The Ashes Tour 2013

[BookMan]

Starc has had his overs...Not accurate enough...need to make them play a shot..

Get Siddle on!

[BookMan]

Why did Cooke review? Obviously out, unless he thought he may have hit it.

He will mightily regret that review if the 10th wicket falls to a shocking decision and England have no reviews left.

Pressure does funny things for judgement. Maybe he felt they might lose if he got out so soon.

btw. Cook has dropped his 'e' these days

[7by7]

Apalogees fore the spelin missteak.

Seems to be raining everywhere in Manchester at the moment; except Old Trafford.

Maybe God is an Australian!

[BookMan]

Had to review that LBW on Trott... so close...

[BookMan]

Maybe God is an Australian!

or he might not exist...

[BookMan]

Trott has gone!!!!!

Game on gentlemen!!! (and 7by7 )

Edited August 5, 2013 by BookMan

[7by7]

Aussies win here.

Win again at Chester-le-Street.

Thrilling decider at The Oval.

What do you all think of that?

[BookMan]

Clarke drops a catch! Sizzler from Siddle

[David48]

Guys ... anyone got a link that works on the internet for the Cricket ... the one I was using got given out.

PLEASE ............

[David48]

Score please ...

[BookMan]

http://www.wiziwig.tv/broadcast.php?matchid=210833∂=sports

there are ten links on this one

[BookMan]

Score please ...

England 3/27

KP dismissed...went for the review...looked like he didnt it ...but given anyway..

Siddle looking great

try this score update: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/match/566934.html

Edited August 5, 2013 by BookMan

[David48]

http://www.wiziwig.tv/broadcast.php?matchid=210833∂=sports

there are ten links on this one

Brilliant ... you are also a very humsum man!

[7by7]

35 for 3 at lunch.

Weather still looking ok for the afternoon.

[BookMan]

Australia would be ecstatic with that start

I really hope the weather holds out for another session.

[Bangkokhatter]

Guys ... anyone got a link that works on the internet for the Cricket ... the one I was using got given out.

PLEASE ............

Could go to the BBC sport website and there is a link to Test Match Special, the radio commentary is first class, even has some guest Aussies commentating. I reckon they will be the ones celebrating if the weather holds out.

[7by7]

BBC coverage, with link to TMS.

Raining, covers going on.

Only a light rain, so hopefully it will only mean a delayed start after lunch.

[Bangkokhatter]

The covers are back

[tw25rw]

Not sure I see the point in the batsman appealing from caught unless the fielder drops it. If no hotspot isn't enough, there's no need to bother with it.

[7by7]

From the BBC site on the difference between England's and Australia's relationship with the press; especially KP and Warner:

The Daily Mail's Paul Newman on TMS: "England always just seem to try to be as unquotable and on-message as possible."

Australian cricket writer Malcolm Conn on TMS: "It's OK to have a siege mentality if you're Manchester United up the road from here, but cricket is fighting a losing battle against football and if your stars won't promote the game, you're in trouble."

The Independent's Stephen Brenkley on TMS: "Kevin Pietersen clearly loathes the written press, and I think his employers at the ECB don't appear to care about the written press. Pietersen's conduct at the press conference the other night was ungracious in human terms. David Warner should have been sent home for what he did earlier this summer - but his press conference yesterday was exemplary,"

Rain's stopped, play will resume at 14:00.

[BookMan]

From the BBC site on the difference between England's and Australia's relationship with the press; especially KP and Warner:

The Daily Mail's Paul Newman on TMS: "England always just seem to try to be as unquotable and on-message as possible."

Australian cricket writer Malcolm Conn on TMS: "It's OK to have a siege mentality if you're Manchester United up the road from here, but cricket is fighting a losing battle against football and if your stars won't promote the game, you're in trouble."

The Independent's Stephen Brenkley on TMS: "Kevin Pietersen clearly loathes the written press, and I think his employers at the ECB don't appear to care about the written press. Pietersen's conduct at the press conference the other night was ungracious in human terms. David Warner should have been sent home for what he did earlier this summer - but his press conference yesterday was exemplary,"

Rain's stopped, play will resume at 14:00.

I put KPs attitude down to his formative years in his home country of South Africa.

Game back on!

Boy oh boy...That sky looks dark and foreboding... Aussies better hope they can get a wicket an over.

[7by7]

Not sure I see the point in the batsman appealing from caught unless the fielder drops it. If no hotspot isn't enough, there's no need to bother with it.

An appeal and a review are not the same thing. An appeal is to the onfield umpire; a review is to the third umpire because (in theory!) the batsman or fielding captain thinks the onfield umpire made the wrong decision.

Caught behind is different to being caught in the field. Like lbw, the fielding side have to appeal for a caught behind. If they don't, the umpire will not give the batsman out even if he thinks the batsman has hit it.

This is because catches by the wicket keeper are often from the faintest of nicks, with little or no deviation.

In KP's case, and many others, there was no hotspot; but because hotspot is not perfect the third umpire went with the onfield umpire because there was a definite noise and his bat was well away from his body and could not have hit anything else.

Whether KP reviewed the decision because he thought he hadn't nicked it or because he hoped to 'get away' with it, only he knows.

[tw25rw]

Not sure I see the point in the batsman appealing from caught unless the fielder drops it. If no hotspot isn't enough, there's no need to bother with it.

An appeal and a review are not the same thing. An appeal is to the onfield umpire; a review is to the third umpire because (in theory!) the batsman or fielding captain thinks the onfield umpire made the wrong decision.

