Macca

The great man has done it again in the World Championships in Moscow ... scroll down for the race but how about this for a photo as he crossed the line ...

It's a big ask but it would be a great victory if we can chase this score down. I suppose if Rogers plays the sheet anchor then that is one part of the equation ticked off. Khawaja needs to bat some good time as well. Warner, Clarke, Smith and Watson to be the aggressors? They've got the bowling for this sort of wicket though. We'll need a slice of luck.

England leading by 202 runs with 5 wickets in hand gives them an advantage if they can convert that to an overall lead of 275+. Anything can happen though and we just need to get 1 wicket to possibly trigger a collapse. Ideally we can remove Bell fairly quickly as he could guide England to a good total. 3rd ton in this series for him now and he's certainly batted very well. In other news ... Shane Watson struggling again as injury likely to rule all-rounder out of final Test at The Oval

Lets agree to disagree. Time will tell whether this whole DRS system works or not. If it does work long term, well and good. Right now, it comes down to a matter of opinion. We'll know DRS is working when it's talked about without any reasonable degree of controversy. Thanks jazza, but you're way too kind. At the end of the day, it's all just about opinions. And you know what they say about opinions!

From cricinfo on the Pietersen dismissal in the 2nd innings of the 3rd Test ... Did KP nick it? Without DRS he may well have walked off the ground and accepted the umpires decision without showing any dissent. Then again he might have shown dissent ... we'll never know. Most neutral observers might form an opinion either way but under the old system, the 'rub of the green' comes into play. Now, because of the use of DRS and the unreliability of 'hotspot' we're even further confused. If we 'trust' hotspot then KP shouldn't be out and if we don't trust hotspot we're left scratching our heads. We've now got a situation were we are most probably stuck with the new technology but it needs a lot of work. Not sure they can fix everything anyway and at some stage, we're going to have an almost identical incident to the one involving KP. For what it's worth, I believe that Pietersen nicked the ball and I believe he knew he hit it. Other batsmen in this series have done the same thing so he's not on his own there. Reckon he was testing the technology and if you allow batsmen to review decisions, they'll always be tempted to review those decisions. Unnecessary reviews can happen because of all sorts of situations. What if a batsman is just plain selfish or is battling to save his career? What if the team requires him to review a decision he may have ordinarily walked on? (think Gilchrist) At the very least the reviews should be taken away from the players. Just let the 3rd umpire review everything. It will slow the game down appreciably but at least it will help eliminate the howler and any 'perceived' cheating. Of course, that's assuming that DRS stays.

Perhaps the ICC could have trialled a fully operational DRS at the next level down. Shield, County, Currie Cup games or the like could have easily been set up with the technology. 2 or 3 years of a fully operational DRS being used in a multitude of games at the next level down could have the effect of ironing out any issues. The ICC is well cashed up so it can't be a money issue. Perhaps they're just incompetent. In an interview with Warren Brennan (the inventor of hotspot) Warren indicated that the 3rd umpire can have a lot more information and video at his immediate disposal. Currently he believes that's not the case and we have a situation where the 3rd umpire is waiting on the host broadcaster to 'feed' him the information. And the quality of that information can vary quite significantly. Again, it's amateurish and the ICC must shoulder the blame. The following BBC podcast features Warren Brennan. Goes for 3.50 mins but he does explain things quite well ... well worth a listen ... The inventor of Hot Spot explains the limitations of his system The problem with using hotspot as an 'aid' is that if it's always going to be somewhat unreliable, what's the point of using it? When can we 'believe' hotspot? It's not like one can pick and choose. You either trust in it or you don't.

Those opposed to DRS talk about its flaws (certainly in my case) 'Not liking it' comes as an overall judgement because of those flaws. This is not about not embracing new technology or being suspicious of anything new. It's whether a new system is as good or better than the old system. I was never opposed to trying the system out but was of the belief that it didn't have the amount of flaws that have been shown up (e.g. snicko not always being used because it's not up to real time, hotspot being largely unreliable, Hawk-eye now being talked about as 'dubious', the inventor of hotspot being concerned about certain coverings of the bats, technology varying according to the host broadcaster etc) DRS has worked a lot better in this Test and it's about time. Perhaps the ICC should have made sure the system was working properly before they went down the path of using it. It seems they've decided to go in with a 'boots and all' approach but will have to iron out the problems and flaws as it progresses. For a supposed professionally run organisation, it's seems quite an amateurish way of doing things. But of course, we are talking about the ICC.

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.

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.

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

We didn't score No, seriously, I agree with you about the Preseason games and any real benefits are probably not recognised or realised by the fans. Within the teams there would be some positives but as you said in an earlier post, teams would be loathe to give too much away (especially with regards to certain plays which might gain good yardage) Individuals would be trying to make their mark as you can get cut fairly quickly in this sport. Think I'm right in saying that a lot of contracts are not guaranteed. Detroit might bounce back in our division. I wouldn't be writing them off and I know you've got them first up. The Bears will be interesting to watch without Lovie Smith. Their new coach, Mark Trestman, has spent the last 5 years with Montreal in the CFL. As usual, ours will be a tough division to advance from. 10 wins should get the job done but Chicago went 10/6 last year and missed the playoffs. In fact, if the Packers had dropped one of our 2 games to the Bears last season, Chicago would have won the division. And Lovie Smith might have kept his job. It's a fine line.

