England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

50 up for Mo at an absolutely vital moment.   

A fortuitous way to get there with Cummins not picking it up. It frankly looked like he wasn't moving well chasing back for it either.

Starc back on which I think slows how key a period the Aussies know this is. He's looked their best bowler today.

So relative parity. May well have taken that at lunch but not at tea. At least no tricky session to bat out this evening.

As KPF would tell us, it's a one innings shootout (unless it isn't)

So, it's pretty much a one innings shootout with the added oddness that England will come out to start their innings in the morning. Like opening up on day 1!

I must say that the England seamers looked fairly knackered at the end there to me. 103.1 overs bowled compared to 54.4 overs for Australia.

The second new ball wasn't flying through too well so I'll be keeping an interested eye on whether this pitch might die as we've seen a few in England do in recent years.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Disappointing that another poor decision involving Steve Smith has turned the game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66342091

I've watched this so many times now because I feel like I'm going insane given others here feel this is out.

The bat the second bail just looks clearly in the leg stump groove when Smith gets home to me.

On the right hand side of that, you can see the middle stump pushed back which is dislodging the stump. The bail itself doesn't have to move.

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Disappointing that another poor decision involving Steve Smith has turned the game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66342091

I've watched this so many times now because I feel like I'm going insane given others here feel this is out.

The bat the second bail just looks clearly in the leg stump groove when Smith gets home to me.

On the right hand side of that, you can see the middle stump pushed back which is dislodging the stump. The bail itself doesn't have to move.

It's dislodged from the middle stump, absolutely. Doesn't the bail have to be dislodged from both stumps though? It just looks plainly in the leg stump groove after Smith has made his ground to me.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Disappointing that another poor decision involving Steve Smith has turned the game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66342091

I've watched this so many times now because I feel like I'm going insane given others here feel this is out.

The bat the second bail just looks clearly in the leg stump groove when Smith gets home to me.

On the right hand side of that, you can see the middle stump pushed back which is dislodging the stump. The bail itself doesn't have to move.

It's dislodged from the middle stump, absolutely. Doesn't the bail have to be dislodged from both stumps though? It just looks plainly in the leg stump groove after Smith has made his ground to me.

It's the initial disturbance that matters, it then has to result in a complete removal.

Very similar to the first test. England ended up with a lead of 7 in the first test, scored 273 in the third innings, but Australia chased it down with two wickets left.

Extremely well balanced going into the weekend. Do think England will need to put the lead beyond 275, at least. It's a good batting wicket. Would be nice if England batted with more care, and would be doubly nice if England could bat the day. England's bowlers, unchanged from the last test, have got through 103 overs in this one. Australia's grind may pay dividends if England are bowling again tomorrow evening.

Wonder what we'll be looking back on from the first innings, come the end? Australia's drops or Menon's error. Maybe Murphy's 30-odd?

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Disappointing that another poor decision involving Steve Smith has turned the game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66342091

I've watched this so many times now because I feel like I'm going insane given others here feel this is out.

The bat the second bail just looks clearly in the leg stump groove when Smith gets home to me.

On the right hand side of that, you can see the middle stump pushed back which is dislodging the stump. The bail itself doesn't have to move.

It's dislodged from the middle stump, absolutely. Doesn't the bail have to be dislodged from both stumps though? It just looks plainly in the leg stump groove after Smith has made his ground to me.

It's the initial disturbance that matters, it then has to result in a complete removal.

Reading the laws now I'm almost certain that isn't the case.

"The wicket is broken when at least one bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or one or more stumps is removed from the ground."

Law 29.1

Which was always my understanding. It's the point at which the bail is completely dislodged, i.e. out of both grooves, that matters. In this case, the first bail is irrelevant as the stumps were broken early and second bail looks so clearly in the leg stump groove to me when Smith makes his ground.

Have you got the law stating initial disturbance is the point that matters? I can't find that anywhere having a search now.

I have never once seen a run out or stumping judged on the bail being dislodged from both stumps, it's always when it comes out of contact with one of the stumps. Either today was right and hundreds in history were wrong or it's the other way round.

The telling thing was that Smith originally thought he was out when the bail was still in contact with the middle stump as did everyone else in the ground.

Yeah you see it all the time with stumping and run outs where only one bail is removed - Ian Ward showed on Sky too that it was out.

