What an amazing result. The penultimate ball by Neil Wagner should arguably have been a no ball on height. This would apparently have resulted in a drain test had he still taken that final wicket. Gotta love cricket.
(a) for height it would be a wide, rather than a no ball.
(b) calling of such wides was not totally consistent
(c) Test match umpires seem to me to me missing quite a lot of back foot no balls by bowlers bowling round the wicket.
(d) level scores with all innings completed is a tie, not a draw.
What an amazing result. The penultimate ball by Neil Wagner should arguably have been a no ball on height. This would apparently have resulted in a drain test had he still taken that final wicket. Gotta love cricket.
(a) for height it would be a wide, rather than a no ball.
(b) calling of such wides was not totally consistent
(c) Test match umpires seem to me to me missing quite a lot of back foot no balls by bowlers bowling round the wicket.
(d) level scores with all innings completed is a tie, not a draw.
Law 21.10 Ball bouncing over head height of striker
The umpire shall call and signal No ball for any delivery which, after pitching, passes or would have passed over head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
For some reason, test matches and other competitions ignore this law and it's called a wide. In normal cricket Foakes would have been not out having been caught off a no ball.
Raise a glass to my Leicestershire who managed a cracking win yesterday against Yorkshire. What a result. There are so many inexperienced players in the side.
I am rather concerned about the fitness of Ben Sokes and whether our current openers can cope with the Aussie quicks
Mmm. I think it unlikely that Duckett will perform as well against Australia as he did against Ireland, for example. I do not see that there is anyone obviously better available though.
I am rather concerned about the fitness of Ben Sokes and whether our current openers can cope with the Aussie quicks
Mmm. I think it unlikely that Duckett will perform as well against Australia as he did against Ireland, for example. I do not see that there is anyone obviously better available though.
Agree with this.
In the World championship final less than 160 overs have been bowled in 2 days. This is not good
That is an absolutely extraordinary decision from Stokes. How can you declare your first innings on less than 400 with Root on 118 not out and Robinson on 17 not out? Really need two or three wickets before close to justify it!
That is an absolutely extraordinary decision from Stokes. How can you declare your first innings on less than 400 with Root on 118 not out and Robinson on 17 not out? Really need two or three wickets before close to justify it!
Have to agree. You need every run you can get on such a good pitch.
It was an interesting day for sure. I am just hoping that the weather behaves itself.
Well the weather did not behave itself and play should have ceased before Crawley got out. Not convinced about Duckett. He should not have been playing that shot at that time. Not convinced about Ali. Too expensive. He took two wickets but if you are bowling that many overs you will inevitably take a few wickets
I think Australia must be favourites but Broad has dragged England back into it. The pitch still seems decent and 170 is not that many with 7 wickets in hand. But the weather forecast does not look great either!
Great test match. Australia did remarkably well, at times they seemed beatable, they were not.
But, I fear that the Ashes series is gone. England just have too many frailties against a better team. They came close this time, but lost. Not 5-0, but 3-1?
Batsmen: plenty; fast bowlers: plenty; spinners? wicket keeper? you tell me.
A test where Root's catch failed to win the match tells us something.
Great test match. Australia did remarkably well, at times they seemed beatable, they were not.
But, I fear that the Ashes series is gone. England just have too many frailties against a better team. They came close this time, but lost. Not 5-0, but 3-1?
Batsmen: plenty; fast bowlers: plenty; spinners? wicket keeper? you tell me.
A test where Root's catch failed to win the match tells us something.
A match where getting Labuschagne (sp?) and Smith out cheaply twice and still fails to win tells us more.
A match where getting Labuschagne (sp?) and Smith out cheaply twice and still fails to win tells us more.
Indeed, if you had told me before the match that Labuschagne and Smith would, over two innings, score only 35 runs combined, I doubt I would have been placing money on Australia to win.
A great match and Australia won without notable contributions from their best batters. I note that Lyon and Boland scored 1 run between them in the first innings and 36 in the second innings. Stokes is still not admitting that it was daft to declare on the first day of a five day game.
England need to put out a better team as they need to win at least 2 games to capture the ashes.
