Anyone for cricket?

[45HG 1,539]

A poor decision for sure, but it shouldn't be forgotten the reason we couldn't challenge it.

The referral of the LB earlier in the day was absolutely shocking and completely wasted our last review. Costly. While Pattinson should've known better, I place the blame pretty squarely with Haddin. He should've known the ball was passing leg by a mile and said as much immediately. Could cost us dearly, if it hasn't already.

[Nasher 33,607]

A poor decision for sure, but it shouldn't be forgotten the reason we couldn't challenge it.

The referral of the LB earlier in the day was absolutely shocking and completely wasted our last review. Costly. While Pattinson should've known better, I place the blame pretty squarely with Haddin. He should've known the ball was passing leg by a mile and said as much immediately. Could cost us dearly, if it hasn't already.

Exactly. The whole purpose of the review is to eliminate clear errors. Even if we pretend for a moment that the LBW decision was line ball - if teams are choosing to roll the dice and use reviews on line ball decisions in the off chance they might get overturned and aren't successful, then they have no right to complain when there are no reviews left to use on the genuine mistake.

[dee-luded 2,959]

That was the worst decision I have ever seen by an umpire.

Broad hit the cover off that ball and how Aleem Dar gave that not out is beyond me??? Cost Agar his 3rd.

Come on Aussies, wrap these last 4 wickets up for about 40 and we're still right in this!

I just saw it on replay, that miss should cost Aleem Dar his career.

it brings the question of umpires into the spotlight, for all the wrong reasons.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Like your optimism TD.

Probably looking at it with green and gold goggles on but the wicket seems to be getting better for batting, and while there is swing there, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as it has been in other tests as back in 2005 & 2009. It is a dry wicket so I reckon Swann will be more of a danger then the other quicks.

Records are there to be broken, and although the record chase at Trent Bridge is only 284, the record chase of all time is 418, so much bigger scores have been chased down elsewhere. Get a few batsmen to stand up and anything can happen.

A poor decision for sure, but it shouldn't be forgotten the reason we couldn't challenge it.

The referral of the LB earlier in the day was absolutely shocking and completely wasted our last review. Costly. While Pattinson should've known better, I place the blame pretty squarely with Haddin. He should've known the ball was passing leg by a mile and said as much immediately. Could cost us dearly, if it hasn't already.

Bang on there 45HG, in his first test back for the reasons of the leadership he brings I've been far from impressed with Haddin. His keeping's been par, got out in the same manner as always, playing far to hard to early. Who tries to cut a spinner off the stumps 2nd ball in when you're 5 down for just ove 100??? And then as you said, Haddin of all people should have known that ball was missing the stumps. Has cost us big time, Wade could have made 1 and given poor feeback as to whether that ball would have hit the stumps or not...

[dee-luded 2,959]

Probably looking at it with green and gold goggles on but the wicket seems to be getting better for batting, and while there is swing there, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as it has been in other tests as back in 2005 & 2009. It is a dry wicket so I reckon Swann will be more of a danger then the other quicks.

Records are there to be broken, and although the record chase at Trent Bridge is only 284, the record chase of all time is 418, so much bigger scores have been chased down elsewhere. Get a few batsmen to stand up and anything can happen.

Yesterday early, it seemed the ball was holding up, coming thru slowly? but I guess the wicket got better, as they scored more heavily as the day went on?

lets hope we can remove them quickly, while the wicket may still be playing well.

[Macca 16,900]

Just on the Broad 'non dismissal', one thing that can be almost guaranteed, it could easily happen again. Maybe not in this Test match, but almost certainly at some stage during the series. Unless both teams get together and decide on an agreed way of accepting similar decisions, we could end up in bit of a payback type situation.

It would be better for all concerned if the series isn't marred with similar incidents. We don't want to see batsmen standing their ground when they're obviously out (during the whole series)

Maybe the stumping decision (when Agar was given not out) has triggered this latest unsavoury moment. I thought that Agar should have been given the benefit of the doubt and would have felt the same way if it was an England batsman.

For those who haven't seen the incident, here it is in this story

[Axis of Bob 11,603]

I think that Vaughan is correct. Broad made a decision in the heat of the moment that he valued his wicket more than he valued a lifetime of being branded a cheat.