Poor umpiring unfortunately. Hopefully it’ll even itself out in our favour in the 2nd digs

Should also say I thought Menon got bailed out by Carey being outside the line on his LBW review off Root - because there was a clear deviation off the bat that he missed and seemingly ignored beforehand.
Doesn’t seem to know how to work the third umpiring process

The bail's always needed to be dislodged from both stumps and judged that way since TV reviews were brought in AFAIK. Williamson got a similar reprieve last year IIRC.

It's just clearly not out to me as that bail isn't dislodged from both stumps. Very tight and seemed out at a first look but once you see that the first bail is dislodged early it's then a clear cut decision.

Going by that logic the first bail wasn't dislodged early.

king_carlos wrote:The bail's always needed to be dislodged from both stumps and judged that way since TV reviews were brought in AFAIK. Williamson got a similar reprieve last year IIRC.

It's just clearly not out to me as that bail isn't dislodged from both stumps. Very tight and seemed out at a first look but once you see that the first bail is dislodged early it's then a clear cut decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQhlcHF90U

If this was the case Carlos, then surely the stumping here by Buttler (1:10 into the video) would be deemed not out, no? It's always been just one bail dislodged from the stumps.

(Buttler does this a fair bit, I haven't just remembered a one off I swear )

If you bat as slowly as Australia did in the morning you have to make it count. The flurry of wickets after lunch showed that the approach was wrong.

And from an entertainment point of view, I was glad the slow-coach approach did not pay off. I'm, sadly, old enough to remember the dreadful Tests of the 1950s and 1960s where excitement was minimal, maidens were plentiful and innovation was frowned upon.

Ashes results are all important. But even if England lose this series 3-1, which would be a harsh scoreline, I hope people will remember the WAY that they played.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:The bail's always needed to be dislodged from both stumps and judged that way since TV reviews were brought in AFAIK. Williamson got a similar reprieve last year IIRC.

It's just clearly not out to me as that bail isn't dislodged from both stumps. Very tight and seemed out at a first look but once you see that the first bail is dislodged early it's then a clear cut decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQhlcHF90U

If this was the case Carlos, then surely the stumping here by Buttler (1:10 into the video) would be deemed not out, no? It's always been just one bail dislodged from the stumps.

(Buttler does this a fair bit, I haven't just remembered a one off I swear )

Buttler knocks that bail clean off there.

I'm not saying that both bails need to be removed. It's that one bail needs to be completely removed. Which means removed from the groove of both stumps it sits on, not just one. In this case that second bail is definitely out the middle stump groove but clearly in the leg stump.

As for game state, if you'd given me that Aussie all out scoreline at start of play I think I'd have taken it...but feels a little bit of a disappointment having had them 185-7 to let them get a small lead.

Game overall firmly in the balance though - big day for England tomorrow, while sure they will attack I do think it is important they try to bat as much, if not all, of tomorrow for two reasons - one to allow the pitch to continue to get worse, and two to allow the seamers as much of a rest as possible with Moeen seemingly unable to bowl again.

And speaking of Moeen, I don't believe he is allowed to bat for the first 120 minutes of play or until 5 wickets are down - so barring Crawley/Duckett batting past lunch tomorrow, he won't be coming in at 3. Who do we send in? I am minded, by bizarre logic, to send Broad or Wood in to have a swing at and see if they can flay an annoying 20 odd...and keep everyone else in position and bring Moeen in after Woakes down the order. Not keen on sending Woakes in at 3...he's a handy 8 and can bat properly with a set batsman...fear at 3 he would be overexposed.

Soul Requiem wrote:Going by that logic the first bail wasn't dislodged early.

29.2.1 The wicket is broken fairly if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,

29.2.1.5 by a fielder with his/her hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.

The ball needs to be in the fielders hands (or gloves in this case) when they break the stumps. Bairstow very clearly begins doing so before the ball is in his gloves.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Going by that logic the first bail wasn't dislodged early.

29.2.1 The wicket is broken fairly if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,

29.2.1.5 by a fielder with his/her hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.

The ball needs to be in the fielders hands (or gloves in this case) when they break the stumps. Bairstow very clearly begins doing so before the ball is in his gloves.

The bail was only dislodged when it was in Bairstow's hands going by your argument. If the first bail was dislodged by Bairstow's gloves without the ball then the second bail is dislodged by the his gloves with the ball. You said a few posts ago that beginning to do so doesn't matter.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:And speaking of Moeen, I don't believe he is allowed to bat for the first 120 minutes of play or until 5 wickets are down - so barring Crawley/Duckett batting past lunch tomorrow, he won't be coming in at 3. Who do we send in? I am minded, by bizarre logic, to send Broad or Wood in to have a swing at and see if they can flay an annoying 20 odd...and keep everyone else in position and bring Moeen in after Woakes down the order. Not keen on sending Woakes in at 3...he's a handy 8 and can bat properly with a set batsman...fear at 3 he would be overexposed.

