Anyone for cricket?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Mark Waugh is saying that most of the ball must be hitting the stumps for it to be out (under the circumstances of that particular incident) Seems rather cruel to be given out with the double dip anyway.

"Ya dipped, ya had your appeal turned down, ya dipped again"

Australia missed out on an LBW challenge yesterday. A sense of karma.

Broad has been dangerous today where he has previously been ordinary through the series.

Pressure on at 3/59 with clouds overhead. Scoreboard ticking over at nearly 4 an over. What were the Poms doing yesterday.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

Lunch Day 2

England 238

A. Cook 51

J. Trott 49

K. Pietersen 26

N. Lyon 4/42 (20)

J. Bird 2/58 (22)

R. Harris 2/70 (19)

Australia 3/75

C. Rogers 41*

S. Smith 17*

M. Clarke 6

S. Broad 3/23 (7)

G. Swann 0/8 (3)

T. Bresnan 0/13 (3)

Interesting session and Broad was bowling really well while the other bowlers don't look quite as threatening. A bit of luck for Rogers which is nice and both he and Smith are looking reasonable at the crease. 300 has to be our goal now given the early wickets. Clarke's was a very poor shot I must say and poor old Khawaja has posted another poor score and another innings passes without Warner getting to 50...

Lets hope we can have a wicketless session coming up and put some pressure on England.

[Macca 17,034]

Australia missed out on an LBW challenge yesterday. A sense of karma.

Broad has been dangerous today where he has previously been ordinary through the series.

Pressure on at 3/59 with clouds overhead. Scoreboard ticking over at nearly 4 an over. What were the Poms doing yesterday.

Wasn't aware of that but the contentious decisions seemed to have evened out as the series has progressed. DRS will forever remain an issue unless it's foolproof. I'd be just as happy to leave things with the umpires anyway. (with maybe the 3rd umpire stepping in for the 'howler') Not sure that many careers were ruined by a poor umpiring decision. The rub of the green evens things up over time.

Many are saying the technology is here to stay but I can see the ICC ditching it. We know India aren't for it and all will it take is for a couple of Countries to follow suit and we may see the end of it. The biggest flaw is the LBW decision. Just clipping leg stump was generally given not out for decades and now it's often given as out. (and I have some real doubt about the accuracy of 'Hawk-eye')

As for our batting display, as soon as the ball is doing a bit, we look all at sea (although Rogers can tough it out) As much as we need Pup to lead from the front, he's no good to us sitting in the sheds (out) Coming in at 2 for 82 as he did in the 3rd Test is a lot different to coming in at 2 for 12 in this Test or 2 for 19 in the 1st Test.

I understand the need for Clarke to bat at no.4 but he's been so productive at no.5. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul but Paul doesn't always get paid. Clarke's only real weakness is he's vulnerable early in his innings if the ball is moving about. I reckon he's an almost perfect no.5 but he may not bat there again (at least for the foreseeable future)

Rogers and Smith need to put on a decent partnership and all eyes will be on Watson to produce (he needs to) We haven't got the extended batting line-up that we had in the first 3 Tests. Our Tail may not be able to rescue the team this time. We'll need some runs from Haddin as well.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The issue in my view is not the DRS but the way it is used.

And given what the technology has told us about fallibility of the human umpire, heaven help us if a Test or Ashes Series hinges on an obvious howler from an umpire. It's a step backwards.

And in regard to LBWs if the batting side challenge an OUT decision then the ball must miss the stumps for the decision to be reversed (allowing for the pitching in line). If a bowler challenges a NOT OUT then to have the umpires decision reversed the ball must be hit the stumps flush and not just clipping. There have been a number of bowler challenges where the ball under Hawk Eye has been given not out even though it would just clip the stumps. The benefit of doubt has been given.

The real problem has been the catches.

[Macca 17,034]

Hot spot is unreliable.

Snicko isn't used because it's not immediately available.

The LBW decision has 2 separate criteria.

Top order batsmen are using up the reviews to perhaps save their own skin.

