[Closed] A Summer of Cricket - SPOILERS

Oh god no, it'll end up like rugby where the on field officials are incapable of even scratching their arse without asking for the TV official's view

Yup, that's a risk for sure.

My take is DRS is pretty useless for a) determining if a catch is clean and b) thin edges, as they don't always show up. I'd can the system for those purposes.

I think the problem was we watched it and it was clearly making bad decisions.
it is there to remove doubt when in fact it added doubt as out folk were left in , not out were given out etc

When there are no reviews left we still got howlers be it Broad not walking or Bresnan not appealing

Whatever its aims it is not making decisions better IMHO so either use it properly or just accept the Umps decisions will even out over a series?

Still struggling with why 49.9 % of a ball hitting the stumps is umps call tbh
I guess we have to have some point but its not like the bails would have stayed on

they only use it (DRS) because TV had it and were showing up the umpires. If they stop using DRS they have to get Sky to drop all of it too, stump mic, overlays the lot.

😯 Monty!!!??

😀 good work that man

There's a simple solution for DRS. take the 2 referrals per team per innings away and make it a tool to be used exclusively by the umpires with no limit on the number of times it can be used. Time taken to be added on at the end of each session or day.

Snicko, hotspot and stump mikes to be available to the third umpire who will be the sole adjudicator with the benefit of doubt being given to the batsman.

Still struggling with why 49.9 % of a ball hitting the stumps is umps call tbh

Although Hawkeye has improved much in the past few years, the reason why the ICC err on the side of caution with LBWs is that the system has to predict where the ball would have gone, which has much more error than recording where it did go (like for where it pitched, or as used in tennis).

That said, whilst 50% of the moving ball is fair enough, why it has to be the middle, rather than the edge of the stumps is a mystery to me. They're not moving anywhere!

There's a simple solution for DRS. take the 2 referrals per team per innings away and make it a tool to be used exclusively by the umpires with no limit on the number of times it can be used. Time taken to be added on at the end of each session or day.

No, no, no!

Umpires prevaricate enough as it is without giving them a license to refer every last thing to the third umpire. The state it's got to in rugby is a good case in point.

DRS is fine as it is. The way teams use it needs to change as they are just taking a punt rather than actually believing that the decision was incorrect. The only change I'd like to see is what was suggested by Jimmy Anderson, in that decisions that are "umpires call" should not mean that the team loses a review as it's not conclusive.

DRS is fine as it is.

If it can't show a faint nick then it's not doing what it's supposed to do. Better to accept its limitations and get rid of hotspot. I think it remains useful for lbw (e.g. showing if it pitched outside leg stump), run-outs and obvious nicks. It's completely useless for determining clean catches.

Umpire's call remains a problem - two identical deliveries have different outcomes depending on whether the on-field umpire gave it out or not. As you say, at least if a team doesn't lose a review that would be some compensation.

DRS is fine as it is

even on appeal there have been decisions that everyone seemed to accept were wrong so whatever you think of it working fine cannot be amongst them.

zokes i agree it is prone to more error [ ie predicting] and a margin of doubt is needed but 49.9% hitting is surely good enough to be certain. what is the margin of error ? how about more than that hitting then we know it did hit?

[Like politics} if the technology is becoming the story rather than the cricket, then something is wrong. On this basis, surely the conclusion is pretty clear and damning.

Frankly, I would like to go back to no tech in cricket and the "umpires decision is final." Dickie Bird and others did a brilliant job without technology - are the current guys any better with it? But this wont happen because pandora's box has been opened. So it is imperative that technology is used correctly and to benefit the game.

My first thought was like yossa's ie, let the umpires use it at [u]their[/u] discretion but the "limited-use" of the current system also has merit in the way that it works in tennis. But if technology really is prone to error, then I would prefer human error any day. It seems somehow more forgivable!!

Whatever happens, it has cast a shadow rather than light on the current series IMO and that is a pity.

The umpires still do a brilliant job. I posted a few pages back on the stats from the first test, they got 90+? right without technology, and then half the rest were improved by tech from memory. The trouble is that errors have been high profile, and also the technology has misfired slightly at times.

I agree that a review that is rejected based on staying with umpires call shouldn't be lost. It was a good call to review, shouldn't be penalised for that as well as having the decision still against you. One other change I'd like; where the ball pitches is a matter of fact, not opinion, as is the line of the stumps. That should go with result, not this 50% rule.

[Blowers]

My dear old things, good morning! Cake, anyone?

Oooh, look! A pigeon. On a bus!

[/Blowers]

England win the toss and bat first.

Looks like they're giving us the Bird...

18 in 10 overs... fair enough, but my one-day head can't help wishing we had someone like Chris Gayle to start things off.

Hmmm, that's a pity

[misty-eyed]

Remember the days when batsmen had the dignity to walk when they edged it?

[/misty-eyed]

No idea why the on field ump didn't give that

Very quiet, this thread. 😯

Due to today's cricket being so dull or the fact that the series is already over?

Time for a "KP you doughnut" comment 🙁

And now Cook. Bugger.

