The Ashes Tour 2013

[BookMan]

A mate of mine from Perth was wondering who would replace Mr Cricket - Mike Hussey - seems, he's found his answer...

A Victorian.

Sorry chooka, we've claimed him. Just like Gilly :-)

Victoria didnt want him

[7by7]

The third umpire, Mr Erasmus, could not be sure whether Agar's foot was down or not so gave him the benefit of the doubt.

He could not be sure whether Trott had edged the ball or not because the side on hot spot wasn't working. So, he overturns Aleem Dar, the onfield umpire, who'd said 'not out, because he thought Trott had edged it, and gives Trott out lbw!

Very strange.

Not to take anything away from Agar's knock; a superb performance and feel so sorry for him that he did not get 100.

But don't forget Hughes's contribution.

We have to accept the umpire's rule, whether it be in referenda, test matches or the Superleague. Let us just hope that the rules are fair and the referees impartial, and highlight where there may be suspicion that they are not.

Yes, we do have to accept the umpire's decision, or if reviewed the third umpire's decision, as final. One of the things I love about cricket is that we do not see players crowding the umpire/referee arguing about a decision that goes against them the way we see in football. Hopefully we never will.

But that does not mean we cannot discuss controversial decisions.

Erasmus says he gave Agar not out because he could not be sure whether his foot was grounded behind the line or not; he gave the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

He says he gave Trott out because he could not be sure whether or not Trott had edged the ball; he gave the benefit of the doubt to the bowler.

It has been the tradition in cricket for over 200 years that the batsman is given the benefit of the doubt.

Back to the cricket.

Australia's day overall; or to be accurate, Agar and Hughes's day.

But England in the persons of Cook and Pietersen have brought England back into the game. Pietersen curbing his instincts and playing the type of innings the situation required.

The game is still open, and either side could win. But if England can get a lead over 250 then I think Australia will struggle.

[BookMan]

My prediction: England to get 450

[GrantSmith]

Took a bit longer than they thought but the boys have picked up 2 quick wickets..

Interesting to see which way the momentum swings now..

[7by7]

157 for 4 at lunch; 92 ahead.

Australia slightly ahead, I think, thanks to those two wickets.

If Bell and Bairstow are still in at tea, then I think the game will be beyond Australia's reach.

A big 'if' though.

Nice to see Agar following up yesterday's heroics with the prime wicket of Cook.

Someone on TMS pointed out that if he is 2 (or more) not out in Australia's second innings he will have a better test average than The Don's!

Edited to add 'test.'

Edited July 12, 2013 by 7by7

[BookMan]

A lead of 150 might be enough for England to win this.

[Bangkokhatter]

A lead of 150 might be enough for England to win this.

Got to add another hundred to that total i think. The bowlers need something to bowl at and who knows how fit Stuart Broad is ?

[StreetCowboy]

A lead of 150 might be enough for England to win this.

Oh you are a wag!

[stoneyboy]

Lucky boy Bell,could be a decisive decision that one.

[stoneyboy]

Mmmm

[ripstanley]

Agar has his 2nd wicket well done

[tigerfish]

sorry to bring the tone down !

[StreetCowboy]

Could England snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? and maybe feed it back in again tomorrow?

[7by7]

Should Broad have walked?

How many Aussies would have?

Adam Gilcrhrist......er........that's it.

Some appalling decisions in this game; but they have been evenly spread between the teams!

[StreetCowboy]

Should Broad have walked?

How many Aussies would have?

Adam Gilcrhrist......er........that's it.

Some appalling decisions in this game; but they have been evenly spread between the teams!

If the batsman walked, would the umpire have concurred? If he had stood, would the umpire have concurred? If the answer is yes in both cases, then he should have walked if he thought he was out. But then we might as well not bother with umpires. My understanding is that it is the Umpire's job to decide if the player is out or not, and the player's opinion is irrelevant

SC

[Bangkokhatter]

Up to the umpire to give him out i think, just a shame the incident will overshadow what is currently a great partnership given the context of the game.

