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.

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Can we just not

Is Mo allowed to bat at any stage given off the field all day yesterday

GSC wrote:Can we just not

Is Mo allowed to bat at any stage given off the field all day yesterday

He can bat at whichever comes first out of 120 minutes of England batting or them being 5 wickets down.

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Can we just not

Is Mo allowed to bat at any stage given off the field all day yesterday

He can bat at whichever comes first out of 120 minutes of England batting or them being 5 wickets down.

Could be pretty tight as to which comes first!

king_carlos wrote:

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.

Forgive my legalese here, chaps, but I consider the word ''completely'' to be significant and support Carlos' argument as regards the second bail. If that second bail was still in one groove when Smith slid home, then he was rightly adjudged not out.

I've heard (but not seen) that the MCC confirmed this last night.

As regards the first bail, I appreciate Soul's and Alfie's views (not expressed in these words) that Carlos is trying to have it both ways in that the (first) bail had not been dislodged from both grooves by Bairstow. However, I would still and again side with Carlos as the dislodging of the first bail had been commenced by Bairstow without the ball. In other words, the dislodging of the first bail was not a clean act by Bairstow.

General comment arising - the laws of the game do need to be updated to refect the use of technology in third umpire decisions. More specifically in this type of run out (or stumping) situation, if zing bails are to be used as advocated by Carlos will a bail light up only when it is dislodged from both grooves? I ask as I don't know.

As regards yesterday, this was a further example of poor keeping by Bairstow who I supported being selected in that role if properly recovered and fit befiore the series began. But is he?

The great late (of this forum) Mike Selig would always used to support keepers taking the ball in front of the stumps for tight situations. If Bairstow had done so and not made a hash of that, there would be no question as to Smith's fate.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

sirfredperry wrote: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.

...

As Joey is well aware, I regard Jamie Smith as a huge talent. Natural strokemaker who adapts well to the given situation and bats unselfishly for the team. A good fielder too close in and on the rope. He also keeps - and along with Alex Blake - understudies Foakes in that role although I and other Oval regulars believe it would benefit his batting if he threw away the keeper's gloves. I'll be very surprised if he doesn't go on to become a Test player.

Have hardly seen Rew (just small snippets online) but, as Fred says, his stats are remarkable. One to watch for sure.

JDizzle wrote:

GSC wrote:Can we just not

Is Mo allowed to bat at any stage given off the field all day yesterday

He can bat at whichever comes first out of 120 minutes of England batting or them being 5 wickets down.

So the question, ''Who replaces Mo and bats 3?'' falls away once Crawley and Duckett get us through the morning. Simples.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

Because he never batted at 3 prior to Bazball. Granted, you actually need to watch games to know that.

Duty281 wrote: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.

Good drainage system at the Oval too. Better than Sir Fred's place.

Oval has been lucky at dodging the rain so far in this Test.

KP_fan wrote:

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

Pope's average at three discounting the Ireland game is 38, Moeen's average at three is 20.

Pal Joey wrote:

king_carlos wrote: ...

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. ...

Ha!

Yes, two lightwights without doubt. Even though, yes, Ward, is a pleasant guy - he lives not too far away in one of the nearby villages. Seen him having a drink a couple of times.

Far less keen on Butcher (I think this is one of the few things that KP_f and I agree on). Stood and was elected as a committee member for Surrey - open to all members to stand, not surprising he was elected as he's ''a name'' although some unsuccessful candidates had perhaps more to offer and were certainly more willing. Butcher rarely turned up for a meeting. Nothing like as funny as he thinks he is either.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

Because he never batted at 3 prior to Bazball. Granted, you actually need to watch games to know that.

So please run Pope at 3 in bazball era minus any IRE runs
And Moeen at 3 in Bazball era
And share results

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

Because he never batted at 3 prior to Bazball. Granted, you actually need to watch games to know that.

So please run Pope at 3 in bazball era minus any IRE runs
And Moeen at 3 in Bazball era
And share results

Do you think the results are going to be in Moeen's favour?