Due to today's cricket being so dull

I wrote that 18 minutes ago. 😯 Top collapsing action by England here.

Dreadful batting performance!

Pathetic.

Calypso collapso

Anyone else having to endure this Boycott rant on TMS wishing for the almighty to intervene with a coronary for the gobsh!t£ ??

Just me then...

we are so lucky the aussies are so poor, we've never had such a complacent bunch of players.

Klunk - Member
we are so lucky the aussies are so poor, we've never had such a [s]complacent [/s] arrogant bunch of players.

...if you listen to Warne.

Well, that's sort of what I expected, but hoped I wouldn't see when I woke up.

you will probably cheer up once you see them batting

Its like neither team want to win

Still that Aussie tail has done some whacking so not quite time to gloat

Another for there for DRS

He was out either way but he gets away with it

They do need to sort this

For those not watchign
UMPS gave caught behind but he did not hit it and would have been umps call for LBW

That DRS replay just suggests to me that Hawkeye isn't bloody accurate! In real life that ball passed well over the stumps, even after faintly clipping Rogers pad, so how does it suddenly end up much lower in the virtualisation/reconstruction??

That DRS replay just suggests to me that Hawkeye isn't bloody accurate! In real life that ball passed well over the stumps, even after faintly clipping Rogers pad, so how does it suddenly end up much lower in the virtualisation/reconstruction??

In prediction mode (i.e. after it's hit something) it isn't, hence the large margin for error on >50% of ball hitting >50% of stumps. Before it hits anything, it should be millimetre accurate though, as it appears to be in tennis.

Happy with the score so far though. I generally think it's imprudent to be too critical of a first innings score until both sides have batted.

it should be millimetre accurate though, as it appears to be in tennis.

game still nicely poised but the England top order batters need replacing been on low score for 3 in every innings pretty much

another 100-120 ftw

Bad light 🙁

And back 🙂

was it just a cloud 😉

Even the bloody commentators are getting in a saucer-eyed trance over hotspot. They were umming and arring over the faint hot spot on Rogers glove from the square leg angles. There was a visible deflection off of the glove, even when viewed on 'airport scanner' mode. Get rid of drs ffs.

Give it all back to the umpires. Review their performance after each match using the technology and promote or demote as appropriate to get your elite panel.

A two tier game is being created. What about the borderline county player who gets a succession of shocking decisions and loses his contract at the end of a season? Decisions that would have gone the way of the batsman at test level.

Oh, and Pietersen played like a twunt again.

Give it all back to the umpires. Review their performance after each match using the technology and promote or demote as appropriate to get your elite panel.

[img] [/img]

The problem is umps will get some decisions wrong so how exactly do you grade them. What do they get x number of howlers per match? series?

What grates re DRS is they have technology to stop the howler and they have some how implemented it to help them get the decision wrong

I am not sure of the fix but this creates more problems rather than reduce them

I agree that 'howler' us even more subjective than right/wrong (which is by no means certain in a lot of cases). One thing for sure, it should be based on a large sample of decisions made over a long period of time.

Take someone like Aleem Dar. I think he is brilliant. He changed test umpiring by giving lbw to spinners when the batter played straight and forward. Simply 'getting a stride in' was no longer sufficient. He has made a couple of howlers of late, but over a long period, he would be in the top three in my opinion.

I'll have to defer to the legend that is Peter Willey on this. When big screen replays at grounds were first allowed he said he would pack in umpiring if he was made to look a prat in public when trying his level best to do things right. He was instrumental in getting this stopped.

If anyone would like to argue with him on a one to one basis then fine!

I was at the game yesterday (saturday) and while the DRS was confusing, my biggest concern is Cook's captaincy. He's so conservative he's basically an automaton. If Anderson and Swann are doing their world class thing, and Broad is on target everything works fine. But when the batsmen have their measure, or the ball is doing anything he has no plan b.

Oh, and Trott was in a really bad mood in the field. When on the boundary someone shouted at him to smile, and he turned around, almost called them out, and then told them to **** off.

The major worry for me about England's batting is that four of the top six, namely Cook, Trott, Pietersen and Bairstow, are all bottom hand billies to varying extents. Playing in this way reduces the hitting point to a fraction of what it is when playing properly straight.

Boycs May be becoming the next Fred Trueman when it comes to commentary, but he still knows what he's on about.

The major worry for me about England's batting is that four of the top six, namely Cook, Trott, Pietersen and Bairstow, are all bottom hand billies to varying extents.

Trott is usually as safe as houses, and the Chef and KP are already amongst the best test batsmen England has ever fielded, so I'm not too concerned about them. Bairstow is young, and has yet to impress me (or instil confidence when the top four have fallen over cheaply). But, I don't know anything about him from county, so assuming he's been picked on the back of a decent record there, he should be given a chance to prove himself.

Predictions for England's 2nd innings score?

It's 234/5 with the Aussies sure to hit hard this morning and a new ball on the way.

On the other hand, Bell* and England's tail have the ability to get another 100, maybe more.