Mind you, I suppose he already will be branded a cheat for his ball tampering exploits in South Africa and being a general tool. Not a good reputation he already has for one so young.

[Macca 16,900]

From Wikipedia ... Australia vs India 2nd Test at Sydney 2007/08

The very next ball Kumble claimed Clarke for a golden duck. Clarke stood his ground as he was caught at slip off the glove, and only walked after the umpire had given him out.

From Cricinfo ... Australia vs India 2nd Test at Sydney 2007/08

Kumble to Clarke, OUT, and he's gone first ball! Clarke goes back to a googly and tries to cut first up, he gets a thick outside edge which flies straight to Dravid at first slip, he took the catch comfortably but Clarke waited for a long time before deciding to walk back, Kumble isn't pleased about it

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Lunch on Day 4

England 1st Innings 215

J. Trott 48

P. Siddle 5/50 (14)

Australia 1st Innings 280

A. Agar 98

J. Anderson 5/85 (24)

England 2nd Innings 375

I. Bell 109

M. Starc 3/81 (32)

Australia 2nd Innings 0/28 (Target 311)

S. Watson 18*

S. Braod 0/10 (3)

First of all, well done Ian Bell on a great innings and for putting England in a winning position. For Australia I guess it's a case of opportunities lost, partially of their own doing as much as out of their control. When you consider the Broad incident when he was on 37 (went on to make 65) and Bell dropped by Haddin on 77 (went on to make 109). That's 60 extra runs they made. Take Englands total down to 315, we only have to chase 251 and it's probably even money compared to England now being in the better position.

First goal was achieved, Rogers & Watson getting through that 35 min session till lunch. With any luck we'll be about 200 at stumps with hopefully no more then 4 wickets lost tops. Would set the final day up for an interesting finale.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Just on the Broad 'non dismissal', one thing that can be almost guaranteed, it could easily happen again. Maybe not in this Test match, but almost certainly at some stage during the series. Unless both teams get together and decide on an agreed way of accepting similar decisions, we could end up in bit of a payback type situation.

It would be better for all concerned if the series isn't marred with similar incidents. We don't want to see batsmen standing their ground when they're obviously out (during the whole series)

Maybe the stumping decision (when Agar was given not out) has triggered this latest unsavoury moment. I thought that Agar should have been given the benefit of the doubt and would have felt the same way if it was an England batsman.

For those who haven't seen the incident, here it is in this story

You might be right Macca about the Agar stumping contributing to Broad standing his ground, add in the Trott LBW also.

The only difference is that both the Agar and Trott incidents were looked at by the 3rd umpire when what had taken place wasn't 100% clear to the on field umpires or players, where as in the Broad incident I think Aleem was the only person in the stadium that didn't think Broad hit it.

I reckon that if Gilchrist can walk in a World Cup semi final, then Broad should walk in the first test of a 5 test series. But you're right to teams should come together and come to an agreement, otherwise things could get ugly with another 9 tests to come between these teams.

[Macca 16,900]

Lunch on Day 4

England 1st Innings 215

J. Trott 48

P. Siddle 5/50 (14)

Australia 1st Innings 280

A. Agar 98

J. Anderson 5/85 (24)

England 2nd Innings 375

I. Bell 109

M. Starc 3/81 (32)

Australia 2nd Innings 0/28 (Target 311)

S. Watson 18*

S. Braod 0/10 (3)

First of all, well done Ian Bell on a great innings and for putting England in a winning position. For Australia I guess it's a case of opportunities lost, partially of their own doing as much as out of their control. When you consider the Broad incident when he was on 37 (went on to make 65) and Bell dropped by Haddin on 77 (went on to make 109). That's 60 extra runs they made. Take Englands total down to 315, we only have to chase 251 and it's probably even money compared to England now being in the better position.

First goal was achieved, Rogers & Watson getting through that 35 min session till lunch. With any luck we'll be about 200 at stumps with hopefully no more then 4 wickets lost tops. Would set the final day up for an interesting finale.

For some reason I've been thinking that we'll win this Test by 2 wickets. No idea why, just a thought that I've had for a few days that won't go away. Now wouldn't that be a grandstand finish TD?

England would have to be favourites though and I expect Swann to get amongst them. Our batsmen might try and hit him around a bit. Sitting on him could play into his hands. He's the danger man.