Batsmen might be putting 'substances' on their bats to avoid hotspot.

Hawk-eye isn't accurate.

Umpires are possibly 2nd guessing themselves.

The umpires are seemingly being undermined.

Human error surrounds the use of DRS.

It's created far more issues than it is solving.

Ditch it.

[Macca 17,034]

Tough as old boots is Rogers. His powers of concentration are excellent.

Only wish we could get 5 or 6 years out of him (unless he proves all the theories wrong about batting well past the age of 38) Still, if he keeps up this sort of form, he could be able to eke out 25-30 Tests. Credit to him if he does.

He currently has 255 runs at 42.50 in this series. If he were to accumulate 400+ runs for the series then it's been a worthwhile exercise. Like a few others, he didn't perform all that well in the first 2 Tests but he's making up for it now.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

Tea Day 2

England 238

A. Cook 51

J. Trott 49

K. Pietersen 26

N. Lyon 4/42 (20)

J. Bird 2/58 (22)

R. Harris 2/70 (19)

Australia 4/148

C. Rogers 71*

S. Watson 37*

S. Smith 17

S. Broad 3/40 (14)

T. Bresnan 1/37 (10)

G. Swann 0/9 (5)

Tough cricket out there but good to see Rogers and Watson hanging tough. Suprised England didn't bowl Swann at Watson more early? We've got their lead down to under 100 now. If we can be about level with the loss of no more then 7 wickets at stumps then we're looking in a reasonable position.

Fingers crossed Rogers can break his 100 duck and Watson break his trott of scores under 50 after tea!

[MadAsHell 4,215]

Well done Chris Rogers on your maiden test century in extremely testing batting conditions when most have struggled!

Now to make sure you're still there when we reach 300!

[MadAsHell 4,215]

Stumps Day 2 after bad light stops play.

England 238

A. Cook 51

J. Trott 49

K. Pietersen 26

N. Lyon 4/42 (20)

J. Bird 2/58 (22)

R. Harris 2/70 (19)

Australia 5/222

C. Rogers 101*

S. Watson 68

S. Smith 17

S. Broad 4/48 (20)

T. Bresnan 1/60 (16.4)

J. Trott 0/10 (3)

Great innings by Rogers, a traditional test match innings where he let the good balls go and punished the bad ones. Well done to Shane Watson also who batted very well for his 68.

Only 16 behind now and if we can get a lead of up to about 100 on this difficult batting wicket we should be very hard to beat.

Rogers to carry his bat!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Hot spot is unreliable. - that's why there is the benefit of doubt concept

Snicko isn't used because it's not immediately available.- that's not a fault of the DRS but the technology isn't there yet. It soon will be

The LBW decision has 2 separate criteria - and the LBW is being assessed reasonably by both the umpires and DRS

Top order batsmen are using up the reviews to perhaps save their own skin. - What how could they?? They should save them for the tail enders! Each side has 2 calls per innings. They are learning how to use it

Batsmen might be putting 'substances' on their bats to avoid hotspot. - Evidence?? No proof but its made wonderful press so far. And it's a 2 edged sword because if you take away the edge on the bat you open up the bat pad LBW.

Hawk-eye isn't accurate. - the issue is that Hawk eye is more accurate than the umpires split second decisions. Evidence shows that it is.

Umpires are possibly 2nd guessing themselves. - Evidence?? The pressure has been on the umpires even since the slo mo replay was introduced nearly 30 years.

The umpires are seemingly being undermined. - evidence?? Where an umpire gets it wrong then he is accountable. However most DRSs have been turned down. With the exception of Khawaja, the umpires have got it right.

Human error surrounds the use of DRS. - is there human error surrounding pure reliance on umpires ....you betcha

It's created far more issues than it is solving. - that can be solved through the evolving technology (its going to get better and quicker), the adoption of proper processes of review and players becoming smarter in the way they trigger its use.

Ditch it. = let's put our heads back in the sand.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Rhino Richards

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

5/222 is a good result in treacherous batting conditions under cloudy skies where the ball seamed. IMO the hardest day batting in the series.

