1st Test, Edgbaston, Birmingham

[Burgey]

It might also be a sign that if he makes runs on day one, he doesn't need to make too many on the other days

 

[TheJediBrah]

You talking about the noise down leg? Didn't look like an edge spike, more like what you'd expect as his feet crossed over, which I thought they did as he played the attempted glance. But tbf I was in a pub at the time and with no sound it was hard to tell what the comms made of it.

M8 Warner absolutely hit that one first ball, toe of the bat. Would have been overturned without a doubt if England reviewed. Would have been an insanely unlucky dismissal though.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What was the consensus on the pitch

Is it really just a 300 run pitch?

I think it is, no swing and just a bit of movement off the seam, not really extravagant movement at all and if the rest of the Aussies were in trouble on a pitch like that then god help them when conditions favour the bowlers. Siddle played sensibly and a lower order player showed there are no demons in the pitch.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It might also be a sign that if he makes runs on day one, he doesn't need to make too many on the other days

Do I really need to add a /s?

 

[SteveNZ]

Btw, did anyone on this thread try to get around how terrible Warner's decision was by saying it was his fault for not reviewing, instead of acknowledging it was plainly awful umpiring? There's too much excusing bad umpiring because the player doesn't use DRS to overturn. If the umpire doesn't make a **** decision to start with. there's no need to contemplate a review.

This is very true. We expect batsmen to be the decision makers on what's hitting and what isnt, not the umpires. And I feel like DRS has lured umpires into giving more decisions where they could use logic, like Broads angle to say no that's probably missing leg, clipping at best

 

[Burgey]

Do I really need to add a /s?

Was more a comment directed to the discussion generally than your post mate

 

[OverratedSanity]

Those wide angle lbws are really difficult to judge tbh. It'd be harsh to criticize Dar for it too much. There've been occasions where a bloke bowls it from wide of the crease and it looks like the angle will take it past three more leg stumps but then the replay comes up and it's hitting. Probably the toughest kind of decisions to make. Vice versa too. I did initially think Warner was out as well.

 

[Burgey]

I think it is, no swing and just a bit of movement off the seam, not really extravagant movement at all and if the rest of the Aussies were in trouble on a pitch like that then god help them when conditions favour the bowlers. Siddle played sensibly and a lower order player showed there are no demons in the pitch.

FJ, you seem to be operating in some sort of parallel universe where England doesn't apparently have to go and bat this series. I mean, if Australia gets rolled for say 100 in conditions like that, why on earth would you presume England would top it, given they got dicked on day one at Lord's by Ireland for 80 odd?

 

[Burgey]

SteveNZ and I are in furious agreement about a few things today, which is probably causing both of us to wonder wtaf is going on here.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

FJ, you seem to be operating in some sort of parallel universe where England doesn't apparently have to go and bat this series. I mean, if Australia gets rolled for say 100 in conditions like that, why on earth would you presume England would top it, given they got dicked on day one at Lord's by Ireland for 80 odd?

I never mentioned our batting at all I know it is poor, just saying that Siddle played ok and showed up everyone else bar Smith in the same way Leach did last week for our lot. No idea why you are jumping on that when it is just a fact. Both line ups are crap with the bat and it wasn't even that difficult yesterday and the Aussies were in the **** at 120-8.

 

[vcs]

In ordinary circumstances, I'd say it's just a par total with the fightback from 122/8 making it look much bigger than it actually is. Given the current state of England's batting, coupled with Australia having a good attack, it's a bit above par IMO. But things can change obviously. Australia may bowl poorer than we expect or England might come out and bat well for a change.

You should all be grateful for these piercing insights.

 

[Arachnodouche]

@*****: Do umpires get regular physicals/vital signs evaluated? I ask because other than Taufel I can't think of another umpire in decent physical condition. I understand that's not the overriding criteria for the job, but surely being overweight adversely affects concentration levels whilst standing six hours a day.

 

[Burgey]

I never mentioned our batting at all I know it is poor, just saying that Siddle played ok and showed up everyone else bar Smith in the same way Leach did last week for our lot. No idea why you are jumping on that when it is just a fact. Both line ups are crap with the bat and it wasn't even that difficult yesterday and the Aussies were in the **** at 120-8.

Yeah but you're assuming I agree with your assessment of the deck and conditions, which I don't (opinions and all that). I think early on it decked quite a bit but not consistently, so rather than a green top or a bunsen, it was sort of a "you're never in" type deck, where the odd one would do enough to spook you.

