Cricket

[lharris92]

hanging in the balance at the moment. another quick few wickets and we might have a solid chance.

[kaosmark2]

Even if we bowl them out I expect us to bat carefully today. Only chase the win from lunch tomorrow once the draw looks comfortable. I can't see English conservatism going, particularly when the draw would be good enough to retain the ashes.

[kaosmark2]

Light stopping play is disgraceful, as is the England team asking about that. That's just not cricket

[pink_triangle]

So funny... Apparently if we restrict ourselves to nothing but spin we can carry on that's a silly thing for the umpires to propose Swann would be knackered and isn't a new ball due soon ?

Funniest thing I have ever seen at the cricket

The umpires are playing a game here to take pressure off themselves. Rules state it's their choice if we play or not. Simple as that.

From memory that was how the 2005 ashes ended with us refusing to put the spinners on and effectively ending the match. Surprising how much play they have had today.

[pink_triangle]

.I think Aussies have been silly to have not declared earlier... They need a win and they needed to take a risk. They could of had an hour at England before this all happened.

Thinking about it (may be proved completely wrong tomorrow) I think Australia batted for too long today. I think only 4 or 5 teams have ever chased 330 to win a test match. I think with the cards Australia have been dealt e,g one day of a test they need to win and dodgy weather forecast they needed to gamble a bit more. It is very rare for a team to chase 275 in a test match and that would have given them more time to chase but also put some doubt into the batsmen mind tomorrow whether to go for the draw or win, which could result in mistakes.

Of course its far from impossible that the weather could end up being a lot better tomorrow and our inconsistent batting line up could collapse

[kaosmark2]

England made comments to the umpires about the light before they got the readings out. Gamesmanship.

What's the point of floodlights if they can't make it bright enough to play?

Very gutted about the rain, I was considering going today but not worth gambling on travel with the forecast.

[pink_triangle]

England made comments to the umpires about the light before they got the readings out. Gamesmanship.

What's the point of floodlights if they can't make it bright enough to play?

Very gutted about the rain, I was considering going today but not worth gambling on travel with the forecast.

Gamemanship but Australia would have done exactly the same in that position. Surprised they started so early today, Cooks form is a little worrying, normally mr reliable, I think when he is on form the confidence filters down through the squad. They will be hoping for the rain to return, but in a way i hope it doesnt, a team with our talent should be able to bat 3 sessions against Australia to save a match.

[kaosmark2]

Not saying the Aussies would be any better, but still disappointing.

Cook and Trott fail again, so disappointing. Looks like Aus to win exc. Rain

[pink_triangle]

Not saying the Aussies would be any better, but still disappointing.

Cook and Trott fail again, so disappointing. Looks like Aus to win exc. Rain

I have always thought batting a game out is quite a challenge because players are so focused about not getitng out, they forget their normal game. Its also more difficult to effect the morale of a bowler if your not willing to take them on. They will be hoping to lose some more time for the weather, I have a feeling Australia will be happy to bowl spin later if told that their only option.

Its worrying that after 6 innings only 1 of your 7 batsmen (including keeper) have shown any consistency. The trouble is apart from Bairstow the other have a hint of "undropable" about them.

[kaosmark2]

More awful umpiring, both on-field and 3rd. Disgraceful again and again.

If anyone in the top 5 was ever going to be dropped it would have been Bell after the UAE tour. I don't have a problem with them keeping faith with players, give batsmen time to get themselves back in form, but I don't think they'd ever feel under threat. Who would you drop though? Cook has shown he can and will play himself back into form, and (unfortunately) is captain. Root needs time to gain consistency, form a regular opening partnership with Cook. Trott is the best number 3 we've had in years, KP can change the momentum better than anyone else, Bell is in form and Prior is the keeper.

My big concern is that when our batsmen fail the selectors tend to turn to bresnan to add lower order runs and potentially weaken the bowlibg attack (although he's done fairly well this test), rather than consider changing anything except the no. 6

[TheGayTent]

England made comments to the umpires about the light before they got the readings out. Gamesmanship.

What's the point of floodlights if they can't make it bright enough to play?

Very gutted about the rain, I was considering going today but not worth gambling on travel with the forecast.

"It's just not cricket" is overused. Gamesmanship has always been part of the game particularly in relation to persuading the umpires it's too dark/wet to play etc.

Rules are the rules - I don't think they're right either but the rules regarding artificial light overtaking natural light are quite clear.

On a selfish note - if England lose it'll make my trip to Durham more interesting. That said, I'd be quite happy if it rains in Manchester from now until 6 o'clock.

[TheGayTent]

More awful umpiring, both on-field and 3rd. Disgraceful again and again.