[7by7]

If a batsman walks then the umpire's decision becomes irrelevant.

Aleem Dar gave him not out, but if Broad had walked then that would have 'overruled' Dar's decision.

Walking these days is very rare. Botham said on the subject that it wasn't his job to decide if he was out or not but the umpire's.

Michael Clarke cannot complain about Broad's behaviour too much; he didn't walk in Adelaide in 2010; although he did later apologise on Twitter.

[7by7]

The Australian attitude to walking?

A good walk spoiled

The conflicting views of Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting when it comes to walking shows that cricket's moral code exists in shades of grey rather than black and white
It was a good ball. No doubt about it. Just short of a length, pitching straight enough to make him to play but moving away just enough to leave him regretting the shot. Yes, it was a good ball from Ravi Rampaul. It had to be to beat Sachin Tendulkar. Would Steve Davis have given him out? We'll never know. But Tendulkar, acting with such speed that the decision could only have been instinctive, tucked his bat under his arm and walked off, leaving Davis with just enough time to begin shaking his head.
..........
Ricky Ponting had sliced a far more conspicuous edge (than Tendulker) through to Kamran Akmal during Australia's match against Pakistan. He stood his ground, though all the world suspected he was out, with the solitary exception of umpire Erasmus. Ponting was blunt enough to say enough afterwards that "there were no doubts about the nick, I knew I hit it, but as always I wait for the umpire to give me out. That's the way I've always played the game." Credit to him for not trying to sugar-coat the truth
............
Ponting plays to win, and a lot of people would argue that has more to do with the spirit of the cricket than walking does. When Adam Gilchrist criticised Craig McMillan for standing his ground after edging the ball in the Brisbane Test of 2004, McMillan shot back "we're not all <deleted> walkers you know." You could have swapped the 'l' for an 'n' and the implication would have been the same.......

[Exsexyman]

Up to the umpire to give him out i think, just a shame the incident will overshadow what is currently a great partnership given the context of the game.

In an ideal world all batsmen would walk, as the vast majority used to do in days gone by. But that just doesn't happen anymore i'm afraid. Too much at stake, the financial rewards are massive now at Test match level, and winning is all. A shame i suppose, but the clock can't be turned back. The Broad decision was a shocker, no doubt about that, buts lets be honest here, would an Aussie batsman have walked? Of course not, the only time an Aussie walks is when they run out of petrol!

[tigerfish]

i have a lot of time for Michael Holding and in this case i tend to agree with what he has to say.

he should have walked in accordance with the way and in the spirit of how the game should be played.

Edited July 12, 2013 by tigerfish

[7by7]

One of the more silly aspects of this is if the Australians hadn't wasted their last review on the Bairstow 'lbw' when he was obviously not out, Hawkeye showed the ball would have missed the stumps by a long way, then they would have been able to review the Broad decision and Broad would be out.

[BookMan]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

[Will27]

One of the more silly aspects of this is if the Australians hadn't wasted their last review on the Bairstow 'lbw' when he was obviously not out, Hawkeye showed the ball would have missed the stumps by a long way, then they would have been able to review the Broad decision and Broad would be out.

I think the whole review system needs to be looked at. Most batsman are using it to try and get a second chance regardless

of what they think of the decision.

I think it should be taken out of the players hands and given to the umpires. No one really get's or should get too upset at the 50/50 decisions. It's the howlers that make headlines and make the game look bad.

It's meant to eliminate the howlers. The 3rd umpire could've had a quick look and maybe push an open an orange light and have a closer

look. Then if it warrants it, over-turn it.

Anyway, that's my take. Leave it up to the umpires.

[BookMan]

One of the more silly aspects of this is if the Australians hadn't wasted their last review on the Bairstow 'lbw' when he was obviously not out, Hawkeye showed the ball would have missed the stumps by a long way, then they would have been able to review the Broad decision and Broad would be out.

