The Ashes Tour 2013

[Chicog]

Cooks gone for bugger all again. So much for batting practice.

[smokie36]

another one,embarrassing 104-8

Follow on!

My burger franchise mafia won out....lucky we know a few people...

[smokie36]

Meh. England to bat again. I wonder what they'll declare on?

Surely they'll follow on? Why wouldn't they?

Because England in reality wouldn't want to be batting last on a wearing pitch ...If England can bat the dopes aussies out of site now, then come late saturday evening they declare 500+ ahead ...well,that should be that!!

At least someone understands what is going on.

[Chicog]

Well it's starting too look like a clever decision now, eh?

[smokie36]

Well it's starting too look like a clever decision now, eh?

Nightwatchman should have gone in at 3......crazy to risk Pieterson tonight....and Trott.....England have been caught by overconfidence here.

[Bangkokhatter]

If i remember correctly Cooke had an opportunity to enforce the follow on against the Kiwis and did not take it now the same thing. Am starting to think the TV stations and the ECB are getting involved...we enforce the follow on and bowl them out cheaply again and we have a 3 day day test match.. not good for Sky;s schedule and the ECB have to refund tickets.

I May sound far fetched and It's just the decision of a defensive captain, but i don;t buy the batting last reason, the Aussies were down and we could well have won by an innings. Now looking at the score who says not following was the only way we could not lose ?

[mad mary]

^U tink 2 mutt!!!

[David48]

Sigh ... overall ... not one of our finer sporting days ...

How can Watson be so good for 95% of the time, turn the brain off for a few deliveries ... then be so selfish with the review system?

Well done Poms ...

.

[Exsexyman]

Meh. England to bat again. I wonder what they'll declare on?

Surely they'll follow on? Why wouldn't they?

Why would they? Why would they want to bat last on a pitch that is taking spin? Swann will clean up, men against boys! Australian batting was just awful, absolutely clueless. Feel sorry for Ryan Harris, bowled his heart out, let down by his team mates. Bad start by England in their second innings, but they have so many runs in the bank it is irrelevant. Pietersen failed again, dreadful shot, fast becoming a luxury England cannot afford. Incredible talent when he is up for it, but one good knock every eight innings is not good enough. The other seven he is crap. Won't bother him though, he is the cricket equivalent of David Beckham, his PR bullshit baffles brains! The ultimate mercenary, who can forget when a journalist referred to him as 'English' on the last Ashes tour of Australia and he retorted, "I'm not English, i just work there". Already stated that when he retires he will go back to live in South Africa. His bluff should be called in my opinion, lets face it, he needs England more than they need him. If he wasn't on the world stage playing test cricket he would disappear from view very quickly, his value in the IPL would diminish, which lets face it is his main priority.

[BookMan]

Just woke up and caught up. Went to sleep at about 4/57.

What an embarrassment. Hardly a thing done right during their 1st innings. I was hoping after the first test they might have some resolve. Khawaja...what were you thinking? Watson, what were you thinking? Haddin, take the run!

We have become that notoriously bad English team we used to make fun of ten years back. Oh how the situations have reversed

Here is what Malcom Conn wrote:

Some of Australia's most well paid professional sportsmen have been responsible for amateur hour.

There can have been few more mindless batting performances than Australia’s appalling 128 during the second day of the second Test at Lord’s. England leads by 264 runs with seven wickets in hand and three days to play.

See link here

[BookMan]

What the hell???

He calls for the review and it doesn't show hotspot on the bat ... but he is still given out?

Can someone explain that to me

The umpire on field gave him out. For that decision to be overturned, there needs to be clear evidence that the decision was wrong. There was a noise as the ball passed the bat and a small hotspot on the ball, though nothing on the bat. With the evidence, it was not clear if he was out or not, so it went with the on field umpire's decision. If the on field umpire had given him not out and England had reviewed, I doubt that decision would have been given out either.

A contradictory system to be sure. Without a hotspot on the bat I would have thought it must be not out.