Stokes for me. I'm of the Stokes moving to 3 camp longer term if he's a specialist batter though. I'm just not sure England can balance their side properly without an all-rounder, as such having a specialist batter at 6 is a luxury they can't afford. Currently given by Mo being used as a sticking plaster.

I do see the counter argument that you have less chance of Stokes batting with tail from 3. He is of course magnificent at doing that. If we had a better top order though then hopefully we wouldn't need those saviour esque knocks with the tail as often. I think Stokes has the game to bat 3, especially compared to England's other resources.

Basically I'd prefer us to not get into trouble rather than having Stokes at 6 to bail us out!

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Going by that logic the first bail wasn't dislodged early.

29.2.1 The wicket is broken fairly if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,

29.2.1.5 by a fielder with his/her hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.

The ball needs to be in the fielders hands (or gloves in this case) when they break the stumps. Bairstow very clearly begins doing so before the ball is in his gloves.

The bail was only dislodged when it was in Bairstow's hands going by your argument. If the first bail was dislodged by Bairstow's gloves without the ball then the second bail is dislodged by the his gloves with the ball. You said a few posts ago that beginning to do so doesn't matter.

I said that, "It's the point at which the bail is completely dislodged, i.e. out of both grooves, that matters", in reference to Smith making his ground or not. Whether the batter is short is judged at that point.

A fielder can't start the movement of breaking the stumps before receiving the ball then finish it afterwards though. As shown in the above quoted law, "by a fielder with his/her hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used". I honestly think you know that much is self evident anyway, Soul. That frankly feels like a facetious point following being corrected on the law we were first discussing.

Where does the law state a fielder can't start the movement before receiving the ball?

You've not corrected anything, you merely think you've corrected me. I still stand by my opinion that it's out.

29.2.1 The wicket is broken fairly if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,

29.2.1.5 by a fielder with his/her hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.

In the second part. "Providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used". It's self evident within that given that no runout or stumping I'm aware of has ever been given on the basis that the fielder starting doing so without the ball then had the ball halfway through.

Sorry, Soul, but you're just being facile there. You stated that the bail didn't need to be dislodged from both grooves which is clearly wrong by the laws. Now you're just being a pedant on something I don't honestly think you even believe. If an England batter got runout on the basis of the stumps starting to be broken without the ball but having the ball when the bails popped off you lose your mind over the decision. It's just a silly point for sake of being argumentative after not knowing the law in question for the decision you were unfairly ridiculing without knowledge of that basic law.

My pedantry is correct based on your interpretation of the laws. I know the laws perfectly well which is why I know it should have been out.

This is just your usual relentless need to be correct even when you're not.

It's written plain as day in the laws though Soul. The bail has to be removed from both stumps, which it wasn't.

You've decided that law doesn't need to be enforced and it's actually when the bail comes out of one stumps groove based on nothing but you incorrectly thinking that's the law and therefore Test umpires should make decisions based on your poor knowledge rather than the written law. Which is farcical.

Edit: Cleaning up my part where this discussion just descended into jibes between Soul and me

king_carlos wrote:It's written plain as day in the laws though Soul. The bail has to be removed from both stumps, which it wasn't.

You've decided that law doesn't need to be enforced and it's actually when the bail comes out of one stumps groove based on nothing but you incorrectly thinking that's the law and therefore Test umpires should make decisions based on your poor knowledge rather than the written law. Which is farcical.

You clearly don't know the laws well. Otherwise you'd have known that the bail has to be dislodged from both stumps.

This is just your usual relentless need to be correct even when you're not.

That's one of the most astonishingly hypocritical things I've ever read given it's coming from you. Laughable.

Bless you KC, you'll get over it one day. One way or another that was out, the first bail was dislodged (from both stumps) once the ball was in Bairstows hand, as was the second one anyway.

Edit: Cleaning up my part where this discussion just descended into jibes between Soul and me

Where was the ball when the stumps were broken?