Go Aussies!

[MadAsHell 4,212]

For some reason I've been thinking that we'll win this Test by 2 wickets. No idea why, just a thought that I've had for a few days that won't go away. Now wouldn't that be a grandstand finish TD?

England would have to be favourites though and I expect Swann to get amongst them. Our batsmen might try and hit him around a bit. Sitting on him could play into his hands. He's the danger man.

Go Aussies!

I'd take that any day of the week Macca. Agar to hit the winning runs maybe???

[Macca 16,900]

You might be right Macca about the Agar stumping contributing to Broad standing his ground, add in the Trott LBW also.

The only difference is that both the Agar and Trott incidents were looked at by the 3rd umpire when what had taken place wasn't 100% clear to the on field umpires or players, where as in the Broad incident I think Aleem was the only person in the stadium that didn't think Broad hit it.

I reckon that if Gilchrist can walk in a World Cup semi final, then Broad should walk in the first test of a 5 test series. But you're right to teams should come together and come to an agreement, otherwise things could get ugly with another 9 tests to come between these teams.

DRS needs to be looked at. Think it was Ian Chappell who said that all referrals should be up to the 3rd umpire only. Take it away from the Captains/Teams. I tend to agree with him.

All it would take is for the 3rd umpire to step in when appropriate. In those circumstances, it would be difficult for the 'howler' to not be noticed. Fair for both sides. I could live without DRS as well. We didn't have it in India and to be honest, I didn't miss it.

In this match, Rogers and Bell (it might have been Trott) were both hit on the pads in identical circumstances (ball was just clipping leg stump) Because Rogers was initially given out he had to go but because Bell was initially given not out - he stayed. That part of DRS is flawed.

Either do it properly and thoroughly or don't do it. Or maybe just keep it for no balls, run-outs and stumpings.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

50 run opening partnership, that's what we like to see!

Lets get it to a 100 run partnership, get the chase down to under 200 required and see if we can start to put the pressure back on the Poms!

[MadAsHell 4,212]

DRS needs to be looked at. Think it was Ian Chappell who said that all referrals should be up to the 3rd umpire only. Take it away from the Captains/Teams. I tend to agree with him.

All it would take is for the 3rd umpire to step in when appropriate. In those circumstances, it would be difficult for the 'howler' to not be noticed. Fair for both sides. I could live without DRS as well. We didn't have it in India and to be honest, I didn't miss it.

In this match, Rogers and Bell (it might have been Trott) were both hit on the pads in identical circumstances (ball was just clipping leg stump) Because Rogers was initially given out he had to go but because Bell was initially given not out - he stayed. That part of DRS is flawed.

Either do it properly and thoroughly or don't do it. Or maybe just keep it for no balls, run-outs and stumpings.

And it strikes again! That would have clipped leg stump by the faintest of margins and Watto's out!

We've had no luck these last two days.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Cowan looks about as steady as a rope and log riggidy bridge! Good idea going down the wicket and talking with him Rogers...

[Macca 16,900]

And it strikes again! That would have clipped leg stump by the faintest of margins and Watto's out!

We've had no luck these last two days.

To be fair, it did look very close 'live'. It's just the inconsistency of the decision that's annoying. If the umpire had given it not out then that's how the decision would have stayed (if it was reviewed) It doesn't seem right to me.

Rogers not out! If we had run out of reviews he would have had to go. Flawed system. And very confusing to those who don't follow the sport closely.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

To be fair, it did look very close 'live'. It's just the inconsistency of the decision that's annoying. If the umpire had given it not out then that's how the decision would have stayed (if it was reviewed) It doesn't seem right to me.

Rogers not out! If we had run out of reviews he would have had to go. Flawed system. And very confusing to those who don't follow the sport closely.

I agree with that Macca.

I get the impression with the fact Watson reviewed straight away and the way he held his bat up while walking off that he reckons he hit it. When you consider the Trott incident also it makes you wonder how reliable hot spot is?

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Tea on Day 4

England 1st Innings 215

J. Trott 48

P. Siddle 5/50 (14)

Australia 1st Innings 280

A. Agar 98

J. Anderson 5/85 (24)

England 2nd Innings 375

I. Bell 109

M. Starc 3/81 (32)

Australia 2nd Innings 2/111 (Target 311)

C. Rogers 50*

J. Root 1/5 (1.4)

Well done Chris Rogers, maiden test 50 and he looks solid as. Think we've got Watson's opening partner for the next 9 tests.