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

Moeen is a better batter at No.3 than Pope
Pope's injury is an undisguised blessing to Eng thru which they found a competent left handed batsman for No.3 who btw is also a spinner with 200 wickets and better than any contemporary spinner in the land

Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

Because he never batted at 3 prior to Bazball. Granted, you actually need to watch games to know that.

So please run Pope at 3 in bazball era minus any IRE runs
And Moeen at 3 in Bazball era
And share results

As Soul said, 38 average for Pope at 3 minus Ireland (why minus Ireland?) and 31 average for Moeen at 3 in Bazball era (why only Bazball?). One fifty for Moeen. Two centuries and five fifties for Pope. Pope's SR also better.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
Pope's averaged 45 at 3 since Bazball started, so this is also nonsense.

Why only Bazball era
And how much after discounting Ireland

Because he never batted at 3 prior to Bazball. Granted, you actually need to watch games to know that.

So please run Pope at 3 in bazball era minus any IRE runs
And Moeen at 3 in Bazball era
And share results

As Soul said, 38 average for Pope at 3 minus Ireland (why minus Ireland?) and 31 average for Moeen at 3 in Bazball era (why only Bazball?). One fifty for Moeen. Two centuries and five fifties for Pope. Pope's SR also better.

OK, take away Pope's two centuries and five fifties, and count Moeen's fifty triple, and share results.

Lead wiped out in the first over.

Duty281 wrote:Lead wiped out in the first over.

Bazball sh1te.

I can't decide if the Aussie bowlers look knackered and there's a chance to cash in or if England are going to collapse for 76/5 and we'll be posting the eternal, "it's all on Joe Root then", in hope. This series is exhausting. Cricket is usually my break. I need a break from the break now.

guildfordbat wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

king_carlos wrote: ...

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.  ...

Ha!  

Yes, two lightwights without doubt. Even though, yes, Ward, is a pleasant guy - he lives not too far away in one of the nearby villages. Seen him having a drink a couple of times.

Far less keen on Butcher (I think this is one of the few things that KP_f and I agree on). Stood and was elected as a committee member for Surrey - open to all members to stand, not surprising he was elected as he's ''a name'' although some unsuccessful candidates had perhaps more to offer and were certainly more willing. Butcher rarely turned  up for a meeting. Nothing like as funny as he thinks he is either.

I actually like Wardy in general. In terms of his playing career he's obviously lightweight but generally I want more commentators who aren't purely there due to their former playing skill. Some brilliant players make brilliant commentators of course. Ponting is excellent. Others can be dire though.

I think Ward does quite a good job in that host role. Part of that role is being balanced and sitting on the fence. Given Bairstow's bizarre interview the other day he's likely just trying to toe a line. That particular example just made me burst out laughing though. A bit like when regulation catches get dropped by England at Lords and commentators talk about the slope making it difficult to judge the height. Yet the touring teams seem to not have a problem putting their hands in the same post code as the ball.

I met Butch a few times when I attended the Oval regularly when my dad was working in London, had a flat 2 mins away. I can't say he was the friendliest of blokes. Despite that I would say he's improved as a commentator over time. Given I slag so many pundits off it's only fair if I concede when one shows improvement!

Perfect first hour for England. Not a lot there for Australia, although they did beat the bat a few times towards the end of that hour.

Duckett goes. Did feel as though a wicket was getting closer.

Stokes at 3. Interesting half hour coming up now.

What's this less then 5 runs an over crap?

I think Crawley escaped there

All this talk of Ian Ward, that's another Test cricketer who I am still being treated for PTSD over!

Lead of 118 at lunch. Things going very well. Crawley putting in another good display. Think we are seeing the virtue of how good a batting wicket it is, and England will need a sizable lead, which they're currently on course for.

Australia need an afternoon like England had yesterday.

Duty281 wrote:Perfect first hour for England. Not a lot there for Australia, although they did beat the bat a few times towards the end of that hour.