Edit: Cleaning up my parts where this discussion just descended into jibes between Soul and me

Another exciting day. At one point Australia were crawling along to a position of advantage. But the crawl proved to be rather too much, It seemed they were trying to make some of a statement of approach as a counter to Bazball. The crawl got them into a hole and it seemed there was no way out. Then Smith got lucky with a Bairstow mistake, and he and the skipper then dug themselves out of the crisis, and then when they seemed to be gaining control, Smith gave his wicket. Out came Murphy, and England lost all sense of common sense. Remember someone recently posted some data on how England has been more successful with the short ball method to the lower order. But bowling only short to a lower bat is just not it. Murphy got Australia into a lead before Woakes and Root could limit the damage.
Game interestingly placed at the moment. England are great at 4th innings chases, can they set up a 4th innings beyond Australia's reach? Bazball for all but Root and Stokes, hopefully at least one of them will come off big and Bazball will work for a couple of other batters helping to punch above their weight. And now they'll have a number 3 problem as Moeen won't be able to batthere in all likelyhood. Rather than Stokes, as a one time measure, Root has to do it. With him its more of a mental thing at 3, in the pre-Bazball era, he was always there in the middle by the 5th over with the score 10-2 in any case! If England can have a couple of big partnerships up front, Mo can come out at 3 or 4...

As for the Steve Smith decision, Smith should have been clearly out. But he wasn't, because Jonny Bairstow, who surely wasn't umpiring in the test, made a right royal mess of it! Umpire Menon made the right call under the circumstances as Bairstow had started removing the stumps before he had the ball in his hands, and by the time the other bail had come off, Smith was in.
English fans feeling the laws of the game don't apply to them? Ask Alex Carey! Interesting, it was the same casual Bairstow there as well.

The laws don't say anything about starting to remove the bails only the breaking of the wicket, it's there in black and white.

msp83 wrote:Root has to do it. With him its more of a mental thing at 3, in the pre-Bazball era, he was always there in the middle by the 5th over with the score 10-2 in any case!

Root's average is actually highest at number 5 which I've always found an interesting statistical quirk given how inked in he's become at number 4. His record isn't terrible at 3. He averages near enough 40 with 4 tons and 14 half centuries there. But his record is significantly better at 4 and 5.

Generally, I really like Root that bit lower as he's so good at rotating the strike and playing spin which is so valuable at pushing the game along once the ball softens and sides try to bowl dry.

I like the idea of Stokes, if he's a specialist batter going forward, at 3 as he's got a strong technique and vitally plays pace well. Root probably would be a better 3 because he's the better bat. But I feel England would gain more as a unit by keeping Root where he is and moving someone else up longer term.

Balancing the side if Stokes can't bowl is a big challenge going forward though. I'm hoping Sam Curran can come back in with 7.Curran 8.Woakes forming a strong lower order and enabling 4 seamers at home for a couple of years at least. Stokes being so good with the old ball, which most English seamers aren't, whilst a top 5 batter gave them such flexibility.

Edit: Just going to delete that and leave it there. We're going in tedious circles like the Mo debate ended up doing now.

king_carlos wrote:

msp83 wrote:Root has to do it. With him its more of a mental thing at 3, in the pre-Bazball era, he was always there in the middle by the 5th over with the score 10-2 in any case!

Root's average is actually highest at number 5 which I've always found an interesting statistical quirk given how inked in he's become at number 4. His record isn't terrible at 3. He averages near enough 40 with 4 tons and 14 half centuries there. But his record is significantly better at 4 and 5.

Generally, I really like Root that bit lower as he's so good at rotating the strike and playing spin which is so valuable at pushing the game along once the ball softens and sides try to bowl dry.

I like the idea of Stokes, if he's a specialist batter going forward, at 3 as he's got a strong technique and vitally plays pace well. Root probably would be a better 3 because he's the better bat. But I feel England would gain more as a unit by keeping Root where he is and moving someone else up longer term.

Balancing the side if Stokes can't bowl is a big challenge going forward though. I'm hoping Sam Curran can come back in with 7.Curran 8.Woakes forming a strong lower order and enabling 4 seamers at home for a couple of years at least. Stokes being so good with the old ball, which most English seamers aren't, whilst a top 5 batter gave them such flexibility.