Snicko did show a noise but of course the 3rd umpire can not use the snicko technology.

Rogers should definitely have called for the review, most likely scared to after the Watson farce.

[Will27]

To quote Dr Zachary Smith "oh the pain".

[jackr]

As above, they batted again to avoid potentially batting the last day on a tatty surface, but also to rest the bowlers and get them out of the heat. Little to do with tickets etc... get 250 and bowl at em for two days, end of.

However, this 'batsmen' getting out cheaply, and on a fantastic batting pitch, is just not good enough. Aussie are dire, but England are not that far away on the batting front to be fair and could easily be 6 down before lunch today. It's mediocre all round save a few quality knocks, the game is being decided by the bowlers.

[jackr]

As above, they batted again to avoid potentially batting the last day on a tatty surface, but also to rest the bowlers and get them out of the heat. Little to do with tickets etc... get 250 and bowl at em for two days, end of.

However, this 'batsmen' getting out cheaply, and on a fantastic batting pitch, is just not good enough. Aussie are dire, but England are not that far away on the batting front to be fair and could easily be 6 down before lunch today. It's mediocre all round save a few quality knocks, the game is being decided by the bowlers.

[GrantSmith]

Sounds about right

[GrantSmith]

Sounds about right

[Basil B]

Why the hell did they not make the Aussies bat again, anything to do with all the all unsold tickets for tomorrow?

[7by7]

No, as previously explained, England did not want to risk having to spend another 2 days in the field and find themselves on the evening of day 4 chasing a total around 250 on a pitch which on day 2 is already taking spin and from the puffs of dust coming up when the ball pitches is only going to get worse.

Better to bat Australia out of the game (although that looks less likely now!) and exploit the deteriorating pitch themselves.

BTW, all 5 days were sold out long before the game started.

[uptheos]

Why the hell did they not make the Aussies bat again, anything to do with all the all unsold tickets for tomorrow?

The Ashes tickets get sold out well in advance and people following cricket know the pitfalls, early result, few days rain etc.

[7by7]

A contradictory system to be sure. Without a hotspot on the bat I would have thought it must be not out.

Jim Maxwell and Glen McGrath discussing it on TMS agreed that there was a very faint hotspot mark.

But as naboo says, unless the third umpire feels sure the onfield umpire was wrong, then he goes with the onfield umpire.

Which is what happened to Trott at Trent Bridge.

[David48]

A contradictory system to be sure. Without a hotspot on the bat I would have thought it must be not out.

Jim Maxwell and Glen McGrath discussing it on TMS agreed that there was a very faint hotspot mark.

But as naboo says, unless the third umpire feels sure the onfield umpire was wrong, then he goes with the onfield umpire.

Which is what happened to Trott at Trent Bridge.

When I saw that dismissal, I thought ... no way he hit that.

But, the mark that 7x7 mentions above could be seen.

Funny game that Cricket.

.

[BookMan]

A contradictory system to be sure. Without a hotspot on the bat I would have thought it must be not out.

Jim Maxwell and Glen McGrath discussing it on TMS agreed that there was a very faint hotspot mark.

But as naboo says, unless the third umpire feels sure the onfield umpire was wrong, then he goes with the onfield umpire.

Which is what happened to Trott at Trent Bridge.

When I saw that dismissal, I thought ... no way he hit that.

But, the mark that 7x7 mentions above could be seen.

Funny game that Cricket.

.

I don't know what replay you guys were watching but the one i saw showed zero hotspot on the bat, just hotspot on the ball.

[mad mary]

Tickets available for day 5 @ £25.00 adult /@£10.00 u16 / 1 ticket per person.

[BookMan]

Tickets available for day 5 @ £25.00 adult /@£10.00 u16 / 1 ticket per person.

Is that the definition of 'optimist'?

[Chicog]

Gatts just turned down an alcoholic beverage, <deleted> is that all about?