Yeah, you're right but I noticed that Cassel took the majority of the snaps in your game against the Texans - does that mean anything? Does Ponder need to have more than 2 snaps? I suppose we have to look at the 4 games as a whole. Anyway, in other news ... Andy Reid tried trading for Alex Smith as Eagles coach

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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"

You wonder if it's all a bit of mind games. Jennings may be using all this to get himself going - who knows? It's all a bit different over there and I'm not really surprised. WR's have a certain reputation to uphold. Yeah, saw a bit of the highlights of the Preseason games. From what can be gathered, these games can be used to get structures right without any huge emphasis on scores or winning. Offensive and defensive line formations and the like would probably be high on the agenda for all the teams. The top QB's often don't get much of a run but sometimes they do. It's a real mixed bag. The Packers didn't score against Arizona (Rodgers went 3/5 for 62 yards) but it was good to see our RB James Starks have 12 rushing attempts for 38 yards. Mark Schlereth said it best ...

Aside from Clarke, there isn't one batsman who is assured of playing all 5 Tests when the Ashes are up for grabs in Australia. Normally we'd have at least 4 in total that we could bank on, but who would be willing to stick their neck out for any of them? I reckon that 2 or 3 will probably will probably play in all 5 Tests but which ones? Rogers might play all 5 but he can't afford to fail like he did in the first 2 Tests in England. Hopefully the 80 he made in the 3rd Test is a sign of things to come. Smith is improving and Watson's bowling helps him a lot. Warner, Khawaja and Hughes have youth on their side. Not at all sure where Cowan fits right now. We are not close to having a settled batting line-up. Some will say that we need to stick pat with our current batsmen but it's easier said than done. Losing and losing badly clouds the issue. Aside from Agar's 98 in the 1st Test, we were comprehensively outplayed when the heat was on in both the first 2 Tests. Change is often forced and change is often not really a option. If we lose the 1st Test in Brisbane then the whole debate will rage on again. Our batting has to click in Brisbane. Cross that bridge when we come to it? We're already at the bridge. Our batsmen have to perform well in the next 2 Tests. Let's hope they do. Not all of them will perform well - that's almost a given. There will be at least one batsman in the current 6 who we will be pointing the finger at by the end of the 5th Test. (save for a huge combined batting effort in both these Tests - what are the chances of that?)

If we do get that score of 400-500 then that may well end up posing more questions than it answers. Not sure if that happens that it solves the issues we have with our top 6. If we start the next Ashes series with 6 of the current 8 batsmen who are in England then we may well be heading for another series defeat (it must be remembered that in the last 9 months we've lost series to South Africa, India and England without registering a win against any of those sides) Our batting has been an issue since before those series' began. Now, the batting might magically come together for the next series and we might win the Ashes back but what are the chances? There's every chance that 1 or 2 new batsmen will get an opportunity in the next series but in some ways, that might be a little late. To me, these last 2 Tests were a perfect opportunity to test the waters with 1 new batsman (they're doing it with a bowler - Bird) Unless our batsmen do very well in the next 2 Tests then the question marks will remain. Both Tests as well because if the batsmen fail in either Test (thus incurring a loss) then the selectors will be forced to make a change or 2 for the 1st Test in Brisbane. Looking too far ahead? No. All the plans should now be for the next series. We've lost the Ashes, the series is over and whilst we can salvage something from the wreck, it's the next series that is the most important. We can save a bit of face but that's all. If this current series was being played in Australia then 1 or 2 batsmen might have already been banished. I understand that bringing a player in from outside the squad is rarely done but both Agar & Smith were added to the squad before the 1st Test. Anyway, it will be interesting to note the tone of the conversation in October surrounding the make-up of that 1st Test team in Brisbane. I'm willing to bet that our batting line-up won't be settled by then.

Bird strikes with a 'McGrath' like delivery to get rid of Cook. If he can reproduce that sort of leg cutter regularly, he'll have quite a career. Bowls with very good rhythm and makes the batsmen play consistently. Ideal 2nd or 3rd seamer. You may well be right about him, 'Biff'. We're building up quite a battery of fast bowlers. (especially when Cummins and Pattinson are fit and raring to go again) Lyon has also bowled well. Trott and KP are a couple of handy scalps on a day 1 pitch. Hope he gets a bag here. He's copped a bit of unnecessary stick from quite a few of the English commentators (notably Boycott, Vaughan and Gower) Whilst he may never achieve greatness, he's still quite a good offie.

Maxwell is certainly very talented and likes to play his shots (like a number of the young batsmen in Shield cricket) His first class batting average is around about the same as Burns, Maddinson, Silk and Doolan's (high 30's or low 40's) I could see him possibly batting at no.6 in the future but only if we had a strong batting line-up. The National selectors would probably be looking at batsmen who bat in the top 3 or 4 for their State (Burns, Maddinson, Silk and Doolan fall into this category) Glenn probably has to bat higher for Victoria to be considered right now. But at 24, Maxwell is too young to write off just yet. At least his bowling is handy (35 wickets at 35.22) Many of our batsmen or potential new batsmen don't bowl much at all and when your top 4 bowlers aren't great (yet), you need 1 or 2 of your batsmen to bowl a certain number of overs. Smith, Warner and Clarke's bowling can't be relied upon. We would miss Watson's bowling if he wasn't replaced with a 'like for like'. For that reason, I was surprised that Henriques wasn't in the Ashes squad (especially when we consider Watto's history with injuries)

The latest news is that the Packers 'brainwashed' Jennings ... Perhaps if we get 'Roosey', he can brainwash our midfield into believing they're all Gary Ablett jnr types