If anyone in the top 5 was ever going to be dropped it would have been Bell after the UAE tour. I don't have a problem with them keeping faith with players, give batsmen time to get themselves back in form, but I don't think they'd ever feel under threat. Who would you drop though? Cook has shown he can and will play himself back into form, and (unfortunately) is captain. Root needs time to gain consistency, form a regular opening partnership with Cook. Trott is the best number 3 we've had in years, KP can change the momentum better than anyone else, Bell is in form and Prior is the keeper.

My big concern is that when our batsmen fail the selectors tend to turn to bresnan to add lower order runs and potentially weaken the bowlibg attack (although he's done fairly well this test), rather than consider changing anything except the no. 6

When you're as good as England are (and they will win this series) and your reserves aren't better than your first team, what's the obsession with not dropping players when they go through short runs of poor form?

Geez you'll be calling for the days of Mickey Stewart, Ted Dexter, or Ray Illingworth soon....*shudders*

[lharris92]

well the snicko showed on skysports clearly showed there was the faintest of edges on that 3rd wicket. tuned in thinking it still wouldn't have started but aussies are clearly on top.

trying to defend has just put us under more pressure...

[TheGayTent]

I agree with your post but I would say one thing we have at the moment is strength in depth. No ones place is safe in the side. The quality knocking on the door is fairly high. Great position for England.

Write down the England XI with an alternative next to each player. You'll soon see where we have strength in depth and where we don't...

It's strong in some areas and seriously weak in others. IMHO anyway.

[kaosmark2]

When you're as good as England are (and they will win this series) and your reserves aren't better than your first team, what's the obsession with not dropping players when they go through short runs of poor form?

Geez you'll be calling for the days of Mickey Stewart, Ted Dexter, or Ray Illingworth soon....*shudders*

I've not got a problem with not dropping players, as I said. The undroppable aura is a different thing though.

We've got plenty of strength in depth in the quicks department, and Monty is still a good spinner, but short elsewhere. Got handy but unremarkable middle order options, few top order batsmen and I'm not convinced about our reserve wickies.

[TheGayTent]

I've not got a problem with not dropping players, as I said. The undroppable aura is a different thing though.

We've got plenty of strength in depth in the quicks department, and Monty is still a good spinner, but short elsewhere. Got handy but unremarkable middle order options, few top order batsmen and I'm not convinced about our reserve wickies.

Then we're in agreement other than I don't think there is an 'undroppable aura'. Everyone is droppable if they go through a prolonged period of poor form. All established proven players get given 2 series and then they're out. Newbies get slightly less possibly depending on strength of opposition, length of the series they're involved in (3, 4, or 5 match for example) and how they fit into the team character wise.

None of the established players have been out of form for long enough - yet anyway, that might change after the oval.

Taylor, Morgan, Compton, Finn, etc have all been dropped recently.

There isn't an 'undroppable aura' IMO.

[lharris92]

Finally seen the Pietersen decision. Awful. Never ever out. Embarrassing the level this is getting too now.

not really, the people who developed the hotspot technology said that thin edges might not get picked up on it as its not 100% accurate. plus the ball hits something as its passing the bat... if hotspot is the problem then remove it from drs and put in snicko instead...

[TheGayTent]

not really, the people who developed the hotspot technology said that thin edges might not get picked up on it as its not 100% accurate. plus the ball hits something as its passing the bat... if hotspot is the problem then remove it from drs and put in snicko instead...

You can't use snicko.

Not unless you want to delay the game by 10 minutes every time there is a review.

[TheGayTent]

Furthermore, given the main reason for requiring hotspot is for thin edges, not being able to pick them up makes the system pretty useless....

Hotspot is fine for spinners, not very good with pace bowling.

I'd get rid of the lot other than possibly replays of run outs, stumpings, and no balls.

[TheGayTent]

Hawkeye for LBW is very useful mostly. See no reason to get rid of it.

It would be if it was used correctly. They need to stop using umpires call - it's ludicrous that the same ball can be given out or not out depending on the original decision and which sides reviews. It's either out or it's not out.

The reason it is used in that way is because hawk eye isn't accurate.

If it isn't accurate it shouldn't be used.

Hotspot doesn't work. If it doesn't work it shouldn't be used.

Both pieces of technology, because they aren't accurate enough, can and do undermine the umpires. Introducing something that undermines the umpires is bad for the game.

In short, other than video replays for no balls, stumpings, and run outs, I don't think we use technology. Not until the technology is accurate anyway.

[lharris92]

i agree with you both that it should be dropped, was just posting what they were saying on skysports/tms. its clearly so unreliable that the players don't trust to use it mainly because they know the umpires will get it wrong.

keep it for lbw's and run outs but thats it - but only after they make it so that its 100% accurate...

tms were rumbling on about the lbw system being discussed by the icc to get rid of "umpires call", and really that should go as if its hitting the wicket, its hitting the wicket there's no reason to say "well < 50% of the ball was hitting it so we will give the benefit of the doubt to the umpire".