So - I'm going for [b]308 ao [/b]

Any other predictions?

* whom I shall no longer call 'Ian Bellend' after this series.

* whom I shall no longer call 'Ian Bellend' after this series.

I've called him a few names over the years. But I think that's in frustration - he's so obviously gifted, and a joy to watch, then would get himself out doing something stupid. It's great to see him getting the runs when they really matter.

Anyway, I suspect a lead of 250 would be enough, 300 would be nailed on.

he's so obviously gifted, and a joy to watch, then would get himself out doing something stupid

+1

Great techique, but his mind's not always been this strong. Echoes of Ramprakash, I always thought. It's lovely to be proved wrong.

Great techique, but his mind's not always been this strong. Echoes of Ramprakash, I always thought. It's lovely to be proved wrong.

Apparently, since he came back in 2009 after being dropped, he averages 55. Not bad!

ooof

twice

ARGH!

blimey that's some variable bounce !

Dang, that chap Harris can bowl. 😡

Prior off form again. Anyone remember when he was actually a pretty good batsman?

That's a pity. I was enjoying that...

Dang, that chap Harris can bowl.

He can, but (usually) fortunately for his opposition, his arm falls off sooner or later

the ball is flying to all parts at other end !

what a shot !!!

lead up to 270

On this pitch, whats's the minimum lead to defend with confidence?

I'm thinking 300 would just about do it.

😯 at that Bresnan shot! What a reply!!!

But wag wag wag goes the tail.

250ish might have been defendable. 300 if we carry this momentum into the bowling should do it quite nicely.

Don't forget Lyon is no Swanny

I guess it's about now that Bresnan begins to worry too much about his 50?

Give 'em hell, Brezzers!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Darn!

Really need 350 ish lead IMO.

Smith's just dropped the Ashes?

Oh.....

😆

Go on Swanny 🙂

299 the target...

Not bad, all considered.

Someone - fire up the JIMMINATOR!

15 mins for broad and Jimmy to really tear in. I think it'll be broad's performance that will make or break here - if the pitch is playing up with his height and bounce (or lack of, which is just as dangerous when you expect it to bounce) he could be very tough to play. Then when the ball softens, bres and Jimmy to keep it tight while swanny wraps it up.

I can't help thinking Cook has been reading Clarke's book on how not to use reviews...

And that we needed a wicket with that new ball before lunch

This is beautifully poised.

A century from an Aussie wins them the game. An early breakthrough and any kind of collapse hands it to us.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Australia might just edge this.

From the Beeb text...

This reminds me of the formula to find your West Indies cricketer name: US president at time of birth + last British seaside town visited.

Nixon Stanley *

* Last seaside town I visited was Stanley, in HK. Seeing as it used to be British, I'll include that! 🙂

I agree.

But hopefully we'll pounce for a couple at least with the new ball. Then things will be really interesting.

Nixon Stanley *

Ford Beaumaris - that's got a nice ring to it!

Now, the question is - is Cook sufficiently defensive to be thinking already: "suh-weet, rain, that'll save the test"?

Ford Beaumaris

Left arm spinner, IIRC. Lovely, jaunty run in, flighty deliveries.

Left arm spinner, IIRC. Lovely, jaunty run in, flighty deliveries.

More than adequate with the old willow, too - the dogged 37no made on a scrubby turning pitch, WI vs NZ, Wellington, '73, being a defining career highlight.

Have you seen Nixon Stanley's economy rate? 😯 Controversy aside, it's no wonder he was dropped.

Nixon Stanley *

A Nixon Hampton over here! 😀 I field in the slips man, wid no hands

A nice bit of rain now to get the ball moving sideways, a few showers to break the batsmen's concentration...

Nixon Bude.

Never the most flowing batsman, a bit of a bottom hand Billy if the truth be told, but on his day could bring the bowlers to their knees, including one memorable moment when the bowler asked the umpire to check if his blade was within the allowed limit.

Along with Truman Ramsgate, formed a formidable opening partnership for the Windies despite not actually being on speaking terms, after an incident following a ODI in Port of Spain involving a tin of pineapple rings, served up in a 'look no hands' style.

All you Nixons are making my Ford Beaumaris feel young and spry, but I'm sure it won't last... that intolerable young whippersnapper Clinton Croyde (best: 6/37 vs India, Trinidad, 2001) will be along any minute now. 👿

Few options for me:

Regan Adelaide - for the same reason as CFH in that Oz used to be part of Britain, perhaps.

Regan St Peter Port - doesn't really work, but geographically the last British seaside town I was in, even if it's not technically the UK

Regan Rhoscolyn - Has a ring to it, but not sure this works with Welsh place names

Which leaves:

Regan 'Bing' Crosby - somewhat prone to outbursts of singing to sledge the opposition

Carter Whitby.

Absolutley useless wicket keeper.

In full, mine becomes a right mouthful: Lyndon B Johnson Burton Bradstock. However, with a bit of tweaking we could have:

Johnson Bradstock or
Lyndon B Bradstock

Whichever way you look at it - likely to be useless! 🙂