[7by7]

I don't know what replay you guys were watching but the one i saw showed zero hotspot on the bat, just hotspot on the ball.

I didn't see it, I was listening to TMS.

Maxwell and McGrath on TMS, both Australian remember, thought he'd hit it, even before the review.

Boycott later saying that as the ball passed Hughes he turned his head to watch where it went and it was very unlikely any batsman would do that unless they knew they'd hit it and wanted to see if it was caught.

Even if there was only a hot spot on the ball; what did it hit if not his bat?

As I said earlier, McGrath was very critical of both Hughes and Watson for reviewing their decisions as he thought both were obviously out.

He also couldn't understand why Rogers didn't review; the replays showing that he should have done as the ball was missing the stumps.

[7by7]

I don't know what replay you guys were watching but the one i saw showed zero hotspot on the bat, just hotspot on the ball.

I didn't see it, I was listening to TMS.

Maxwell and McGrath on TMS, both Australian remember, thought he'd hit it, even before the review.

Boycott later saying that as the ball passed Hughes he turned his head to watch where it went and it was very unlikely any batsman would do that unless they knew they'd hit it and wanted to see if it was caught.

Even if there was only a hot spot on the ball; what did it hit if not his bat?

As I said earlier, McGrath was very critical of both Hughes and Watson for reviewing their decisions as he thought both were obviously out.

He also couldn't understand why Rogers didn't review; the replays showing that he should have done as the ball was missing the stumps.

[BookMan]

I don't know what replay you guys were watching but the one i saw showed zero hotspot on the bat, just hotspot on the ball.

I didn't see it, I was listening to TMS.

Maxwell and McGrath on TMS, both Australian remember, thought he'd hit it, even before the review.

Boycott later saying that as the ball passed Hughes he turned his head to watch where it went and it was very unlikely any batsman would do that unless they knew they'd hit it and wanted to see if it was caught.

Even if there was only a hot spot on the ball; what did it hit if not his bat?

As I said earlier, McGrath was very critical of both Hughes and Watson for reviewing their decisions as he thought both were obviously out.

He also couldn't understand why Rogers didn't review; the replays showing that he should have done as the ball was missing the stumps.

Okay, so you didn't actually see the hotspot replay?

We are talking about the hotspot replay.

There was no hotspot on the bat. Zero. Nada. none.

Whether the commentators 'thought he hit it' is irrelevant to the viewing and use of hotspot.

Gower and Warne were commentating when I saw the replays and they both stated, watching the same replays, there was nothing on the bat for hotspot.

[7by7]

I didn't see it, but Maxwell and McGrath did!

They thought he was out before seeing it, they still thought he was out after seeing it.

The angle the bat was at and the part of the bat the ball hit in this case makes, according to the inventor of hot spot, it difficult to see the hot spot on the bat.

I ask you again; if the ball didn't hit the bat, what did it hit?

The point is moot, anyway; he was given out; end of story.

Edited July 20, 2013 by 7by7

[BookMan]

I didn't see it, but Maxwell and McGrath did!

They thought he was out before seeing it, they still thought he was out after seeing it.

The angle the bat was at and the part of the bat the ball hit in this case makes, according to the inventor of hot spot, it difficult to see the hot spot on the bat.

I ask you again; if the ball didn't hit the bat, what did it hit?

The point is moot, anyway; he was given out; end of story.

However, Hughes being given out does not change the actual fact, there was no evidence of a nick according to hotspot. You and David48 said that you both saw the hotspot evidence and I am refuting there was any hotspot evidence

Who cares about the angle of the bat supposedly masking something? I am talking about evidence that can be seen, not speculation as evidence

Again, hotspot, did not show the ball hitting the bat

There was on the ball but not on the bat.. The evidence at hand for teh third umpire is inconclusive. Had the on field umpire given it not out, then Hughes would not have been given out by the 3rd umpire.

I accept the fact that you did not see hotspot yourself.

btw. I respect Mcgrath, but Maxwell is an embarrassment to the world of cricket commentary.