• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* 2nd Test at Lord's

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
The problem with DRS is that there is such a giant margin of error which favours the umpire. Margins of error should favour the batsmen.

And I think it's ridiculous to limit the batting side's reviews. At worst you'll get ten reviews but in reality you won't get anywhere near that many. No batsman is going to review a bowled or obvious caught decision. Especially if every wicket is automatically reviewed for no ball.
I'm OK with it, fwiw. I remember England playing a series in the WI back in 2009 where the previous rules, iirc, basically said that if there was any doubt the batsman wasn't out. The result, what seemed like lots of LBWs overturned because the ball was only seen to be clipping the stumps. The current system avoids that sort of nonsense, and if the 3rd umpire got ti wrong with the Smith wicket, that's a separate matter.

As for the limit to the number of reviews, only if it's umpire's call. If not, I'm happy with them losing it. I could envisage situation where it was simply a time-wasting tactic otherwise.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
it's funny/surprising because he looked quite good even against spin IIRC during that 99 knock against india

good shot
Bounce imo. His biggest weakness against the offies is the back foot, angled bat prod to the ball waaay too close to force through the off side comfortably. Got him last Test iirc, and he's always liable to edge behind or guide it to slip.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Will England players be physically capable of batting out three days?

150 overs is an awful lot of fielding.
Why would we bat out three days? Bat five sessions, match Australia's score, stick them into bat, blow them away. Easy.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
If you remove Rogers, Smith and all boundaries, it's been a pretty pathetic performance from Australia
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I'm presuming that Warne has been lambasting Clarke's defensive, negative captaincy over his refusal to declare for the last hour or so.

Unless he's got some other reason for saying what he does
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
If this was us still batting this thread would be full of Cook haters (granted the main one is on a 7 day sabbatical) sticking the boot in
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Good day from Broad here. Bit late but turned the innings from an English perspective from nightmarish to merely bad.

Fantastic from TPC and Rogers obv. Need more from the rest of the bats though.

Will be very interesting this session. Especially looking at the clouds.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
pretty pointless coming out. Waste of the changeover overs.
I suspect they were hoping Johnson wouldn't hole out so soon...plus also Lee and Taylor were talking about the mental effect of not declaring at straight at tea.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
We'll be something for 3 at close, and then bat all day tomorrow. Root to score a treble. Mitch (the original) to rack up a 50 in extras alone
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Australia have a weird thing about not batting two full days. Scoring as much as possible here should have been the plan.
 

Top