You cannot put the onus back on to the Australian players for a shocking decision from the Umpires. A 'bad' use of a review is only bad in hindsight, after the replay says Not Out.

The technology was there to have it sorted in 10 seconds and it should have been used.

[BookMan]

One of the more silly aspects of this is if the Australians hadn't wasted their last review on the Bairstow 'lbw' when he was obviously not out, Hawkeye showed the ball would have missed the stumps by a long way, then they would have been able to review the Broad decision and Broad would be out.

I think the whole review system needs to be looked at. Most batsman are using it to try and get a second chance regardless

of what they think of the decision.

I think it should be taken out of the players hands and given to the umpires. No one really get's or should get too upset at the 50/50 decisions. It's the howlers that make headlines and make the game look bad.

It's meant to eliminate the howlers. The 3rd umpire could've had a quick look and maybe push an open an orange light and have a closer

look. Then if it warrants it, over-turn it.

Anyway, that's my take. Leave it up to the umpires.

Spot on Will27.

The game should be controlled by the Umpires, and I use the plural, using the technology at hand.

[carmine]

Whislt i am of the view all players should walk my views on this are outdated. When Adam Gilchrist retired the last of the "walkers' retired. I doubt the aussies are incensed by him not walking but more by the atrocious umpiring that threatens to ruin this test match.

The Broad edge, how did the umpire miss that, the Trott dismissal, quite ridiculous, as shown in a review but given out, Joe Root didn't touch the ball but given out caught behind,, and Agar very possibly stumped ehilst in single figures.

Both teams deserve better

[StreetCowboy]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

One risk is that the Umpire in the middle may lose his authority. Now, in rugby league, it is almost always the video referee who judges whether a try is awarded, and he'll look at a host of things you or I or a mortal referee would rarely be able to see - was the player onside at the start of the play, was there any obstruction anywhere else, did he park neatly between the lines in the carpark, did he slurp his breakfast coffee... Batsmen will stand their ground waiting to hear the verdict of the voices in the Umpire's head...

Personally, I don't see why dishonest batsmen should be allowed to score more runs than honest ones, so though I am sure he would have liked to walk, Broad could not, as the Umpire had ruled he was not out. It would be ever so embarrassing if the Umpire had to call him back from the dressing room "Ah don't care what you felt, son, I never saw it so it never 'appened. Get back owt theur and stay in"

SC

[carmine]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

It won't do the slightest bit of damage to Broads reputation because generally speaking players don't walk these days. sad to say but he did what is the norm as would the aussies in such a situation. Sad but true. Gilchrist was the last of a dying breed

Now, twenty years ago and it would have been a very different story

[Radar501]

The DRS has changed the culture of the 'Gentlemen's Game' where more and more players are holding their ground after an umpire's decision.

Rarely do the line ball decisions get overturned, because there is a margin for error in favour of the umpire's original decision. A review 'upstairs' should generally be limited to howlers such as the Broad incident. Michael Clarke wasted that review on the Bairstow appeal.

Should a batsman walk if he knows for certain he has nicked a ball that gets caught? YES!! Irrespective of the DRS technology available, the system is not perfect, so there remains the issue of sporting honour.

I remember back in 1987, Australia's wicketkeeper Greg Dyer took a diving catch, but incriminating replays revealed that he had dropped the ball, then scooped it from the ground and claimed it. Dyer was branded a cheat and quickly dropped from the Test squad. Of course, 1987 was long before replays were available to umpires, and he may well have thought twice about claiming the catch if he was playing in 2013.

Yet batsmen from the same era could take a wide swing at a ball, get a thick edge that could be heard in the stands, and just stand there defiantly if the umpire didn't raise his finger, without copping any finger pointing from the media/public. No different IMO. A cheat is a cheat.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Radar501

[smokie36]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!