Caught behind is different to being caught in the field. Like lbw, the fielding side have to appeal for a caught behind. If they don't, the umpire will not give the batsman out even if he thinks the batsman has hit it.

This is because catches by the wicket keeper are often from the faintest of nicks, with little or no deviation.

In KP's case, and many others, there was no hotspot; but because hotspot is not perfect the third umpire went with the onfield umpire because there was a definite noise and his bat was well away from his body and could not have hit anything else.

Whether KP reviewed the decision because he thought he hadn't nicked it or because he hoped to 'get away' with it, only he knows.

Yeah, ok, not sure I see the point in the batsman reviewing from caught unless he thinks the fielder drops it.

[tw25rw]

From the BBC site on the difference between England's and Australia's relationship with the press; especially KP and Warner:

The Daily Mail's Paul Newman on TMS: "England always just seem to try to be as unquotable and on-message as possible."

Australian cricket writer Malcolm Conn on TMS: "It's OK to have a siege mentality if you're Manchester United up the road from here, but cricket is fighting a losing battle against football and if your stars won't promote the game, you're in trouble."

The Independent's Stephen Brenkley on TMS: "Kevin Pietersen clearly loathes the written press, and I think his employers at the ECB don't appear to care about the written press. Pietersen's conduct at the press conference the other night was ungracious in human terms. David Warner should have been sent home for what he did earlier this summer - but his press conference yesterday was exemplary,"

Rain's stopped, play will resume at 14:00.

I put KPs attitude down to his formative years in his home country of South Africa.

Game back on!

Boy oh boy...That sky looks dark and foreboding... Aussies better hope they can get a wicket an over.

Expect to see lots of face pulling about the light and Australia restricted to slow bowlers. And also lots of prodding of imaginary bumps with the bat.

[BookMan]

Expect to see lots of face pulling about the light and Australia restricted to slow bowlers. And also lots of prodding of imaginary bumps with the bat.

If the rain holds out long enough and they get back out there it will bring time wasting techniques on the pitch to a entirely new level

[7by7]

Not sure I see the point in the batsman appealing from caught unless the fielder drops it. If no hotspot isn't enough, there's no need to bother with it.

An appeal and a review are not the same thing. An appeal is to the onfield umpire; a review is to the third umpire because (in theory!) the batsman or fielding captain thinks the onfield umpire made the wrong decision.

Caught behind is different to being caught in the field. Like lbw, the fielding side have to appeal for a caught behind. If they don't, the umpire will not give the batsman out even if he thinks the batsman has hit it.

This is because catches by the wicket keeper are often from the faintest of nicks, with little or no deviation.

In KP's case, and many others, there was no hotspot; but because hotspot is not perfect the third umpire went with the onfield umpire because there was a definite noise and his bat was well away from his body and could not have hit anything else.

Whether KP reviewed the decision because he thought he hadn't nicked it or because he hoped to 'get away' with it, only he knows.

Yeah, ok, not sure I see the point in the batsman reviewing from caught unless he thinks the fielder drops it.

Sorry, but I don't see what your point is.

Are you talking about caught behind and in the slips or caught elsewhere?

I don't recall any batsman, in this series or any other, reviewing a caught decision unless they were caught behind or in the slips and thought that they had not hit it.

If the fielder drops it, then it's obvious and that's the end of the matter.

If the onfield umpires think he caught it on the bounce then they will ask for a decision from the third umpire.

[7by7]

Expect to see lots of face pulling about the light and Australia restricted to slow bowlers. And also lots of prodding of imaginary bumps with the bat.

If the rain holds out long enough and they get back out there it will bring time wasting techniques on the pitch to a entirely new level

Probably true; unfortunately.

But please don't try and kid us that Australia would do any different were the positions reversed.

[BookMan]

 

Expect to see lots of face pulling about the light and Australia restricted to slow bowlers. And also lots of prodding of imaginary bumps with the bat.

 

 

If the rain holds out long enough and they get back out there it will bring time wasting techniques on the pitch to a entirely new level

 

Probably true; unfortunately.

 

But please don't try and kid us that Australia would do any different were the positions reversed.

Aussies would be going for the win not mucking about with negative time wasting tactics

[GrantSmith]

Expect to see lots of face pulling about the light and Australia restricted to slow bowlers. And also lots of prodding of imaginary bumps with the bat.

If the rain holds out long enough and they get back out there it will bring time wasting techniques on the pitch to a entirely new level

Probably true; unfortunately.

But please don't try and kid us that Australia would do any different were the positions reversed.

Aussies would be going for the win not mucking about with negative time wasting tactics

To disguise the batting collapse

[7by7]

Expect to see lots of face pulling about the light and Australia restricted to slow bowlers. And also lots of prodding of imaginary bumps with the bat.

If the rain holds out long enough and they get back out there it will bring time wasting techniques on the pitch to a entirely new level

Probably true; unfortunately.

But please don't try and kid us that Australia would do any different were the positions reversed.

Aussies would be going for the win not mucking about with negative time wasting tactics

So, the last day of a test, the prospect of getting a full days play very remote and 332 needed to win.

You reckon the Aussies would try for victory in the limited time available when all they need is a draw to clinch the series?

Of course they would.

Now, excuse me, please: I have to go and chase those pigs who are perching in the trees.

They went for quick scoring yesterday (which in the circumstances was the right thing to do). Result? 172 for 7!