Hopefully, the 6 month window will let Stokes get himself sorted enough, so that he can continue to bowl the short impactful spells... Don't his mindset is such that he'd want to play as a batter only. Besides, there is no body as good as him in this side to bat with the lower to such devastating effect. In the long run, they need to find another number 3 batter. Root's better off at 4 and that's what he seems to like the most. Now that Moeen's gone from the longer format in a much happier frame of mind and is rather unlikely to come back again, perhaps they can put one of those spin bowling all-rounders in at 3. Brook doesn't have the technique to bat 3 consistently. Pope neither the technique nor the temperament for consistent test cricket success at any position. He could be played as the least worst option, not the most suited one as such.

msp83 wrote:Hopefully, the 6 month window will let Stokes get himself sorted enough, so that he can continue to bowl the short impactful spells... Don't his mindset is such that he'd want to play as a batter only. Besides, there is no body as good as him in this side to bat with the lower to such devastating effect. In the long run, they need to find another number 3 batter. Root's better off at 4 and that's what he seems to like the most. Now that Moeen's gone from the longer format in a much happier frame of mind and is rather unlikely to come back again, perhaps they can put one of those spin bowling all-rounders in at 3. Brook doesn't have the technique to bat 3 consistently. Pope neither the technique nor the temperament for consistent test cricket success at any position. He could be played as the least worst option, not the most suited one as such.

As said previously I'm unsure whether the break and likely operation will be to get Stokes bowling fit or just moving with less pain. It's a pretty tightly kept secret what the specific injury is to that left knee. It could be something such as tendonitis which should be repairable with surgery. If he has no cartilage left in that knee, as often happens to seamers, then he may not get back to being bowling fit again though.

Prior to the captaincy I'm not sure I'd have seen Stokes play on as a specialist batter. Now I can. He's clearly enjoying leading this side. I think England have a good goal available in aiming to make the next WTC final as well. That would be around the 4 year mark for the McCullum-Stokes project to see where they can take the side.

Realistically, Stokes' best earning potential is by playing the IPL and having central contract too if we're being pragmatic. Franchise cricket is often thought of as the route to riches but the Indian, English and Aussie players make a lot money from being Test stars. As Test skipper he could reasonably just play Tests, the odd warmup, the IPL and World T20s when fit. Which isn't a huge workload.

I consider Pope as a better talent than you do msp, but we've discussed that before. I think those technical issues have seen improvements. He isn't the next Ian Bell as many once hoped. But if Pope could average mid to high 30s at number 3 I'd take that given England's top order resources.

Dan Lawrence has been the next batter in the squad who I wouldn't pick over Pope myself. I do rate Pope's Surrey teammate Jamie Smith when I've seen him. He's batting higher up the order now too. Albeit at 4 rather than 3 as Surrey have three past and present Test openers in Burns, Sibley and Latham filling their top 3.

The top order batting talent in the CC is a thin on the ground but one to watch who's batting lower down is James Rew at Somerset. He's also a keeper so batting at number 6 but has 6 first-class centuries and he's still 19-years-old. I had the live stream of a recent game where he scored a ton and he looks a very talented young batter.

king_carlos wrote:

msp83 wrote:Hopefully, the 6 month window will let Stokes get himself sorted enough, so that he can continue to bowl the short impactful spells... Don't his mindset is such that he'd want to play as a batter only. Besides, there is no body as good as him in this side to bat with the lower to such devastating effect. In the long run, they need to find another number 3 batter. Root's better off at 4 and that's what he seems to like the most. Now that Moeen's gone from the longer format in a much happier frame of mind and is rather unlikely to come back again, perhaps they can put one of those spin bowling all-rounders in at 3. Brook doesn't have the technique to bat 3 consistently. Pope neither the technique nor the temperament for consistent test cricket success at any position. He could be played as the least worst option, not the most suited one as such.

I consider Pope as a better talent than you do msp, but we've discussed that before. I think those technical issues have seen improvements. He isn't the next Ian Bell as many once hoped. But if Pope could average mid to high 30s at number 3 I'd take that given England's top order resources.

Dan Lawrence has been the next batter in the squad who I wouldn't pick over Pope myself. I do rate Pope's Surrey teammate Jamie Smith when I've seen him. He's batting higher up the order now too. Albeit at 4 rather than 3 as Surrey have three past and present Test openers in Burns, Sibley and Latham filling their top 3.

The top order batting talent in the CC is a thin on the ground but one to watch who's batting lower down is James Rew at Somerset. He's also a keeper so batting at number 6 but has 6 first-class centuries and he's still 19-years-old. I had the live stream of a recent game where he scored a ton and he looks a very talented young batter.