Chris Rogers was magnificent today. A century on this day is as good if not better than a flat track double in perfect batting conditions.

Great concentration and application. He rode his luck and good on him. It's mystifying why the Australian selectors have continually overlooked him. Rogers is having the last laugh and creating some red faces.

Warner and Khawaja played no where shots to good balls. Smith and Clarke played lazy shots.

Watson may have finally found his spot at 6. Otherwise there is no other spot for him.

Broad was outstanding bowling full and presenting the seam. I am buggered why England have had bowling short.

Anderson and Bresnan were not on line today.

I am puzzled by England selection and captaincy of recent:

1. Not selecting home boy Onions for the Test. He would have been dangerous today.

2. If he has Broad bowling full to seam and the ball is moving why put 2 men out on the hook with no short leg. He needed to attack and create something today.

3. When the wicket was seaming he bowls Swan 25 mins before lunch...why not work the seamers?

4. Their batting approach in their last two innings has been questionable and has been very negative.

5. When the pressure has been on has used the DRS poorly. Lack of judgement.

He may have won the Ashes series here, but Cook has not impressed me at all. Lacks flair, conviction and judgement. His lack of leadership is infecting the other players approach.

Maybe those that were so vociferous in their condemnation of Clarke will have some insights on LEADERSHIP.

[Nasher 33,617]

Many are saying the technology is here to stay but I can see the ICC ditching it. We know India aren't for it and all will it take is for a couple of Countries to follow suit and we may see the end of it. The biggest flaw is the LBW decision. Just clipping leg stump was generally given not out for decades and now it's often given as out. (and I have some real doubt about the accuracy of 'Hawk-eye')

What about the idea of not using it for the line/impact elements of LBW? I.e. the pitching, bounce, impact part of the LBW are just always set to "umpire's call", and the DRS can only be used to determine if the batsman hit it or not. I think this would solve the problem of the players overusing it (i.e. batsman like Cook and Watson seemingly believing that they are immune to getting out LBW), and it takes away the annoyance of LBW decisions being reversed all the time when it's a marginal call.

LBW is the only way to get out in the game where the decision is not black and white, i.e. requires judgement from the umpire, so my view is to leave that judgement with the umpire. For everything else (caught, bowled, stumped, run out, the "I hit it" aspect of LBW), it's clear cut: you hit it or you didn't, you were over the line or you weren't etc; the DRS should be able to manage that quite sufficiently without creating the problematic grey areas we are currently seeing in LBW decisions.

[Macca 17,034]

The game has worked fine for over 100 years without DRS - not perfect but nothing is. Embracing new technologies is fine as long as those new technologies improve things. For instance, the inventor of hotspot technology has admitted that it's not foolproof. We've seen at least 5 or 6 instances in the first 3 Tests where a batsman has been given out caught behind the wicket when the hotspot hasn't shown up an edge. That's just far too many.

The ICC won't contribute to the new technology and the quality of the technology varies according to the host broadcaster. There are just too many issues surrounding it and it's all over the place. However, it's more than likely here to stay so those opposed to it will have to learn to live with it. Get set for more controversy though - any flawed system is going to create debate.

What about the idea of not using it for the line/impact elements of LBW? I.e. the pitching, bounce, impact part of the LBW are just always set to "umpire's call", and the DRS can only be used to determine if the batsman hit it or not. I think this would solve the problem of the players overusing it (i.e. batsman like Cook and Watson seemingly believing that they are immune to getting out LBW), and it takes away the annoyance of LBW decisions being reversed all the time when it's a marginal call.

LBW is the only way to get out in the game where the decision is not black and white, i.e. requires judgement from the umpire, so my view is to leave that judgement with the umpire. For everything else (caught, bowled, stumped, run out, the "I hit it" aspect of LBW), it's clear cut: you hit it or you didn't, you were over the line or you weren't etc; the DRS should be able to manage that quite sufficiently without creating the problematic grey areas we are currently seeing in LBW decisions.

