3rd Ashes Test: Australia v England, Old Trafford August 1-5.

[BarneyBent]

Have you ever seen a less enthused MOTM?

 

[western royboy]

Have you ever seen a less enthused MOTM?

I'm critical of Clarke off field, there's plenty of blame regarding the dysfunctionalty of the team that sits at his doorstep, but having said that, I applaud his onfield captaincy and attitude. Making 100's is fantastic, but they don't count for s**t if you don't win. He'd be happier celebrating a duck if they won they game and that's the attitude that they all need to adopt.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Fair to say 2 nil heavily flatters the poms..

AS shown they are very ordinary when they dont win the toss after doctoring the pitches to suit.

 

[Cleavy]

Have you ever seen a less enthused MOTM?

if he doesn't want the cheque, he should donate the money to a charity

 

[Mingo]

I think we should have batted longer in the first dig, haddin and starc were scoring at 5 an over(with little risk) so i would have aimed for 600+ and given england a much tougher follow on target.

People said it was an aggressive move to call them in with 520 on the board but we were always going to have to bat again with that amount of runs, bat those 15 extra overs in the first dig and we have a more realistic shot at making england follow on.

If we do have to bat then for a second time it's chasing a small total not having to set a total(which is always going to take longer).

The popular notion here seems to be you need 20 wickets so declare early but along with those 20 wickets you need enough runs, scoring more of them them rapidly in the first innings is a different form of aggression to an early declaration but it's no less valid.

You're spot on, but retrospect is a wonderful thing. I thought it was a good declaration at the time.

 

[JUBJUB]

No other bars in Manchester so the Poms celebrate at an Aussie one ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...im-Bresnan-spotted-smoking-in-Manchester.html

this bit cracked me up

Joe Root, allegedly 22 but around 15 if going on purely visual evidence, presumably had to ask one of the bigger boys in the England squad to buy his for him.

 

[frankrizzo]

You're spot on, but retrospect is a wonderful thing. I thought it was a good declaration at the time.

In fairness i was whinging about clarke declaring too early at the time.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...ord-august-1-5.1022169/page-160#post-29442326

 

[moto748]

Hang on, have I got this right? England are accused of 'doctoring' a pitch on which Australia got 500+ runs?

A few points:

1. Scope for any 'doctoring' is restricted by the weather. The unusually dry English summer probably had more effect on the pitch than anything else, and groundsmen are powerless to do anything about it.

2. Anyway it was a perfectly decent Test wicket: still a reasonable batting wicket (as Clarke showed), with not too much unpredictable bounce even at the end. Some slow turn, but not a spinners' paradise. As for wanting a wicket where the ball swung, I'd say that's got more to do with the climate than the pitch.

3. Do you really believe pitch preparation is any different in England to Australia or any other country?

 

[Mateyman]

Hang on, have I got this right? England are accused of 'doctoring' a pitch on which Australia got 500+ runs?

A few points:

1. Scope for any 'doctoring' is restricted by the weather. The unusually dry English summer probably had more effect on the pitch than anything else, and groundsmen are powerless to do anything about it.

2. Anyway it was a perfectly decent Test wicket: still a reasonable batting wicket (as Clarke showed), with not too much unpredictable bounce even at the end. Some slow turn, but not a spinners' paradise. As for wanting a wicket where the ball swung, I'd say that's got more to do with the climate than the pitch.

3. Do you really believe pitch preparation is any different in England to Australia or any other country?

You do realise doctoring a wicket has no relation to how many runs are scored, right? It's like if we suddenly made the WACA into a flat pitch that deteriorated like Adelaide on days 4 and 5, because we had no pace bowlers but good spinners (unlikely for this to be the case, but it's an example). Teams could still make 500+ runs on it, but it's still been doctored.

 

[eddiesmith]

warner yesterday? the short ball from stuart broad?

Good to see Warner admitted to hitting it,mhope people dont forget when they bring up the 1 sided reviews this series

 

[Mateyman]

Good to see Warner admitted to hitting it,mhope people dont forget when they bring up the 1 sided reviews this series

That was a correct use of DRS. Next.

 

[Zach Package]

Good to see Warner admitted to hitting it,mhope people dont forget when they bring up the 1 sided reviews this series

No evidence. really really poor example to pick on.

My bat was closer to the ball than Ussie's, and mine's under my bed. Having no evidence to overturn a fair enough decision doesn't mean squat

 

[eddiesmith]

That was a correct use of DRS. Next.

No evidence. really really poor example to pick on.

My bat was closer to the ball than Ussie's, and mine's under my bed. Having no evidence to overturn a fair enough decision doesn't mean squat

Yeah no evidence except noise deviation and not near anything else

Oh and the batsmans admission proves it was a wrong call. Said at the time he looked guilty

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Yeah no evidence except noise deviation and not near anything else

Oh and the batsmans admission proves it was a wrong call. Said at the time he looked guilty

Even if this is all correct (which i doubt) the decision did not cost England the test. Unlike the decisions in the first test which could be fairly argued cost the aussies the victory.

 

[Zach Package]

Even if this is all correct (which i doubt) the decision did not cost England the test. Unlike the decisions in the first test which could be fairly argued cost the aussies the victory.

that's not even the point though. A noise isn't hardcore evidence, and certainly not enough to overturn a decision. It's pretty obvious that to overturn a not out you need a big flick on the hotspot and a noise, they didn't have that, regardless of how guilty Warner looked, or even if he hit it, that part's irrelevant.

KP was given out, bat was shown touching ball, and there was a noise, fair enough to not overturn an out call.

Khawaja's was another one that should have been overturned, and wasn't done because of obvious incompetence.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

that's not even the point though. A noise isn't hardcore evidence, and certainly not enough to overturn a decision. It's pretty obvious that to overturn a not out you need a big flick on the hotspot and a noise, they didn't have that, regardless of how guilty Warner looked, or even if he hit it, that part's irrelevant.

KP was given out, bat was shown touching ball, and there was a noise, fair enough to not overturn an out call.

Khawaja's was another one that should have been overturned, and wasn't done because of obvious incompetence.

Yep agreed

 

[Mateyman]

Yeah no evidence except noise deviation and not near anything else

Oh and the batsmans admission proves it was a wrong call. Said at the time he looked guilty

Oh, the batsman looked guilty. Please become a cricket umpire. You could just tell if the batsman looks guilty or not and decide from there, rather than having to worry about pesky "rules"

 

[eddiesmith]

Even if this is all correct (which i doubt) the decision did not cost England the test. Unlike the decisions in the first test which could be fairly argued cost the aussies the victory.

So now we judge a howler based on whether the batsman went on with his luck or threw it away shortly after?

So the Agar decision is still the biggest howler of the series, glad we are in agreement

 

[Mateyman]

So now we judge a howler based on whether the batsman went on with his luck or threw it away shortly after?

So the Agar decision is still the biggest howler of the series, glad we are in agreement

lol. We only needed 150 in the second. We would've had that either way without Warner's 41. You're right though, the Agar "nick" was the worst howler of the series. However, nobody cared too much because it had 0 impact on the game... just like the Warner decision... which was correctly reviewed.