3rd Test at Headingley, Leeds

[cnerd123]

You're never going to get perfect decision making. That was never the goal of DRS. The goal was to correct clear mistakes, and if the players aren't going to use it in that spirit then that's on them. That's not a flaw of the system. The system does what it's designed for.

Infinite reviews is a dumb idea, as is reviewing every decision. And obv it's a problem if an umpire starts giving wrong decisions out of spite, but there are other mechanisms in place to prevent/control that.

The DRS is flawed but by now players know the rules and how the system works. Australia weren't screwed over by flaws in the system here. They screwed themselves over. Complaining about DRS in this scenario is just dumb.

 

[Spark]

"the goal was to correct clear mistakes"
> clear mistakes go uncorrected
"that's what the system was designed for!"

sure.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah I really hope that isn't a thing.

Reviews should be unlimited, ofc. But that still doesn't excuse Paine's decision to attempt that obviously stupid review while the game was still live.

It’s completely different to that actually, because you’ve actually taken a wicket (or you aren’t out), the tech is there to correct an umpire being wrong, yet it cannot be used.

Also, this idea of “correcting a howler” which we always hear about - if three red lights isn’t a howler, what is? If there’s clearly no edge when the ump says you’ve nicked it isn’t a howler, what is?

The argument “if you’ve used your reviews then too bad” just excuses poor umpiring.

It doesn’t excuse anything - you can fire the umpire if they’re not good enough. But if you use your reviews badly, that’s on you.

 

[Victor Ian]

If you are not using your reviews you are leaving money in the bank. That is what they have done to this process. You must review or you are playing two wickets behind the pace. That is not ideal. Cricketers should not be umpires or soon we are going to have the specialist reviewer.

 

[Flametree]

So I only just caught some highlights of this having read a lot here and on the Guardian. My thoughts :

- when a batsman goes full T20 mode, you really notice how far in they pull the boundaries. Some folk compared Stokes to Botham in '81 and commented that Botham had a lot of top edges. Maybe, but he still had to clear the fence...

- Lyon, how could you drop that? Cummins, why didn't you lob it to him on the full?

- the Stokes lbw looked a lot less stone cold out than I was expecting given the comments I'd read. It was so full it's hard to judge how much it was turning before it hit the front pad. Having not seen the whole session I don't know if bounce might have been a factor either - were any of Lyon's normal deliveries clearing the stumps? On the other hand, Wilson has had a whole test or two to get to know Lyon's bowling, pick his arm balls etc, so should be ready for these. And with Stokes having survived two lbws in the previous test off Lyon, you hope the umpires get together and talk about those sorts of things.

 

[Daemon]

I think we're being overly harsh on Wilson if we say that's a howler. Was very tough to give it live. It's never easy when the batsmen is sweeping and this was made worse because of how full it was. There have been many worse decisions in the series.

And since it wasn't a howler, by ***** logic Australia should have saved their review even if they had one.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well **** me dry and call me dusty. What a finish that must have been! I thought we were well on the way when England were 7 down as I was getting ready for bed. Even more so when they went 9 down while was cleaning my teeth/having a shower. I did check the score in bed though, and saw Stokes had hit 2 sixes off Lyon, which made me a little concerned. Stokes must have played one hell of an innings. I've seen some of the shots he played on a highlights package, and they were incredible. As entertaining as it can be to talk about what he did in Bristol, he's an awesome player. While many of the English team get the 'oo ers' when it comes to the pinch and the pressure is on, he seems to thrive on it. He seems to be a reasonable bloke too, or at least he has managed to come across that way in recent interviews.

As for Australia...how the **** do you bowl a team out for 67 and lose the match?

 

[DonnyBoy]

What a performance that was.. all umpiring errors not withstanding. An unbelievable spectacle and credit to the game, the sportsmanship at the end shown by the Australians was brilliant as well..
The ashes are still up for grabs moving towards 2 massive tests to come. The selectors for England need to be ruthless now going for


Burns
Sibley
Root
Stokes
Pope
Bairstow
S Curran
Archer
Leach
Broad
Anderson

 

[Starfighter]

It doesn’t excuse anything - you can fire the umpire if they’re not good enough. But if you use your reviews badly, that’s on you.

Yeah, it is excusing bad umpiring, by tacitly blaming the victims of said umpiring. With the poor angles the line between good and bad reviewing isn't as sharp as you think, and it's pretty clear from watching it happen that a good amount of guesswork is involved for all but the most blindingly obvious reviews. And sorry, Wilson has repeatedly proved not good enough, can the Australian team vote to sack him and reverse the result? A really silly take, which once again misses the actual issue for 'nyah it's your fault'.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

As for Australia...how the **** do you bowl a team out for 67 and lose the match?