I think Lawrence is rather unlucky to get an opening in this new dispensation. He seems more suited to a more middle order role, and he doesn't have the most organized technique in the world. But he has a good temperament, and he hasn't got as much protection and support from the management as Pope has managed. But if he gets a decent run, I have a feeling Lawrence will find a way to score some valuable test runs, and he has a better chance of success than Pope in my book.
Don't know much about the other young talents you mentioned, hopefully, one of them may be able to step up.
Do you see any of the spin bowling all-rounders capable of filling up a hyper Bazballer with resonable success coming in at 3?

From Eng's POV at the end of Yesterday they would have happily taken Aus 295 a.o
However from 185-7 today.....they should be disappointed to let Aus get to 295

From Aus's POV....every time in the series they have gone in a shell....they have dug a hole for themselves and they sink deeper in that hole until they play strokes like they started doing when Marsh got together Smith and onwards.

From looking like conceding a 60 run lead to gaining a 12 run lead.....Aus would finish rather happily.
Murphy looks good, doesn't he ?...with the bat and decent outing with the ball...he has the potential over a period of time to be the first spinner when Lyon calls it a day eventually.
He has 3rd inning job to do here first.

The other relevant bit that Taylor pointed out.....Aus put twice the miles in the legs of English bowlers for scoring the same number of runs.
Eng bowlers had to sweat out 103 overs against only 53 overs for Aussie bowlers
PLUS Aus have 5 bowlers including a front-line spinner.

I would put Aus ahead in the game....not by much....like a 55-45

Looking at the BBC clip of the run out it looked like a clear run out - ball in Bairstow's hand then the stumps get pushed.  The umpire went straight for review, then it was given out, and then it was given not out.   I haven't really understood why it wasn't given out and I wonder whether slow  motion has muddied the water as it often does in football VAR decision making.  I am sure there must have been a good reason for the not out but I need to go away and study the rules in the minutiae and then study the slow motion in the minutiae to work it all out.  King Carlos has dropped an explanation but it seemed to me that the ball was in Bairstow's glove.  The BAILs were maybe in the process of being dislodged as Smith got back into his crease .....

msp83 wrote:I think Lawrence is rather unlucky to get an opening in this new dispensation. He seems more suited to a more middle order role, and he doesn't have the most organized technique in the world. But he has a good temperament, and he hasn't got as much protection and support from the management as Pope has managed. But if he gets a decent run, I have a feeling Lawrence will find a way to score some valuable test runs, and he has a better chance of success than Pope in my book.
Don't know much about the other young talents you mentioned, hopefully, one of them may be able to step up.
Do you see any of the spin bowling all-rounders capable of filling up a hyper Bazballer with resonable success coming in at 3?

To me Lawrence looks even more flawed than Pope. Similar downsides with issues in his defensive technique early but not the same upside of Pope having the potential to score very fluently against seam once he's in.

Both have different issues against Test seamers early on. Pope gets stuck on the crease to that fuller 'good length' we now see since the wobble ball. He doesn't move his feet early on and ends up trying to play his defensive shots in front of him rather than under his eye line. Whereas Lawrence tries to play those straight balls through midwicket. To do that consistently at Test level you need Steve Smith's hand eye and class. Which Lawrence is yet to demonstrate!

Re the spinners. In short, no. Will Jacks is an astonishing white ball hitter at times but I don't think he's remotely a Test batter. He bats below Foakes for Surrey for instance. Usually number 6. Liam Livingstone I thought was a better red ball talent with the bat than Jacks but it would've been in the lower middle order where we already have a logjam of better talent now. Rehan definitely isn't a Test number 3.

msp83 wrote:As for the Steve Smith decision, Smith should have been clearly out. But he wasn't, because Jonny Bairstow, who surely wasn't umpiring in the test, made a right royal mess of it! Umpire Menon made the right call under the circumstances as Bairstow had started removing the stumps before he had the ball in his hands, and by the time the other bail had come off, Smith was in.
English fans feeling the laws of the game don't apply to them? Ask Alex Carey! Interesting, it was the same casual Bairstow there as well.

Many times, Bairstow reminds me of a Lazy-Happy-big-Red-Panda

No name Bertie wrote:Looking at the BBC clip of the run out it looked like a clear run out - ball in Bairstow's hand then the stumps get pushed.  The umpire went straight for review, then it was given out, and then it was given not out.   I haven't really understood why it wasn't given out and I wonder whether slow  motion has muddied the water as it often does in football VAR decision making.  I am sure there must have been a good reason for the not out but I need to go away and study the rules in the minutiae and then study the slow motion in the minutiae to work it all out.  King Carlos has dropped an explanation but it seemed to me that the ball was in Bairstow's glove.  The BAILs were maybe in the process of being dislodged as Smith got back into his crease .....

