4th Test at Old Trafford, Manchester

[Burgey]

This is probably the most Australian pitch of the series so far. Pretty dry, little bit of pace and consistent bounce.

I’d forgotten Overton in the Ashes out here. He busted his arse from memory. Quite liked the cut of his jib.

 

[stephen]

Holding was saying he thought reverse was caused by the ball becoming heavier on one side but that's not the case at all. Reverse is caused by the same physical effect that causes dimpled golf balls to go further.

Leach bowled a few hand grenades earlier but since the ball change hasn't got as much spin.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah I did/do.

I just grew up with hawkeye and believe it shows the most probable outcome, and that the decision should be made based on the most probable outcome.

Totally understand why it instinctively feels unlucky to most.

I have a thing where ill give more benefit of the doubt leg stump compared to off stump. Not if the bat has gone way too far across his stumps, but in a more normal situation.

The whole benefit of the doubt to the batsman is just an old school cricket opinion, which is why a guy like Holding who played in the 70s and 80s. I play loads of cricket and I personally don't see any reason why it has to be the case, especially at the highest level where there's technology. Admittedly I probably side more with the bowlers on the balance of the game debate than most.

Maybe thats it, you side with the bowlers. I side with the batter.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The whole benefit of the doubt to the batsman is just an old school cricket opinion, which is why a guy like Holding who played in the 70s and 80s. I play loads of cricket and I personally don't see any reason why it has to be the case, especially at the highest level where there's technology. Admittedly I probably side more with the bowlers on the balance of the game debate than most.

It's not even about benefit of doubt to the batsman is it? The entire idea of umpires call is the technology telling the umpire "**** if I know, you make the decision", rather than the old school only give the batsman out if it's 100% out. It's swung more decisions the bowlers way than ever before and still people find a way to complain.

 

[stephen]

The whole benefit of the doubt to the batsman is just an old school cricket opinion, which is why a guy like Holding who played in the 70s and 80s. I play loads of cricket and I personally don't see any reason why it has to be the case, especially at the highest level where there's technology. Admittedly I probably side more with the bowlers on the balance of the game debate than most.

The problem is that the batsman only gets one wicket, so an error disproportionately hurts them. If a bowler gets unlucky with a decision they can bounce right back next ball.

That lbw call was right, the ball was moving too much for the umpire to definitively say it was out. If Hawkeye was accurate you wouldn't see a ball shaped trajectory, you'd see a cone move out from the point of impact.

 

[Spark]

It's not even about benefit of doubt to the batsman is it? The entire idea of umpires call is the technology telling the umpire "**** if I know, you make the decision", rather than the old school only give the batsman out if it's 100% out.

Yeah umpire's call should be an acceptance that Hawkeye isn't absolutely millimetre perfect and it's wrong to overturn decisions by imposing false confidence where it shouldn't exist.

 

[Starfighter]

While a little more fluent than I remember in Australia, Overton is very much the embodiment of the clunky modern English bowler.

 

[wpdavid]

There's enough out there. Increasingly feel like we should be pretty pleased with this session if we get through the next ten minutes.

Yeah, Aus will happily take 2 down at lunch, especially given how comfortable these two have looked.

England have conceded an astonishing number of boundaries, rather like the Warner/Labu partnership at Headingley. I don't know to what extent that is down to poor bowling or poor field settings as I haven't really been following that closely, but England just look rudderless yet again.

As someone said, 350 comfortably put Aus in the box seat against this England lineup.

 

[Spark]

While a little more fluent than I remember in Australia, Overton is very much the embodiment of the clunky modern English bowler.

Yeah Overton looks like any number of pre-Archer attempts at quick bowlers that English cricket has produced. Big, strong, lots of moving parts, not a lot of rhythm.

 

[morgieb]

Even-ish session, though this looks a bat first pitch so I'm not too disappointed. Great partnership building between these two.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, Aus will happily take 2 down at lunch, especially given how comfortable these two have looked.

England have conceded an astonishing number of boundaries, rather like the Warner/Labu partnership at Headingley. I don't know to what extent that is down to poor bowling or poor field settings as I haven't really been following that closely, but England just look rudderless yet again.

As someone said, 350 comfortably put Aus in the box seat against this England lineup.

Broad bowled well. But apart from that, pretty indisciplined stuff.

 

[stephen]

Broad bowled well. But apart from that, pretty indisciplined stuff.

This test has easily been the test they've missed Anderson the most.

 

[Starfighter]

The problem is that the batsman only gets one wicket, so an error disproportionately hurts them. If a bowler gets unlucky with a decision they can bounce right back next ball.

Someone brought up this line of thinking when I pointed out Geoff Arnold getting some absolutey plumb lbws turned down in 74/75. I don't entirely agree with it, at least the way cricket is selected in the long term these days. Bowlers, unless they're of the sort who are very set in the selector's minds (like your Broad/Anderson type of embedded) get a much shorter rope than batsmen normally. So I think that the long term benefit will lie with the batsmen, especially as they're not risking getting injured bowling a lot of overs or anything. This doesn't necessarily apply if you have really chop-and-change selection for both bat and ball like England had around, say, 1900.

 

[mackembhoy]

Well this is dire

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah Overton looks like any number of pre-Archer attempts at quick bowlers that English cricket has produced. Big, strong, lots of moving parts, not a lot of rhythm.

And the difference is Archer didn't grow up in English conditions with English coaching.


Even session I'd say, although I think this will be a good batting surface. Definitely not as fast as predicted. I'd have given it to England if I wasn't aware of just how bad our openers are.

 

[Burgey]

Even-ish session, though this looks a bat first pitch so I'm not too disappointed. Great partnership building between these two.

Reckon Australia’s by a mile tbh. Only two fee and england leaking runs like it’s an Australian ground. Would have given up a non-dominant index finger for that score at start of play

 

[Lillian Thomson]

20 runs too many and not enough early pressure put on Smith. Presumably Archer will have a go at him straight after lunch.

 

[Cabinet96]

Australia easily on top given the batsman at the crease and how they've started I think. These two look like they could comfortably bat all day.

Leach bowled well after the first over. Would probably go with him and Broad after Lucnh. If no wicket in half an hour then have Archer try some short stuff.

 

[quincywagstaff]

England rely on Stokes too much as a bowler considering how patchy he can be and how many easy runs he can give up. Shouldn't be coming on ahead of a regular bowler in a session like this.

 

[GIMH]

Bloody rain