-
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.
3rd Test at Headingley, Leeds
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah good call that. Was so good to watch
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
When was the last time an Australian bowler bowled a yorker? And that bowler was also probably Mitchell Starc. Cummins seems physiologically incapable of bowling a yorker, not to count the fact that he can't swing it; I don't recall Hazelwood bowling too many, and Pattinson is probably afflicted by the same thing.
Our fielding seems to have really deteriorated over the past year or two. I remember it being not the good during the World Cup, and it seems to have become worse during the test series.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Broad lbw b Pattinson last night
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Since I went to bed; I've got to conjecture what happened, but I'm guessing Paine made no effort to alter the field settings to something... decent? A blinding innings for sure though, but in test matches you can alter the field to restrict them. Anyone else in team has the potential to be a better captain at this point. Let's not even talk about his judgement on the reviews, it makes Broad's look sound.
Also Wilson must never umpire another test match ever again. He is clearly grossly incompetent and frankly I'd rather have an English umpire.
Also Wilson must never umpire another test match ever again. He is clearly grossly incompetent and frankly I'd rather have an English umpire.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No. Until the last hour people were saying how well he’d worked the fields and bowlers after the poor new ball spell. People are just massively over reacting to that review. Because if you get a review wrong it cancels out everything else in the game - dropped catches, missed run outs, bad decisions, pissing away starts. Everything. It’s all his fault.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Let's talk more about this one, if you mean umpiring ones.
Na, a major reason why Stokes even went to a court trial in the first place was to do with his fame. If the police went around arresting and sentencing every single person involved in a drunken brawl on a night out in the UK, then prisons would be ridiculously over saturated. Not saying it was fair or even legal behaviour; just that the police definitely wouldn't even have taken the case as far as it went if it were just a normal person since 1) it would be a waste of over-extended efforts and 2) Stokes' celebrity status meant that the people involved could get more leverage out of their appeal (I doubt it would have even been investigated in the first place)
Last edited:
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Ha. This was the first post that came up on my feed. Didn't see a ball bowled on the last and probably just as well. Would've been agony staying up then trying to get sleep at around 3 - 4 am after going a wicket light.
Congratulations to England on what must have been an epic chase. Especially Stokes plus Root and Denly who set him up the day before. Idk if we dropped chances but overall Australia did well considering the possibility of a thumping after Smith was ruled out. In fact our 1st innings was probably better than expected given the conditions and our 2nd dig the more disappointing. For England a few of their batting problems are allayed somewhat with Denly's determined form in the 2nd innings at least.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
oh m8 you have no idea, if you'd seen how badly Aus repeatedly ****ed it up
And no defo couldn't sleep. I wasn't even upset or annoyed tho, just hyped.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
Although umpiring has one again had an influence*, I thought beforehand that England might actually do it more easily than by a single wicket. Stokes certainly showed the right way about it: people may forget that at one point, he had only 7 runs off 80 deliveries (IIRC).
I didn't see play beyond the first session, but what I saw was the same directionless, planless bowling that Australia had against India. They seemed to tighten it up again towards the end of the session, but the ball is a bit older, the bowlers are a bit more tired, and the runs required are far smaller. Apart from Smith (and also Labuschagne so far for Joe-Root-sized scores), I am not convinced, based also on the World Cup, that Australia are particularly good performers under pressure.
Really, the problem was that they failed to put up a large score in the second innings, although three or four dismissals seem to have been avoidable at most? The weird time-frame of the match with the two short first innings seems to have made Australia forget that if they batted as usual—i.e. as they did bat—England would be already batting again mid-way through day three, on a pitch at its easiest, and with no time pressure at all. Under those circumstances, 350 is far from an impossible task, and Australia should have realised it after Root and Denly didn't go cheaply like normal that relying on raw talent alone to hope England out isn't enough.
*Perhaps the solution is not to bowl Lyon at Wilson's end.
I didn't see play beyond the first session, but what I saw was the same directionless, planless bowling that Australia had against India. They seemed to tighten it up again towards the end of the session, but the ball is a bit older, the bowlers are a bit more tired, and the runs required are far smaller. Apart from Smith (and also Labuschagne so far for Joe-Root-sized scores), I am not convinced, based also on the World Cup, that Australia are particularly good performers under pressure.
Really, the problem was that they failed to put up a large score in the second innings, although three or four dismissals seem to have been avoidable at most? The weird time-frame of the match with the two short first innings seems to have made Australia forget that if they batted as usual—i.e. as they did bat—England would be already batting again mid-way through day three, on a pitch at its easiest, and with no time pressure at all. Under those circumstances, 350 is far from an impossible task, and Australia should have realised it after Root and Denly didn't go cheaply like normal that relying on raw talent alone to hope England out isn't enough.
*Perhaps the solution is not to bowl Lyon at Wilson's end.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Would have to agree with that. Our 2nd innings was crucial to not only put the game out of England's reach but make them bat on a pitch in its most advanced state of wear.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
@ Starfighter
It’s a factor, just as a zillion things are in any close game. It’s amplified here because it was right at the death. It was a terrible call but that’s the game. There’s a million stories in the naked city of a classic test, that’s just one of them.
I have less of an issue with the decision than I do with this notion of “oh well you used your reviews. Too bad.” I call it the “Haven’t got tuppence worth of brains” or “the ***** perspective”
Say Stokes is given out caught behind at the death there and can’t review because england used theirs earlier. It seems the brain dead take the view it should be “bad luck mate, great effort and all to get within a whisker of a miracle, but because Jason Roy reviewed an lbw incorrectly 110 overs ago, the Ashes are lost.”
That would be every bit as bad as this.
But to reiterate, it’s one of however many factors in a match over five days. It’s just an unsatisfactory outcome which is easily remedied when the tech is there, but which can’t be because of the playing condition.
It’s a factor, just as a zillion things are in any close game. It’s amplified here because it was right at the death. It was a terrible call but that’s the game. There’s a million stories in the naked city of a classic test, that’s just one of them.
I have less of an issue with the decision than I do with this notion of “oh well you used your reviews. Too bad.” I call it the “Haven’t got tuppence worth of brains” or “the ***** perspective”
Say Stokes is given out caught behind at the death there and can’t review because england used theirs earlier. It seems the brain dead take the view it should be “bad luck mate, great effort and all to get within a whisker of a miracle, but because Jason Roy reviewed an lbw incorrectly 110 overs ago, the Ashes are lost.”
That would be every bit as bad as this.
But to reiterate, it’s one of however many factors in a match over five days. It’s just an unsatisfactory outcome which is easily remedied when the tech is there, but which can’t be because of the playing condition.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The biggest take away for me, other than the outstanding batting from Stokes, was the amount of luck he had. That was a 1 in a 1000 innings purely in that regard. Can't really complain too much about the field placings, he could have holed out nearly a dozen times in the last partnership with mistimed slogs, and that's not even getting into the missed run outs, dropped catches, lbw etc
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Paine's biggest mistake was taking Lyon off at all, when he was looking like getting Stokes out every 2nd ball.