To my eye Bairstow knocked the off stump with his gloves before having the ball, so the first bail IMO was rightly not considered. The second bail then leaves the groove of one stump, the middle stump, whilst Smith was out of his ground but was still in the groove of the leg stump when Smith got home as far as I can tell.

It was a rollercoaster one. On the very first replay I thought, "out, hallelujah". Then when I saw Bairstow took the stumps early I thought, "argh, going to be not out". Then I saw that the second bail hadn't begun being dislodged, i.e. it was still in both grooves, during the contact Bairstow made without the ball and thought, "this will be incredibly tight". But I think it's the right decision as that second bail wasn't completely dislodged when Smith made his ground. An incredibly tight decision with odd circumstances but I think it's the correct decision by the laws.

I'd add that this is the reason I'd like all cricket to have the 'zing bails' which light up when they are dislodged. They are used in one day cricket and it makes sense to use them in Test cricket as well to me for situations precisely such as this.

king_carlos wrote:I think England have a good goal available in aiming to make the next WTC final as well. That would be around the 4 year mark for the McCullum-Stokes project to see where they can take the side.

With regards to the finalists of the current WTC cycle, I think there's four realistic contenders, one hanging on, and four no-hopers.

The four no-hopers are Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand.

The one hanging on is England. I think they have to win this current test to have a chance of making it. Five tests against India around the corner, very tough, and three tests in Pakistan, who may be an improved entity from last time. Also got three tests in NZ, a place England haven't won in since 2008, I believe. England will have to maximise their wins versus Sri Lanka and the West Indies at home next summer.

The four realistic contenders are Australia, India, Pakistan and South Africa. Australia may already have one foot in the final if they win here, which would be their toughest series out of the way. India, fairly obvious why they're a contender. Minimising the damage from their five test tour of Australia will be key. Pakistan have a fair schedule and they've already won two out of two. The series against England is likely the key one for them. And South Africa have a really kind fixture list. No Australia or England for them, just two tests against India at home is all the opposition from the big three. The places they have to visit (Bangladesh, NZ, West Indies) won't frighten them at all. Good chance if they can keep a first XI on the field and don't forfeit any games!

Will respond to above when I get a minute tomorrow, duty. I largely agree but do think the vagaries of the Test game and how much several nations can feasibly focus on it due to the scheduling will have an impact.

I just wanted to mention something that made me chuckle during the days play. Ian Ward searching for reasons to complement Bairstow's keeping and settling on talking about how his cap could've obscured his vision to make the Smith catch more difficult really made me laugh. It felt a bit like by the second innings we'll be hearing about England fielders doing well to get one hand to a regulation chance by remembering not to shut their eyes as the ball is bowled.

king_carlos wrote:Will respond to above when I get a minute tomorrow, duty. I largely agree but do think the vagaries of the Test game and how much several nations can feasibly focus on it due to the scheduling will have an impact.

I just wanted to mention something that made me chuckle during the days play. Ian Ward searching for reasons to complement Bairstow's keeping and settling on talking about how his cap could've obscured his vision to make the Smith catch more difficult really made me laugh. It felt a bit like by the second innings we'll be hearing about England fielders doing well to get one hand to a regulation chance by remembering not to shut their eyes as the ball is bowled.

Yes, I heard him say that too; I wasn't sure what he was on about. Ward is a very lightweight commentator along with Butcher but they both seem very nice people. I had to chuckle when one of them was going on and on about the Smith near run out and how some experts at the back of the box spent 48 minutes analysing each frame. My understanding is that if the stumps are broken first without the ball in hand, then doesn't the stump have to be physically pulled out of the ground (or picked up) with the ball in hand? Maybe I'm dreamin' but it was very sloppy work from YJB. Even DK had a comment about his poor technique suggesting he could have saved a fraction of time positioning himself between the stumps and the incoming ball (à la modern white ball style) then Smith would have most certainly been short of the crease.

KC, I'd just about given up at 186/7 at tea. I thought 220-230 would be as good as they could aim for. Correct me if I'm wrong but I would have given the 2nd new ball to Broad and Wood but I understand that if Wood had been toiling with the old ball still (I was half dozing off around that stage) then there might have been some hope that Anderson could find something extra that had been slightly missing earlier in the innings... apart from the wicket ball. I just didn't expect those cameos from Cummins and Murphy to be so fruitful. That sort of woke me up!