I think Australia played too negatively at times yesterday too. Not normally an #intent kind of bloke, but in this instance there was decent enough reason to be more positive. I don't think you can let blokes like Broad and the poor man's Alderman just bowl at you. It gets back to confidence, and also strike rotation. By the time he got to 40 odd, Smith was milking singles brilliantly. So many of our top order don't seem to know how to drop it and run. And when blokes are bowling good areas on a deck doing a bit, it's a massive failing to stay on strike for a lot of balls in a row. Compare the approach of Khawaja and Bancroft as examples to Head, who was a lot more positive and backed himself. I suppose to an extent that comes from the knowledge your spot is safe, but he played really well imho. Feasted on the Ali filth, which any good leftie should.

 

[Burgey]

In ordinary circumstances, I'd say it's just a par total with the fightback from 122/8 making it look much bigger than it actually is. Given the current state of England's batting, coupled with Australia having a good attack, it's a bit above par IMO. But things can change obviously. Australia may bowl poorer than we expect or England might come out and bat well for a change.

You should all be grateful for these piercing insights.

Got a real feeling it's going to turn biggish with a bit of variable and Lyon will run amok

 

[hazsa19]

Yeah but you're assuming I agree with your assessment of the deck and conditions, which I don't (opinions and all that). I think early on it decked quite a bit but not consistently, so rather than a green top or a bunsen, it was sort of a "you're never in" type deck, where the odd one would do enough to spook you.

I think Australia played too negatively at times yesterday too. Not normally an #intent kind of bloke, but in this instance there was decent enough reason to be more positive. I don't think you can let blokes like Broad and the poor man's Alderman just bowl at you. It gets back to confidence, and also strike rotation. By the time he got to 40 odd, Smith was milking singles brilliantly. So many of our top order don't seem to know how to drop it and run. And when blokes are bowling good areas on a deck doing a bit, it's a massive failing to stay on strike for a lot of balls in a row. Compare the approach of Khawaja and Bancroft as examples to Head, who was a lot more positive and backed himself. I suppose to an extent that comes from the knowledge your spot is safe, but he played really well imho. Feasted on the Ali filth, which any good leftie should.

Head got some runs because Stokes bowled tripe to him.

From my limited vantage point square of the wicket it seemed to get easier to bat around the time Siddle was in. If our top order can make it through the first session and a half, and that’s a big if, there’s a decent score out there.

 

[cnerd123]

@*****: Do umpires get regular physicals/vital signs evaluated? I ask because other than Taufel I can't think of another umpire in decent physical condition. I understand that's not the overriding criteria for the job, but surely being overweight adversely affects concentration levels whilst standing six hours a day.

As far as I am aware they do not, but I think they should be checked too. The Elite panel might go through some checks but the Associate panels don't. In HK itself it's been a subject of discussion over the years, but we don't have the resources or depth in umpiring talent to start testing our local umpires this way. Eyesight, hearing, and general fitness are all very important. The focus has now shifted to recuriting and developing younger umpires (which is kinda how I got involved).

I've heard that good umpires attend net sessions to practice their umpiring. Gives them practice of being on their feet and making decisions while they aren't in the middle. Keeps them sharp.

Also, iirc Aleem Dar still plays over-50s cricket and has a pitch in his backyard where he practices bowling. Might be confusing him with another umpire tho. But if it is him, it would explain why he's one of the best going around ATM.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it is, no swing and just a bit of movement off the seam, not really extravagant movement at all and if the rest of the Aussies were in trouble on a pitch like that then god help them when conditions favour the bowlers. Siddle played sensibly and a lower order player showed there are no demons in the pitch.

You've mentioned something along these lines a few times flibs, and I really think you've misjudged the conditions. They were not easy batting conditions at all, especially early on. I'm sure there could be worse conditions in England but it definitely qualified as conditions favouring the bowler.

 

[harsh.ag]

Extravagant movement is usually worse for getting wickets too

 

[cnerd123]

https://twitter.com/PloughmansCC/status/1156873149104951297?s=20

Sandpaper send off from the crowd to Warner

 

[flibbertyjibber]

You've mentioned something along these lines a few times flibs, and I really think you've misjudged the conditions. They were not easy batting conditions at all, especially early on. I'm sure there could be worse conditions in England but it definitely qualified as conditions favouring the bowler.

Shock there was a bit of movement early on day 1 in a pitch in England which vanished as the day went on. Today and Saturday will be good for batting before it starts to deteriorate. Typical English pitch and not the minefield everyone is making it out to be.