Nasher, here's my take on the LBW interpretation but your idea is a very good one ... they could at least improve the interpretation of the LBW decision. At the moment the same incident can give 2 different outcomes. Clipping the stumps (less than half the ball hitting the stumps) can be either out or not out depending on whether the original decision (by the umpire) was given out or not out. To eliminate confusion and controversy, they could bring in a rule where most of the ball has to be hitting the stumps (regardless of the umpires original decision) for an LBW appeal to be upheld. That then at least becomes a hard and fast rule - the original decision by the umpire is either confirmed by 'Hawk-eye' or denied.

Was always prepared to give DRS a go and I'm not against new technology as a general rule but if it does stay, they have to tighten up a few areas of it. (like the LBW interpretation and having consistent technology from host broadcaster to host broadcaster) My gut feeling is that DRS is here to stay but I believe we could live without it. Did we miss it during the Indian series in India?

[jazza 1,323]

Well done Chris Rogers on your maiden test century in extremely testing batting conditions when most have struggled!

Now to make sure you're still there when we reach 300!

true. was a memorable century

this pitch looks tailor made for the unorthodox slog batsmen. so prior , haddin and hopefully siddle

sids hasn't made much with the bat so could be due for a edgey 35

Australia 4/99 and camera pans the crown to find a demon jumper, lucky bugger. probably doesn't know the gc score and doesn't care

interesting page 95 herald sun yesterday. im still deciphering it, to make sure I understand the articles content properly

[Macca 17,034]

Stumps Day 2 after bad light stops play.

England 238

A. Cook 51

J. Trott 49

K. Pietersen 26

N. Lyon 4/42 (20)

J. Bird 2/58 (22)

R. Harris 2/70 (19)

Australia 5/222

C. Rogers 101*

S. Watson 68

S. Smith 17

S. Broad 4/48 (20)

T. Bresnan 1/60 (16.4)

J. Trott 0/10 (3)

Great innings by Rogers, a traditional test match innings where he let the good balls go and punished the bad ones. Well done to Shane Watson also who batted very well for his 68.

Only 16 behind now and if we can get a lead of up to about 100 on this difficult batting wicket we should be very hard to beat.

Rogers to carry his bat!

Yes, both players batted very sensibly against some good tight bowling. Reckon Rogers has nailed down the openers spot for the foreseeable future and Watson's innings was a step in the right direction for him. Questions still remain elsewhere but there's a maximum of 3 more innings for Warner, Smith and Khawaja to cement their spots.

If we can establish a reasonable lead (60-80+) we can win this Test match. Batting last on this track won't be easy though and chasing anything above 220 would most probably be quite difficult.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The game has worked fine for over 100 years without DRS - not perfect but nothing is. Embracing new technologies is fine as long as those new technologies improve things. For instance, the inventor of hotspot technology has admitted that it's not foolproof. We've seen at least 5 or 6 instances in the first 3 Tests where a batsman has been given out caught behind the wicket when the hotspot hasn't shown up an edge. That's just far too many.

The ICC won't contribute to the new technology and the quality of the technology varies according to the host broadcaster. There are just too many issues surrounding it and it's all over the place. However, it's more than likely here to stay so those opposed to it will have to learn to live with it. Get set for more controversy though - any flawed system is going to create debate.

Nasher, here's my take on the LBW interpretation but your idea is a very good one ... they could at least improve the interpretation of the LBW decision. At the moment the same incident can give 2 different outcomes. Clipping the stumps (less than half the ball hitting the stumps) can be either out or not out depending on whether the original decision (by the umpire) was given out or not out. To eliminate confusion and controversy, they could bring in a rule where most of the ball has to be hitting the stumps (regardless of the umpires original decision) for an LBW appeal to be upheld. That then at least becomes a hard and fast rule - the original decision by the umpire is either confirmed by 'Hawk-eye' or denied.