And Ed Cowan, last over before tea getting sucked in by the part time off spinner Root and playing a loose drive and out for 14. He'll need some runs at Lords or I have no doubt he'll make way for whichever of Warner or Khawaja plays the best in their matches before the 3rd test (Warner Aust A in RSA and Khawaja tour match after 2nd test).

200 to win, 8 wickets in hand. Line ball for mine. Crucial final session coming up,

[Macca 16,900]

I agree with that Macca.

I get the impression with the fact Watson reviewed straight away and the way he held his bat up while walking off that he reckons he hit it. When you consider the Trott incident also it makes you wonder how reliable hot spot is?

If hot spot is unreliable, it should be ditched. You can't have a system that 'might' work. Blokes careers are on the line here and it's the pinnacle of Test cricket - Ashes cricket.

Cowan gone - right on the tea break. Ball was right up there. Could have been a bit more circumspect I suppose but that's the pressure of a 4th innings chase.

Agree with you TD. Evenly poised. It's about partnerships now. Batting in 5 over blocks. We need each new batsman to contribute in some way - even if it's only 15-25 runs.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Rogers out for 52 hurts. The ball seemed to hold up a bit off the pitch.

Captain Clarke needs to stand up now and get good support from the likes of Smith, Hughes and Haddin.

Captains century will hopefully get us over the line.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

We haven't been able to buy the slightest bit of luck since Day 2.

Haddin needs to stand up and he & Agar need to bat out these last 9 overs until stumps.

I'm also going to loose it with DRS. I thought if only half the ball pitched in line then it was umpires call. So how was the not out LBW decision on Hughes over turned?

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Stumps on Day 4

England 1st Innings 215

J. Trott 48

P. Siddle 5/50 (14)

Australia 1st Innings 280

A. Agar 98

J. Anderson 5/85 (24)

England 2nd Innings 375

I. Bell 109

M. Starc 3/81 (32)

Australia 2nd Innings 6/174 (Target 311)

C. Rogers 52

S. Broad 2/34 (16)

Well after being 3/161, finishing at 6/174 is disapointing but at least we're still in the match. Haddin & Agar need to make a large portion of the remaining 137 and with only 9 overs till the new ball they need to make sure they bat for probably at least the first 1.5 hours tomorrow so none of the new tail come in against a new ball.

Smart money's on England but I reckon Macca's prediction of us winning by 2 wickets could be close. We should know by around 1am tomorrow what the outcome is.

[Macca 16,900]

Stumps on Day 4

England 1st Innings 215

J. Trott 48

P. Siddle 5/50 (14)

Australia 1st Innings 280

A. Agar 98

J. Anderson 5/85 (24)

England 2nd Innings 375

I. Bell 109

M. Starc 3/81 (32)

Australia 2nd Innings 6/174 (Target 311)

C. Rogers 52

S. Broad 2/34 (16)

Well after being 3/161, finishing at 6/174 is disapointing but at least we're still in the match. Haddin & Agar need to make a large portion of the remaining 137 and with only 9 overs till the new ball they need to make sure they bat for probably at least the first 1.5 hours tomorrow so none of the new tail come in against a new ball.

Smart money's on England but I reckon Macca's prediction of us winning by 2 wickets could be close. We should know by around 1am tomorrow what the outcome is.

Did I mention that I occasionally have bouts of supremely optimistic thoughts there, TD?

We are fighting really hard, but England bowled very well to us yesterday and if they keep that up, it's going to be tough. The wicket is occasionally keeping low and Swann is a real handful (the ball that dismissed Hughes was a case in point)

It's really hard to counter attack as well. There just hasn't been the deliveries to hit. Cook's field placements have been spot on and he has used his bowlers intelligently.

We need to get through the 1st hour unscathed. The new ball is due in 9 overs and it will be interesting to see if England take it straight away. If they do, that's when we might be able to get a few boundaries.

Still holding out hope but losing those 3 wickets at 160 odd was telling. All our tailenders can bat a bit and they're all going to have to contribute in some way.

[Nasher 33,607]

Agar's good for another 97 or so you'd think