*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[BoyBrumby]

They still had an extremely small chance of winning the game though. They should've declared earlier if anything. A minute chance of winning is worth more than all the mind games in the world.

Yeah, agreed with this. We were like a 0.05% chance, but the closure showed we at least retained vague ambitions of the win.

 

[Uppercut]

And what happened was an incorrect LBW decision which everyone is all too keen to punish England for/forget.

Jeez, get over it. Referrals are there for a reason. If you waste them, suck it up.

 

[Blaze 18]

Jeez, get over it. Referrals are there for a reason. If you waste them, suck it up.

The availability of the referral system does not justify wrong decisions, does it ?

 

[Jarquis]

Yes because that perfectly excuses Umpires making bad calls? Good one.

Jeez, I'm not even complaining about the decision itself, just the fact that people are willing to ignore it and say "Hurr durr 481. England's bowling is bad. Herp derp."

 

[Uppercut]

But the point is that it's completely normal to have a bit of bad luck at some stage in an innings of bowling. If all it takes is one poor lbw decision for Australia to pile up 480 then England are indeed ****ed for the series and what everyone is saying is true.

Besides, it entirely disregards anything that did go England's way. Getting Ponting out at 80/1 with a legside half-volley won't happen every time you bowl to Australia either. If he stays in for another hour, different game. Anderson's straight one to Hussey wasn't the only ball the game could have hinged on.

You get another four shots at rolling them cheaply first innings, and I don't doubt England will do it at some stage, but it seems that you're trying to justify Australia's big total purely by pointing out one incorrect decision.

 

[Jarquis]

it seems that you're trying to justify Australia's big total purely by pointing out one incorrect decision.

No, I'm pointing out that people are just willing to ignore it as though it didn't happen. Ponting played his shot badly, that's his fault. Hussey wasn't given out LBW, that's the Umpire's fault.
Which one is it justified to point at and complain about?

I'm sorry but if Ponting keeps on edging leg-side half trackers then he'll keep getting out to them. It's nobody's fault but his own so it's not really comparable.

Batsmen getting shots wrong is part of the game, dire umpire decisions need not be. I know as it stands they, wrongly, are but they can still be criticised.

Edit : if Ponting had been incorrectly given out, you might have a point. As it stands though, you really don't.

 

[GIMH]

Thread closed.

 

[vcs]

But the point is that it's completely normal to have a bit of bad luck at some stage in an innings of bowling. If all it takes is one poor lbw decision for Australia to pile up 480 then England are indeed ****ed for the series and what everyone is saying is true.

Besides, it entirely disregards anything that did go England's way. Getting Ponting out at 80/1 with a legside half-volley won't happen every time you bowl to Australia either. If he stays in for another hour, different game. Anderson's straight one to Hussey wasn't the only ball the game could have hinged on.

You get another four shots at rolling them cheaply first innings, and I don't doubt England will do it at some stage, but it seems that you're trying to justify Australia's big total purely by pointing out one incorrect decision.

AWTA.

Strauss made a bad decision to leave the first ball of the 2nd innings. That it was going over the stumps by a couple of centimeters doesn't change the fact that it was a bad decision. If he had gone first ball, I suspect the match would have had an entirely different complexion. One cannot use that, however, to paper over Australia's bowling deficiencies, because they were all too apparent. One bad umpiring decision going against the bowling side in 150 overs is not all that different. If you are good enough, you will eventually create enough opportunities to make it irrelevant. Or get a bad decision from the umpire in your favour.

 

[Jarquis]

AWTA.

Strauss made a bad decision to leave the first ball of the 2nd innings. That it was going over the stumps by a couple of centimeters doesn't change the fact that it was a bad decision. If he had gone first ball, I suspect the match would have had an entirely different complexion. One cannot use that, however, to paper over Australia's bowling deficiencies, because they were all too apparent. One bad umpiring decision going against the bowling side in 150 overs is not all that different. If you are good enough, you will eventually create enough opportunities to make it irrelevant. Or get a bad decision from the umpire in your favour.

No, the few centimetres make all the difference! it's the difference between leaving the ball and people appealing... or leaving the ball and getting out. I don't see how those few cms could be any more crucial to whether it's a good or bad decision to leave the ball

The idea that umpiring decisions "even themselves out" is a complete fallacy, and even if it were true it shouldn't be relied upon, nor does it make the original incorrect decision any less incorrect. As for making it irrelevant, you can't unless you get the batsman out before another run is added... which doesn't happen all that often. Nor should you have to make "more opportunities" you've been scummed by the Umpire and have to get a batsman of Mike Hussey's calibre out twice.

 

[Bloody Hell]

AWTA.