Was always prepared to give DRS a go and I'm not against new technology as a general rule but if it does stay, they have to tighten up a few areas of it. (like the LBW interpretation and having consistent technology from host broadcaster to host broadcaster) My gut feeling is that DRS is here to stay but I believe we could live without it. Did we miss it during the Indian series in India?

I am not sure which universe you have been in if you have thought things were fine.

For over 40 years the integrity and competence of the umpiring has been an issue. In the 1st Test of the 70/71 Ashes when Australian opener Keith Stackpole (given not out) was shown in a front page picture to be a metre short of crease when chasing a run, umpires have been under public review.

And with TV bringing cricket into loungerooms with the unstoppable march of sport TV technology, the decisions of umpires have come under greater scrutiny.

And in the past 10 years even more so and umpires have at times come up alarmingly short. As the technology has improved so has the scrutiny increased and umpiring found wanting.

The ICC should be congratulated for seek to utliise the technology rather than be a bunch of luddites.\

Its early days and the process of using the technology needs refinement from the administrators the umpires and the players.

But the technology will continue to improve and this will be to the games benefit.

A number of sports had an adjustment period for introducing technology witth the current position that the game is better for it. Tennis for example has been plagued with erroneous and at times incompetent line calls. Not anymore.

And setting the standard for the DRS as "perfect" is ridiculous given the previous systems it was meant to enhance was riddled with perennial flaws and inconsistencies.

It will never be perfect. But already we are seeing the benefit of the DRS .

Every decision given by the umpires that is overturned by the DRS is a better result for the game. There have been a number of overturned decisions which highlights why the DRS was brought in.

And India is hardly a bellwether of good judgement. They have snubbed the DRS and its notable that they have had the bad rub of the green on umpiring errors that would have been corrected had they had DRS. Appropriate karma.

And I am sure the BCCI would totally back the DRS if their Board members had their snouts in the profits from bringing in successful technology

Its not the ICC's function to be a software technology house. The ICC is battling on a number of fronts to properly run the game of cricket.

But while cricket surives on TV and technology we just cant turn our backs on the use of it.

We need to learn to work with it and adapt to the ever changing technology that is available.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

9/258 and 20 in front.

Disappointing we could bat until lunch.

Great catch by Prior to dismiss a top knock by Rogers.

Showcases the value of DRS. Corrects another flawed umpiring decision.

[Macca 17,034]

The references to DRS on this thread are clearly about the decisions not pertaining to run-outs, stumpings and no-balls. Line decisions has been around for a long time and with regards to that, most people were and are in favour of using such technology for those sort of decisions.

But the rest of it is open to debate. My view on DRS is that it's most probably here to stay but because it has too many flaws right now, I'm not in favour of it. DRS may have to be accepted but that doesn't mean people have to like it.

It's not necessarily a matter of whether we should have it or not - I doubt that it will be shelved. It's about whether one embraces it or not. If the technology improves to a point where it's close to foolproof, it will be embraced. But right now it's flawed - especially hotspot, Hawk-eye and the LBW interpretation. Hotspot wasn't picking up a number of fine edges in the first 3 Tests but a number of batsmen were still given their marching orders. Hotspot seems to be working better in this Test but there lies the inconsistently.

... ICC must pay up to improve technology, says Marsh

''It's got to invest in this (the ICC), if they're serious about taking this controversy out of the game,'' Marsh said. ''They've relied too long on the broadcaster for this technology. In my view, Channel Nine's coverage is the benchmark.

''DRS in many respects is going to live or die by the quality of the technology,'' Marsh said. ''This is a problem in the world game at the moment. You've got such varying quality of production around the world. Unless the technology is spot-on you will have issues with it, and I think that's one of the issues in this series - that Sky's production and camera work isn't as good as it should be.

... Hot Spot inventor wants protective coating removed from the edge of cricket bats

“BBG Sports believes that in order to achieve optimum Hot Spot results then the removal of protective coating from bat edges needs to occur. “This will allow for the best thermal signatures between cricket balls and natural timber cricket bats.”

Almost all players use coatings to protect modern soft pressed bats that can easily break up.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It's too late to talk about embracing the technology. It's here and we have to work with it.