[kaosmark2]

Onions recalled to the squad. Surely with his form, Bresnan's unremarkable performances, and the next Test being at his home ground he has to play? If he's going to get any Test games (beyond being rotated in during a dead rubber), then I can't see any more suitable time.

Then we're in agreement other than I don't think there is an 'undroppable aura'. Everyone is droppable if they go through a prolonged period of poor form. All established proven players get given 2 series and then they're out. Newbies get slightly less possibly depending on strength of opposition, length of the series they're involved in (3, 4, or 5 match for example) and how they fit into the team character wise.

None of the established players have been out of form for long enough - yet anyway, that might change after the oval.

Taylor, Morgan, Compton, Finn, etc have all been dropped recently.

There isn't an 'undroppable aura' IMO.

Bell vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Windies, South Africa, India, NZ, NZ. In 7 series he performed three times, and never when the team desperately needed him to. The criticism of him had been mounting over a prolonged period and he was out of form for quite extended periods. He's only got back into any reliable form this series.

I cannot see one of the established batsmen get dropped. The only change I can realistically see happening this year is Bairstow for Taylor or changing the 3rd seamer around. Can you imagine Trott getting dropped for Compton? Or with Bell promoted back to 3 and Taylor brought in?

I'm not saying the faith and consistency is a mistake btw, just that there is little suggestion that the selectors even consider dropping the core 7-8 players (Broad being the borderline), and I think that can lead to elements of complacency.

[kaosmark2]

Re. DRS, if the technology isn't accurate enough to be considered hard evidence, it needs to be scrapped. I think the 3rd umpires' use of all tech has been poor this series, exaggerating DRS' fallibility, but the issue remains. If Hotspot isn't accurate enough, it has to go.

I actually agree with the 'Umpire's call' element for LBW though. It's predictive technology, and DRS is there to stop the howler. Umpire's call decisions are never howlers, whichever way they were made. Hawkeye is accurate, but the movement post-pad is extrapolated from the initial seam/spin after hitting the deck, and it couldn't ever be perfect. I think with LBW decisions it generally changes for the better.

What everyone should remember, is that most of the mistakes of DRS has been failing to overturn a crap initial decision by the on-field umpires, rather than DRS getting it blatantly wrong. The decision would have been crap with or without DRS, it's just highlighted further by the theoretical failsafe being mishandled (by sides and umpires alike).

[TheGayTent]

Onions recalled to the squad. Surely with his form, Bresnan's unremarkable performances, and the next Test being at his home ground he has to play? If he's going to get any Test games (beyond being rotated in during a dead rubber), then I can't see any more suitable time.

Bell vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Windies, South Africa, India, NZ, NZ. In 7 series he performed three times, and never when the team desperately needed him to. The criticism of him had been mounting over a prolonged period and he was out of form for quite extended periods. He's only got back into any reliable form this series.

I cannot see one of the established batsmen get dropped. The only change I can realistically see happening this year is Bairstow for Taylor or changing the 3rd seamer around. Can you imagine Trott getting dropped for Compton? Or with Bell promoted back to 3 and Taylor brought in?

I'm not saying the faith and consistency is a mistake btw, just that there is little suggestion that the selectors even consider dropping the core 7-8 players (Broad being the borderline), and I think that can lead to elements of complacency.

I think you're being overly harsh on Bell. Prior to the series that you mention (over which he averaged 32 which agreed isn't great), he was superb. For example, in the 6 series prior to the Pakistan series at the beginning of 2012, so for the 2 years of 2010 and 2011, Bell scored 3,000 runs and averaged over 85. Astonishing figures. In this series to date he averages 50.

Established players rightly get given longer to regain their form because management know and trust them having seen them prove themselves previously. In addition if there's no one better on the sidelines to replace them, what's the point in dropping them? Over the period of the last few years we've tried Morgan, Taylor, Bopara, Compton etc. None of them have showed themselves to be Bell's equal let alone superior. So why would any sane board of selectors drop him? Bell has over 6,000 test runs at an average of nearly 47 with 19 centuries to his name. That buys you time.

Who would you have dropped him for? Mad decision IMO. Similarly, I can't imagine Trott getting dropped for Compton, and again rightly so! Trott averages 47, Compton averages 32!

Current thinking is if you own the shirt it's yours providing you're not out of form for too long AND there isn't an alternative that can't be ignored. Then if you are dropped, or a player gets injured, if the replacement does the job, he keeps the shirt. Unfortunately other than Root they've not quite been good enough. Bairstow is still in the proving himself stage - if he performs well in the remaining 2 tests, he'll start in Oz. of not, he won't.

Selectors definitely make mistakes, but they have it more right now than they have at any other point in the last 40 years.

[kaosmark2]

I'm not arguing that the decisions are wrong, but there are a lot of players that can't be dropped, largely because, as you say, there's no serious alternatives.