Bazball sh1te

Duty281 wrote:Lead of 118 at lunch. Things going very well. Crawley putting in another good display. Think we are seeing the virtue of how good a batting wicket it is, and England will need a sizable lead, which they're currently on course for.

Australia need an afternoon like England had yesterday.

Bazball sh1te

Not a whole lot in this wicket. Hazlewood tried to build pressure but wasn't really backed up. Starc still threatening to produce the magic ball.

Duckett did his job to get England up and running, Crawley's played nicely since he was out.

Think we can call that England's session

Good start anyway. Pity Duckett didn't go on : thought that was actually the best he's looked all summer , for all the Lord's runs. Can criticize the bowlers ; but he took them apart.

Crawley continues to prove McCullum knows better than most of us. At least until his next run of outs

Suppose WINVIZ is high on England success over lunch. But we will see what happens as the day goes on . The way this series has gone , nothing ever stays one way for long ...

Over triple the number of runs off the bat compared to yesterdays morning in one less over.

That's the start they needed. Classic Crawley dismissal.

England have a good platform here, but only three wickets away from the tail.

Early breakthrough after lunch then, Stokes dropped on the boundary before Crawley goes

Well of course there was going to be a wicket just as one side looked like getting a way ahead

VTR wrote:Well of course there was going to be a wicket just as one side looked like getting a way ahead

As long as they don't lose a couple quickly England are in a good spot

Terrific position for England but I do have a slight concern about the pitch dying. It's looking very good for batting. Pitches have been doing this later in Tests a bit in England these days. They just flatten out, the bounce get worse but it doesn't turn much and cracks won't open up like in hotter countries. We end up with hoping for some variable up and down bounce from seamera bowling back of a length being the main strike tactic.

Stokes and Root are moving the game along quickly though.

181 lead with only 2 down... This game is England's for the taking

Good spell from Hazlewood, could've accounted for Root and Stokes. But now Murphy/Marsh will have to hold up an end for Starc

The pitch does look incredibly flat, but runs on the board tend to be more valuable than conditions in Test history, and to that end, another 120-150 runs, and England will be feeling very comfortable

50 for Root in a hurry.

Then Stokes out. England ahead in the game but still need to put runs on the board

Bad shot by Stokes

Todd Murphy's ability to get wickets with "hit me" balls is very Moeen-esque. Ponting can talk about drift, but thats a half volley on middle stump.

Anyway, time for what I flicked on for.

Let's go Harry Brook

Brook wasting no time.

Sometimes England are going be on the wrong side of aggression. But England were well on top with plenty of time in the game. Didn't quite need to throw it away

kingraf wrote:Anyway, time for what I flicked on for.

Let's go Harry Brook

Well. Off to bed, then

And Brook out. From being well ahead, Australia have dragged themselves back into the game

Just didn't need that shot from Stokes. There's time to rein in aggression and just milk the situation for all it's worth.

A gift opens an end, then Hazlewood puts in a good'un to take out Brook. Bang, bang. One from the tail.

Duty281 wrote:Just didn't need that shot from Stokes. There's time to rein in aggression and just milk the situation for all it's worth.

A gift opens an end, then Hazlewood puts in a good'un to take out Brook. Bang, bang. One from the tail.

That's a real nothing comment to be honest. England got themselves into a good position by playing aggressively as they have for the past 12 months now, it would be great if we got all upside and no downside but it doesn't work like that.

Bairstow moving on quickly. He needs to put up a score on the board for his pathetic wicketkeeping throughout the series and his casual attitude. Root's playing like Root should. Busy without looking hurried.
As for Stokes, he was building a proper test innings. That ball was there to be smashed. Proper hit-me stuff. Stokes just failed to execute well. So poor execution, not poor shot selection. Brook's was just unnecessary and rash. He wasn't facing a new ball that he's not so good at. The team had a platform but not an impregnable position, and had he stayed on and be a bit more judicious, the game could have been put beyond Australia.