Writing as I do from Scotland I'm a neutral observer. Actually my stance with cricket is Anybody But Australia, but I don't like "BazBall" and I don't like Ben Stokes very much as he's a nasty little thug (as witness his brawling on the street in Bristol a few years ago, caught bang to rights on video throwing his fists about), so I was rather pleased to see Proper Test Cricket overcome BazBall on this occasion.
If I want to see novelty shots I'll watch T20 cricket, and I often so when I can, but they have no place in a Test match. They call it "entertaining" but I find endless entertainment in a dour battle of wits between bat and ball. Same as I like a film or a book or a TV drama that's allowed to breathe and puts relationships and character development before car chases, gunfights and improbable feats by "superheroes" (I liked Superman comics when I was 10 even though I knew they were ridiculous then, but then I grew up). I resent it that entertainment for people like me is not often prioritised, only what pleases those with brief attention spans.
It was a great match. But England needs to strengthen their bowling corps! Having Sophie Ecclestone bowl 76.7 overs (out of a possible 202.7)--37.8%---is A Bit Much. Heck, no other bowler on either squad bowled as much Ecclestone did just in the first innings (46.2). The closest was Kate Cross who, in the two innings combined, managed to bowl 46.
A good first day at Lords in the second test but Ebgland should have done better. Bairstow should not have carried that protestor off. He might have injured himself. He should have just handed him over to security.
Another good day of proper test cricket. A responsible innings by Stokes in answer to Australia's short pitched bowling with saw the demise of 3 of England's top batters.
I have never understood all the front foot no balls. When I played I always aimed to land the whole of my foot behind the line
What was wrong with the Bairstow stumping? What I saw was Alex Carey gathering the ball and in a single fluid motion throwing down the wicket, while the none-too-bright Bairstow goes wandering down the wicket.
If Carey hadn't gathered the ball and it had gone for four byes I bet there would have been no cries of foul from England.
Too much whining about "the spirit of the game". These aren't gentleman amateurs or primary school children, these are grown up professionals who play within the laws of the game.
Oh yes, and England would certainly have won both games if it wasn't for the poor declaration, the poor wicket-keeping, the poor outfield catching, the policy of bowling short on the leg stump at no great pace for hours on end, and some pretty dire batting. The truth is, the better team won both games (despite some pretty dreadful bowling today from Aussies who ought to know better.
It was a technically correct call by the rules, just as the ruling on Starc's non-catch was technically correct--even though he clearly had caught and had control of the ball. Those who insist on strict readings of the rules in their favor should not complain too much when the rules are also strictly applied in the other teams favor. I am not wild about Australia's action, but I can't get too bent out of shape about it either.
We have rules and regulations in cricket but the basic game is controlled by the Laws. With Bairstow at least 2 yeads out of his ground, I have no idea why the Square leg umpire refered it unless he was loath to make a decision.
As a league umpire I had a couple of unusual decisions to make :-
1. The opening batter was batting about 9 inches out of his ground to a quick bowler. The keeper was standing well back. The keeper noticed that if he missed or left the ball he was not going back into his ground. On the next occasion he threw the ball and broke the wicket with the batter still out of his ground. I had no hesitation in giving him out stumped. Nobody complained
2. A batter hit the ball and the ground at the same time. The ball and the bottom half of his bat went to short extra cover. The batter walked out to collect the bottom half of his bat. A fielder picked up the ball, threw down the wicket and appealed. I said "Not out". When asked why I said 'Dead ball'
One of fielders who I knew well grinned and asked me why it was dead ball. I replied "Law 43". After the game 2 elderly members of the fielding side were very critical of the appeal.
It didn't look too bad to me. Carey threw the ball pretty much immediately he caught it - there was no particular reason for anyone to think the ball was dead. Had Carey been standing up to a spin bowler and the same thing happened, there would be no controversy. Bairstow just omitted to think of the possibility of being stumped off a pace bowler.
Some people are claiming that the umpires are moving out of their position, and one is preparing to hand the bowlers cap back. In other words, they think the ball is dead. But I think both batters and fielders have to agree that it's dead. Undoubtedly, Bairstow was dopey. Should be fun at Headingley.
Some people are claiming that the umpires are moving out of their position, and one is preparing to hand the bowlers cap back. In other words, they think the ball is dead. But I think both batters and fielders have to agree that it's dead. Undoubtedly, Bairstow was dopey. Should be fun at Headingley.