The match is perfectly poised going into Day 3. Also agree with you about moving Stokes up to No.3. Part of me would back Brook there but as others have mentioned it's probably best to keep him at 5. Other options might be YJB (to make or break) and I think Woakes would be the most radical option but he might be susceptible to a newer ball if an early wicket falls and generally enjoys batting where he is down the order.

Anyway, the result could go either way at this stage. It's has been another match of extremes and no shortage of controversies. I'm still trying to rewire my brain to take it all in. Now alfie has introduced the snail into the mix. That nearly killed me! Had to turn away and watch China v Haiti for a while. I won't mention the "r" word but even if that happens on Monday I reckon we'll already have a result by Sunday.

At the risk of re-igniting the KC - Soul argument...

I may be wrong but my impression was that although the bail was disturbed by the initial brush of Bairstow's gloves , it was not removed from the stumps. So that is really a red herring - although it may have served to confuse observers , including perhaps the TV umpire ?
The bails were certainly removed when the wicket was broken legally by ball/glove micro-seconds later : the relevant question being whether or not either was completely removed before Smith's bat slid over the line. Personally I thought the (off) bail was ; and the split screen analysis we saw later seemed to confirm this. So I thought it should technically have been given out ; but honestly the margins are so tiny and the difficulty of proving it for a (perhaps not very competent ?) third umpire so intense I am not surprised the batsman got the benefit of any doubt.

Mention of the light-up bails used in the white ball stuff leads to another thought : in this age of technology and third umpire reviews , should that law 29 be re-written ? I understand those bails light up as soon as they are separated from their grooves (we are talking thousandths of a second !) ; before that separation would be visible to the naked eye. So some run outs - maybe like this one - would be judged differently in white ball than Test action...

Whatever . Done is done and I am not too exercised about it . Though I agree with Olly that Menon is not a very good user of the technology !

Assuming no bad weather (can we ?) the match looks set for a result ; although with the pitch getting slower it may be batting won't be quite so difficult over the remaining days ?

One often prefers the side batting third as the other team is supposed to be disadvantaged by facing a deteriorating surface. But that doesn't seem to apply so much these days. So think things are pretty even.

The advantage Australia have is their bowlers haven't done nearly as much work as the England quartet , due to the speed with which the home team bat. and they've already had about four sessions rest from the first innings : which is probably more than England's will get before they take to the field again !

And Murphy hasn't injured his groin. Whatever Duty may think , a fit Moeen would have been a potential asset for a fourth/fifth day defence of a total ; but now spin will be purely in the (quite capable) hands of Root. Just the same , I think whatever they post , England will need something pretty good again from their pace men to get a win here.

Will be interesting to see Australia's tactics from here , with both ball and bat. Style Tortoise has had both good and bad effects during this series (as has Bazball ) ; but will it serve them at the death ? Think we know England won't change methods...

Imagine I will be kept awake again tonight. No complaints as it has been fascinating cricket throughout the series

From Eng's POV if they bat 3 session which is about 80 overs these days ...they would have put the game beyond Aus

From Aus's POV, they need to not let Eng' 3 sophisticated pinch hitters viz. Duckett, Crawley and Brook get away.
If they can control these pinch hitters to combined no more than 75 runs.....then  they would end up with a very manageable chase.

King Carlos - You mentioned Jamie Smith of Surrey. I saw him make a hundred against Middx at Lord's earlier this month. Granted, the Middx attack ain't been setting the Thames on fire, but Smith looked very good.

I also see mention made of Rew of Somerset. For a guy not yet out of his teens his stats are remarkable.

Wonder if the weather is going to play another, unwelcome, part at The Oval this weekend. Vital that England use up as much of this third day as possible, although with the way they bat this seems unlikely.

This is because England, with a bowler short, may be able to take advantage of shorter periods of play while bowling if the forecast of periods of rain for Sunday and Monday is accurate.

Yes, the weather may get involved again. Today should be dry. But Sunday looking like a fair few hours from around 15:00 are threatened with rain, and there's a persistent threat on Monday.

Only need two days of play, at most, to get a result, so things should be fine.

alfie wrote:Whatever Duty may think , a fit Moeen would have been a potential asset for a fourth/fifth day defence of a total ; but now spin will be purely in the (quite capable) hands of Root. Just the same , I think whatever they post , England will need something pretty good again from their pace men to get a win here.

Root's a better spinner than Moeen at present so Moeen's injury is a blessing in disguise. Not sure that Moeen's trademark 1/65 from about 17 overs will be missed, myself.