Strauss made a bad decision to leave the first ball of the 2nd innings. That it was going over the stumps by a couple of centimeters doesn't change the fact that it was a bad decision. If he had gone first ball, I suspect the match would have had an entirely different complexion. One cannot use that, however, to paper over Australia's bowling deficiencies, because they were all too apparent. One bad umpiring decision going against the bowling side in 150 overs is not all that different. If you are good enough, you will eventually create enough opportunities to make it irrelevant. Or get a bad decision from the umpire in your favour.

Would not have mattered.

The pitch started lively, but slowly metamorphised into a 22 yard strip of the Eyre Highway. If they had of got to 9 for, we would have eventually witnessed a 200 run stand between Anderson and Finn....which possibly would have been more entertaining.

 

[vcs]

No, from the batsman's point of view, leaving that ball was a bad decision full stop. It doesn't matter that it went over by a couple of inches, Strauss's brain would have to be fitted with Hawkeye's computer for him to have based his decision upon that. It was a close shave, and the coin landed the right way for him, let's not pretend otherwise. Same goes for Hussey's first ball edge.

You're being pedantic by saying you need to dismiss the batsman the very next ball to make the umpire's decision irrelevant.. very good bowling sides can, and do, create opportunities on a regular enough basis to overcome the odd decision going against them.

 

[Jarquis]

No, from the batsman's point of view, leaving that ball was a bad decision full stop. It doesn't matter that it went over by a couple of inches, Strauss's brain would have to be fitted with Hawkeye's computer for him to have based his decision upon that. It was a close shave, and the coin landed the right way for him, let's not pretend otherwise. Same goes for Hussey's first ball edge.

You're being pedantic by saying you need to dismiss the batsman the very next ball to make the umpire's decision irrelevant.. very good bowling sides can, and do, create opportunities on a regular enough basis to overcome the odd decision going against them.

No, a good leave is one which doesn't hit the stumps. He might've misjudged it slightly and expected it to miss the stumps by more than it did but it was a good leave. Had he played at the ball and snicked off it would've been a bad decision to play at the ball, no? I mean, it wasn't going to hit the stumps so he didn't need to play.

I'm not being pedantic, if an umpire gets a decision wrong and then the batsman goes on to score 20 more.. how is that irrelevant? A bad umpiring decision has cost you 20 runs, 20 more runs you have to score to win the game. That's not irrelevant!
Having a good enough bowling attack to bowl a side out for 20 does not make incorrect umpiring decisions irrelevant if you should've bowled them out for 17.

What you're saying is basically irrelevant. I don't care if "a very good bowling sides" can do this, that or the other. South Africa might be able to trounce Bangladesh despite 50 incorrect umpiring decisions.
In this series, between two evenly matched sides, incorrect umpiring decisions can make the difference. In fact you could say they already have.

 

[vcs]

Haha c'mon, in what world could you call that a "good leave"? Did he intend it to thud into his pads in front of the stumps, only to be saved by the bounce?

You know what I mean, what is 20 runs in the larger scheme of things when you consider how the match played out? But I guess we just have different views on this, so no point carrying it on really.

 

[Jarquis]

Haha c'mon, in what world could you call that a "good leave"? Did he intend it to thud into his pads in front of the stumps, only to be saved by the bounce?

You know what I mean, what is 20 runs in the larger scheme of things when you consider how the match played out? But I guess we just have different views on this, so no point carrying it on really.

No, he intended it to bounce over the stumps. Which it did. Just by a smaller margin than he expected.

What is 20 runs? Funnily enough it's 20 runs. The game wasn't even heading towards a definite draw at that stage, it's fine to look back with hindsight and say it wasn't hugely instrumental. But actually, Australia would've been 229/6 in their first innings... which is completely different to 450/5

 

[Blaze 18]

I am with Marcuss on this. I really don't see how you can equate a batsman's mistake to an umpiring error. You might as well discount every English batsman who got out to a poor shot.

 

[zaremba]

I've just seen a nice clip of the esteemed Australian captain telling Aleem Dar "that's ****ing weak umpiring, Aleem, that's ****ing weak umpiring"

Having said which, I've gotta admit, I'm starting to like his post-match interviews, comes across as a far more likeable human (yes!) being.

 

[Jarquis]

Ali Martin on Cricket: Mitchell Johnson? Freddie Mercurial more like

 

[Ausage]

Herp derp.

Worst meme ever.

 

[Jacknife]

Ali Martin on Cricket: Mitchell Johnson? Freddie Mercurial more like

The likeness is uncanny

 

[morgieb]

Marcusss, you're just sounding like Richard here. Australia dropped a lot of their catches as well, maybe we should just take their innings with a grain of salt as well?