Carey is fortunate not to be fielding in front of the Western terraces
Comments
(a) for height it would be a wide, rather than a no ball.
(b) calling of such wides was not totally consistent
(c) Test match umpires seem to me to me missing quite a lot of back foot no balls by bowlers bowling round the wicket.
(d) level scores with all innings completed is a tie, not a draw.
Law 21.10 Ball bouncing over head height of striker
The umpire shall call and signal No ball for any delivery which, after pitching, passes or would have passed over head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
For some reason, test matches and other competitions ignore this law and it's called a wide. In normal cricket Foakes would have been not out having been caught off a no ball.
BazBall about to be hit over the pavilion clock and into the car park?
I am rather concerned about the fitness of Ben Sokes and whether our current openers can cope with the Aussie quicks
Mmm. I think it unlikely that Duckett will perform as well against Australia as he did against Ireland, for example. I do not see that there is anyone obviously better available though.
In the World championship final less than 160 overs have been bowled in 2 days. This is not good
Have to agree. You need every run you can get on such a good pitch.
Well the weather did not behave itself and play should have ceased before Crawley got out. Not convinced about Duckett. He should not have been playing that shot at that time. Not convinced about Ali. Too expensive. He took two wickets but if you are bowling that many overs you will inevitably take a few wickets
I make Australia slight favourites
But, I fear that the Ashes series is gone. England just have too many frailties against a better team. They came close this time, but lost. Not 5-0, but 3-1?
Batsmen: plenty; fast bowlers: plenty; spinners? wicket keeper? you tell me.
A test where Root's catch failed to win the match tells us something.
A match where getting Labuschagne (sp?) and Smith out cheaply twice and still fails to win tells us more.
England need to put out a better team as they need to win at least 2 games to capture the ashes.
If I want to see novelty shots I'll watch T20 cricket, and I often so when I can, but they have no place in a Test match. They call it "entertaining" but I find endless entertainment in a dour battle of wits between bat and ball. Same as I like a film or a book or a TV drama that's allowed to breathe and puts relationships and character development before car chases, gunfights and improbable feats by "superheroes" (I liked Superman comics when I was 10 even though I knew they were ridiculous then, but then I grew up). I resent it that entertainment for people like me is not often prioritised, only what pleases those with brief attention spans.
Ben Stokes is presumably puzzled why they haven't declared.... 🙄
Great match. Shame about the result. Great cricket though.
I have never understood all the front foot no balls. When I played I always aimed to land the whole of my foot behind the line
If England avoid losing on Sunday it will be an absolute triumph! But it seems very unlikely...
The Bairstow stumping....The time for the endless mid pitch chats is when the ball is dead, preferably at the end of the over.
If Carey hadn't gathered the ball and it had gone for four byes I bet there would have been no cries of foul from England.
Too much whining about "the spirit of the game". These aren't gentleman amateurs or primary school children, these are grown up professionals who play within the laws of the game.
Oh yes, and England would certainly have won both games if it wasn't for the poor declaration, the poor wicket-keeping, the poor outfield catching, the policy of bowling short on the leg stump at no great pace for hours on end, and some pretty dire batting. The truth is, the better team won both games (despite some pretty dreadful bowling today from Aussies who ought to know better.
As a league umpire I had a couple of unusual decisions to make :-
1. The opening batter was batting about 9 inches out of his ground to a quick bowler. The keeper was standing well back. The keeper noticed that if he missed or left the ball he was not going back into his ground. On the next occasion he threw the ball and broke the wicket with the batter still out of his ground. I had no hesitation in giving him out stumped. Nobody complained
2. A batter hit the ball and the ground at the same time. The ball and the bottom half of his bat went to short extra cover. The batter walked out to collect the bottom half of his bat. A fielder picked up the ball, threw down the wicket and appealed. I said "Not out". When asked why I said 'Dead ball'
One of fielders who I knew well grinned and asked me why it was dead ball. I replied "Law 43". After the game 2 elderly members of the fielding side were very critical of the appeal.
Test umpires cannot use discretion.
Carey is fortunate not to be fielding in front of the Western terraces