My comment about run outs 40 years ago was to highlight that the pre DRS world for umpiring was not fine. It was hardly a connect of run outs to the DRS.

As I said for the ICC to become a software developer would need a massive change in its modus operandi. It's an ambitious step for such a dysfunctional ruling body.

After 15 overs in the Australian innings the umpires made 3 incorrect decisions that either were or could have been corrected by DRS. And you are worried about it being flawed!!!!

You may not like it but tossing up grab bag strawman arguments does little to suggest we get rid of it or diminish its future.

[titan_uranus 25,044]

An observation about umpiring/DRS:

Three umpiring errors were made this morning in our innings (Rogers paid not out, Lyon paid out, Harris paid not out). The use of the DRS ensured that the correct decision was made on two of them, whilst if Lyon had chosen to review, the third error would have been corrected as well.

When the DRS is used correctly, it works. The problem has generally been incorrect use by the third umpire and by the players. There are flaws which need to be addressed (Hot Spot's reliability, getting real-time Snicko, ensuring the third umpire knows exactly what he's doing), but the DRS is helping reduce the number of incorrect decisions.

[Macca 17,034]

Have we ever seen a series where the umpires have made so many poor decisions? I don't believe there has been any bias against Australia either. England have been on the wrong end of just as many poor decisions (for instance, I believe Agar was stumped when on 6 in the 1st innings of the 1st Test)

We had the technology for a long time before DRS was fully embraced and it's hard to remember the umpires making so many obvious errors in a series (The Sydney Test against India in 2008 stands out as a poor one by the umpires) Is it just a coincidence or are the umpires losing a bit of confidence? Tony Hill looks a confused man out there.

If DRS is to stay (and it probably will) we will still need the umpires to be primarily making the correct decisions. Otherwise, confidence from the players could diminish and we may end up with batsmen testing the technology in an unnecessary way.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Macca

[titan_uranus 25,044]

Harris is having a massive one. Top 3 all gone, keeping us in the hunt. Pietersen and Bell could change this Test, if we can remove one or both of them cheaply we might just be in with a sniff.

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

Just because seat belts haven't reduced the road toll to zero doesn't mean that they don't work.

It's the same with DRS.

[Macca 17,034]

Need to break this partnership ... Harris is still bowling very well and looks the most likely. Like to see Lyon on again - he's bowled 5 overs and only conceding 7 runs. He may just be the one to tempt KP into a false shot.

It's been a very good Test match with a pitch that gives a bit to the seamers. England lead by 97 with 7 wickets in hand. They might be marginally ahead but a wicket now can change things.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Have we ever seen a series where the umpires have made so many poor decisions? I don't believe there has been any bias against Australia either. England have been on the wrong end of just as many poor decisions (for instance, I believe Agar was stumped when on 6 in the 1st innings of the 1st Test)

We had the technology for a long time before DRS was fully embraced and it's hard to remember the umpires making so many obvious errors in a series (The Sydney Test against India in 2008 stands out as a poor one by the umpires) Is it just a coincidence or are the umpires losing a bit of confidence? Tony Hill looks a confused man out there.

If DRS is to stay (and it probably will) we will still need the umpires to be primarily making the correct decisions. Otherwise, confidence from the players could diminish and we may end up with batsmen testing the technology in an unnecessary way.

Yes. There have been many. Any sub continent series prior to neutral umpires. Another example is India in Australia in 2008. Steve Bucknor had a horror series and a number of bad calls. There was no DRS. The Indians stooped to character assassination in the media. It was a contributing issue into the real threat that they abandon a tour.

The technoology is better now than 5 years ago and the results are showing the true extent of the problems we have always known were there but did no know the extent. Tony Hill has had a shocking series and he should not be on the Test umpires panel. His decision on Ryan Harris was an absolute howler.

Over the past 40 years we have seen the confidence of the players in the umpires to get it correct fall...and with good reason. DRS and technology is now a part of cricket. We need to use it smartly not ditch it because we don't just like it.