tracking isn't right 100% of the time. It's a prediction after all. Hence the system has been built with that in mind.

If we can't have two different decisions for marginal calls then how can umpires give marginal calls either? By definition of them being marginal that is always going to occur.

Marsh really making England pay for dropping him. Hasn't looked altogether safe but he's motoring along - while Head just absorbs the short ball press . Has been a good session for Australia so far.

I'd like to see Wood fire in a full fast one to Head while he's looking for another short ball.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:They still need to do something about umpire's call. Not an issue with that being given not out as it was so marginal but if Bairstow gets the exact same ball, is given out and reviews, he's out. You can't have two different decisions for the same situation.

Disagree as umpires call is there due to ball tracking not being perfect. There are flaws in the system, which Hawkeye admit, hence the on-field umpires decision correctly being taken into account IMO.

The important thing is getting more decisions right. Getting all of them right isn't possible.

It isn't a perfect system but it's less imperfect than it was previously.

As for two different decisions for the same situation. Is that not the case for all sports? The same scenarios get different decisions from umpires and referees all the time in all sports.

So it's either out or not out, you can't have a situation where it's both depending on the original decision. You either trust the technology, if you're saying ball tracking isn't perfect, how can you be given out on a marginal call?

The exact same thing happens without Hawkeye though. The same ball could get two different decisions on tight calls when we solely relied on the umpires. We just didn't have a clue before ball tracking.

The point being more decision overall are right since DRS. We know that ball tracking isn't right 100% of the time. It's a prediction after all. Hence the system has been built with that in mind.

If we can't have two different decisions for marginal calls then how can umpires give marginal calls either? By definition of them being marginal that is always going to occur.

I'm not talking about decisions pre DRS nor am I talking about the decisions of the umpire, they're not at all relevant here. You have technology that you sometimes trust and sometimes don't trust, it's one or the other, it's not that difficult.

I think the point of umpire's call is the technology will always have a margin of error, so the same ball may produce different results from the technology

Agree with KC re umpire's call. Inevitable consequence of the system. Not perfect but unless you are going to do away with the onfield umpire decision altogether it's the only way to go. Yeah it is frustrating when you're on the wrong side of it but that's life.

Fifty for Marsh

Slice of luck early ; but he's turned this day around rather well now I think. England need to break this pair up soon or all the good work of this morning may be undone this afternoon.

Time for a drink.

This is what I was saying earlier about Marsh, to me he looks a very average play but yet has big moments. England should be knocking him over very cheaply.

Soul Requiem wrote:I'm not talking about decisions pre DRS nor am I talking about the decisions of the umpire, they're not at all relevant here. You have technology that you sometimes trust and sometimes don't trust, it's one or the other, it's not that difficult.

They are relevant though.

The system hasn't been built to get 100% of decisions right because that isn't possible. DRS has been built to get more decision right than pre DRS. So decisions pre DRS are relevant.

The decision of the umpire is also relevant as we know that ball tracking isn't perfect. Hence the input of the on-field umpires is considered into the DRS process.

If we know that the technology isn't perfect then considering that and building the system with that in mind is correct.

So they are completely relevant. Which isn't that difficult.

Drop is big, don't think England have done too badly though. Need to break this partnership soon though

Stokes trying to tempt Head by bringing Mo on

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I'm not talking about decisions pre DRS nor am I talking about the decisions of the umpire, they're not at all relevant here. You have technology that you sometimes trust and sometimes don't trust, it's one or the other, it's not that difficult.

They are relevant though.

The system hasn't been built to get 100% of decisions right because that isn't possible. DRS has been built to get more decision right than pre DRS. So decisions pre DRS are relevant.

The decision of the umpire is also relevant as we know that ball tracking isn't perfect. Hence the input of the on-field umpires is considered into the DRS process.

If we know that the technology isn't perfect but then considering that and building the system with that in mind is correct.

So they are completely relevant. Which isn't that difficult.

Decisions before DRS have nothing to do with DRS now, umpires making mistakes in the past and present doesn't excuse inconsistencies in the current system. If the technology cannot be trusted 100% then all umpire calls are not out or we go down the tennis route and trust it 100%.

Wow . Marsh is on fire...couple of lovely drives after drinks. Hundred and fifty up in very decent time. Looking a lot better for the tourists than the lunch situation.

Here's Moeen...

Here we go, watch the run rate fly now.

Everytime England have had an opportunity to get on top this series, they've thrown it away through their own stupidity/mistakes. Two regulation catches (that honestly, you'd be embarrassed to drop at top level club cricket) would've seen the Aussies 110-6 or whatever, instead we're now sitting through a Mitch Marsh hundred. I am rattled beyond belief here

And Mo almost creates a chance instantly

Soul Requiem wrote:Decisions before DRS have nothing to do with DRS now, umpires making mistakes in the past and present doesn't excuse inconsistencies in the current system. If the technology cannot be trusted 100% then all umpire calls are not out or we go down the tennis route and trust it 100%.

That's only if we're favouring the dated "benefit of doubt to the batter" trope over getting as many decisions correct as possible.

Tennis is completely different as it isn't a projection. Hawkeye there tracks the actual path of the ball. In LBW calls it is a projection beyond impact. There is basically no margin of error in the system in tennis. In the projection there is not. Surely that much is self evident?

Moeen nearly creates a chance...but don't think we can call that an error. Root had no legitimate way to snatch that one.

As Olly says , England keep wasting good positions ...and missed chances really have been the main culprit. The worst thing being the two that reprieved these two bats were both the type that are taken 999 times out of a thousand. That they are costing a lot is a sort of cosmic justice.

With the short stuff seemingly the only way they plan to go after Travis's Head , and Duty already hiding behind his couch rather than watching Moeen bowl , things are unraveling rather quickly. Again.