Given Australia holds records for:

- Heaviest defeat
- Heaviest defeat by runs
- Smallest defeat by runs (and second, and equal third)
- Being on the wrong side of a one-wicket victory (the first occurrance, and it happened five times before this one!)
- Being defeated after forcing the opposition to follow on (three times)

it is no surprise that we managed to do this sort of thing again.

 

[tanglewood]

Given Australia holds records for:

- Heaviest defeat
- Heaviest defeat by runs
- Smallest defeat by runs (and second, and equal third)
- Being on the wrong side of a one-wicket victory (the first occurrance, and it happened five times before this one!)
- Being defeated after forcing the opposition to follow on (three times)

it is no surprise that we managed to do this sort of thing again.

Apparently since 1952 Australia have lost a test by one wicket or by 10 runs or fewer on nine occasions, and never won a test by a similar margin. Pretty incredible really.

 

[Starfighter]

Apparently the Australian team is very good at losing in a way that will break their supporters' hearts. Ishant Sharma's 31* in one of those one wicket victories is still his highest test score.

 

[stephen]

Let's face it, Australia are test match chokers. If we weren't we'd win every test by an innings due to our inherent physical, intellectual and moral superiority.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Apparently the Australian team is very good at losing in a way that will break their supporters' hearts. Ishant Sharma's 31* in one of those one wicket victories is still his highest test score.

That one ball where Johnson had ojha plumb lbw but Billy didn't give it (to make up for the shite decision to give Ishant out) and then ojha stupidly wandered out of his crease and Smith had one stump to aim at to win the test BUT HE MISSED AND IT WENT FOR FOUR OVERTHROWS OMFG. Gold.

 

[cnerd123]

It’s a mistake, but different to the others you mention. Mainly because doubling up as an umpire is not a cricketing skill unless you have a very loose definition of the term.

Yea see I don't get this mentality

You should not be gambling reviews on questionable calls

If you were given out caught behind without edging it? Review. Middled it into the pad? Review. Umpire missed a clear snick? Review. Umpire denies a plumb lbw? Review.

Players aren't meant to be second guessing umpires and gambling reviews out of hope and desperation. Sometimes you cop a tough lbw decision or are given out/survive a feather of an edge and no one is 100% sure about. That's just luck of the game. No different to your teammate dropping a catch or running you out.

 

[cnerd123]

"the goal was to correct clear mistakes"
> clear mistakes go uncorrected
"that's what the system was designed for!"

sure.

Lmao what a bullshit post. That lbw wasn't a clear mistake and even if it was, Australia suffered because they used the system dumbly. Teams are still allowed to lose cricket matches for being dumb right? Or do you want to eradicate that as well?

 

[Daemon]

Yea see I don't get this mentality

You should not be gambling reviews on questionable calls

If you were given out caught behind without edging it? Review. Middled it into the pad? Review. Umpire missed a clear snick? Review. Umpire denies a plumb lbw? Review.

Players aren't meant to be second guessing umpires and gambling reviews out of hope and desperation. Sometimes you cop a tough lbw decision or are given out/survive a feather of an edge and no one is 100% sure about. That's just luck of the game. No different to your teammate dropping a catch or running you out.

I already said it was a mistake.

To say it is no different than the other aspects of cricket that actually involve bat and ball is dishonest and you know it.

 

[cnerd123]

I already said it was a mistake.

To say it is no different than the other aspects of cricket that actually involve bat and ball is dishonest and you know it.

It really isn't dishonest, it's just a fact of cricket that I'm surprised you don't understand given you actually play the sport.

In any case you can increase to 2 or 3 reviews to be more forgiving on players being dumb, but this exact situation will happen again. Players will burn their reviews and then cop a bad decision whilst having no review in hand. And everyone will make the same bs arguments trying to excuse the players for being dumb.

 

[Daemon]

It really isn't dishonest, it's just a fact of cricket that I'm surprised you don't understand given you actually play the sport.

In any case you can increase to 2 or 3 reviews to be more forgiving on players being dumb, but this exact situation will happen again. Players will burn their reviews and then cop a bad decision whilst having no review in hand. And everyone will make the same bs arguments trying to excuse the players for being dumb.

“trying to excuse the players for being dumb”? Morgie literally dished out a death threat.

It was the umps fault first, and Paine’s second.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think Paine's thinking was scrambled by the situation and his past mistakes. 8 runs needed he decided to have a look just in case. I don't believe that he would have reviewed that at any ordinary stage of the game. It was possibly the second worse review of the series for something given not out ,after the one where England reviewed a short delivery for a catch behind when it missed everything by a foot.