Oh dear, Robinson hobbling off.

Now, if I know Robinson shouldn't play a third test in a row, especially with this a back-to-back one, because he's had troublesome fitness issues and has got through 92 overs in the series before today, why the bloody hell can England not see that?

And Robinson is crocked now... All downhill since lunch

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Everytime England have had an opportunity to get on top this series, they've thrown it away through their own stupidity/mistakes. Two regulation catches (that honestly, you'd be embarrassed to drop at top level club cricket) would've seen the Aussies 110-6 or whatever, instead we're now sitting through a Mitch Marsh hundred. I am rattled beyond belief here

It's felt like this for three Tests. Dropped catches, stumpings and the wickets off no balls in T1 during such a tight Test.

Then T2 with the collapse just after Lyon went off and England had every chance to take complete control of the game.

I've barely watched a series where I've felt as tense. I'm at the point where I'm questioning if I ever even liked cricket... 

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Decisions before DRS have nothing to do with DRS now, umpires making mistakes in the past and present doesn't excuse inconsistencies in the current system. If the technology cannot be trusted 100% then all umpire calls are not out or we go down the tennis route and trust it 100%.

That's only if we're favouring the dated "benefit of doubt to the batter" trope over getting as many decisions correct as possible.

Tennis is completely different as it isn't a projection. Hawkeye there tracks the actual path of the ball. In LBW calls it is a projection beyond impact. There is basically no margin of error in the system in tennis. In the projection there is not. Surely that much is self evident?

There's a 5% margin of error in hawkeye in tennis, they've just rightfully chosen to go all in on it instead of having ifs, buts and maybes.

Back to this game now as the Dutch just beat Scotland to qualify for World Cup.

I am absolutely astonished how much England just switch off at times, Marsh having a field day out there and he really should be in the pavilion with his feet up. Such a promising start again by England goes to waste.

88 off 92 balls now.

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Decisions before DRS have nothing to do with DRS now, umpires making mistakes in the past and present doesn't excuse inconsistencies in the current system. If the technology cannot be trusted 100% then all umpire calls are not out or we go down the tennis route and trust it 100%.

That's only if we're favouring the dated "benefit of doubt to the batter" trope over getting as many decisions correct as possible.

Tennis is completely different as it isn't a projection. Hawkeye there tracks the actual path of the ball. In LBW calls it is a projection beyond impact. There is basically no margin of error in the system in tennis. In the projection there is not. Surely that much is self evident?

There's a 5% margin of error in hawkeye in tennis, they've just rightfully chosen to go all in on it instead of having ifs, buts and maybes.

The margin of error is estimated to be 3.6mm (some more recent tests suggesting as little as 2.2mm though) which is 5% the diameter of a tennis ball. That is basically the fluff on a tennis ball. 5% isn't the margin of error for the calls it gets wrong. When the ATP tested the system it had a very small margin of error in getting decisions correct.

And that is with it tracking the ball rather than making a projection. Hence why cricket is self evidently an entirely different discussion.

To quote someone else. It's not that difficult.

This has just been massively frustrating.

As thought, it was good for the bowlers initially, then into the afternoon it becomes better for the batsmen. England bowled very well in the morning, but amateur catching (from two senior players) gave Head and Marsh lives that they didn't deserve. Simple catches dropped. Now they've piled up a 100 partnership in no time at all. Should have been, as Olly said, 110/6 and looking to keep them below 200. Instead it'll now be a fight to keep them below 400.

Plus Robinson pushed beyond the limit and probably out of the series. Should never have played this one. VTR has probably gone into cardiac arrest due to seeing this innings from Marsh.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Decisions before DRS have nothing to do with DRS now, umpires making mistakes in the past and present doesn't excuse inconsistencies in the current system. If the technology cannot be trusted 100% then all umpire calls are not out or we go down the tennis route and trust it 100%.

That's only if we're favouring the dated "benefit of doubt to the batter" trope over getting as many decisions correct as possible.

Tennis is completely different as it isn't a projection. Hawkeye there tracks the actual path of the ball. In LBW calls it is a projection beyond impact. There is basically no margin of error in the system in tennis. In the projection there is not. Surely that much is self evident?

There's a 5% margin of error in hawkeye in tennis, they've just rightfully chosen to go all in on it instead of having ifs, buts and maybes.

The margin of error is estimated to be 3.6mm (some more recent tests suggesting as little as 2.2mm though) which is 5% the diameter of a tennis ball. That is basically the fluff on a tennis ball. 5% isn't the margin of error for the calls it gets wrong. When the ATP tested the system it had a very small margin of error in getting decisions correct.

And that is with it tracking the ball rather than making a projection. Hence why cricket is self evidently an entirely different discussion.

To quote someone else. It's not that difficult.

5% of a tennis ball is a significant amount, that is a fairly large margin for error.

I'm not really tense any more. I'm sadly coming to accept that England are going to find ways to hand back any temporary advantage this series. If it isn't dropped catches it is suicidal shots when well set.
This looks a good pitch to bat on now but if a couple of simple chances had stuck this innings might have struggled to reach 250. Starting to look more like 400 now.

I won't complain about Robinson being selected. He looked healthy enough earlier on ...can't wrap them in cotton wool just in case they get injured : can happen to anyone at any time.

Nothing in this for Moeen. A Marsh century wasn't on my list of expectations but it's imminent...

Third test ton for Marsh. All three have come against England.

Really good innings since the drop, to be fair. Probably wasn't even 100% sure he'd be playing until this morning.

Can't really say it's fine margins. the fielding has been abysmal all series. England do some things well and then give it all away by failing to do basic things

100 for Marsh. Shouldn't have been allowed to get anywhere near that but to him for making the most of his let off.

Meanwhile, is there a rota for looking after Duty?