Aussies outplayed by England or umpires?

[honestbharani]

4 or 5? I don't think this has been the worst umpiring series ever or anything, but come on. There were at LEAST three absolutely wrong decisions in the last test alone (Ponting, Martyn, Katich), and a host of dubious ones as well.

Ponting's dismissal was very fair, IMO. They took about 15 minutes before finding that there was an inside edge. You expect umpires to give them out. Katich and Martyn got bad decisions, yes... I still think that the excessive appealing of Warne has played a big part in him not getting a few of the 50/50 decisions in his favor. In fact, I think if he had controlled his appealing more, even he would have got a few LBW decisions in his favor, when they were clearly not out.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd say about 30 seconds before the second test ended England would have disagreed with you.

an advantage for 5 mins or so is too small a value and therefore counts as 'negligible'.
and i'd argue that it was even right till the end.

 

[tooextracool]

Sri-Lanka - England 2000/1

yep hussain had about 5 lucky breaks on his way to a century.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm sure that Dar has made some good decisions, and Bucknors form, and Bowden before that are an embarassment to world cricket.

My concern is that when Eng are batting then benefit of the doubt applies, when however Australia are batting then its "anything goes" time.

We aren't getting any close decisions when we bowl and yet we have to sit back and accept decisions like the Katich one.

Show me an example of a English batsman getting any rough decisions which have really affected Englands chances through the series........there isn't one. We had 5 in the last game alone.

I accept that umpires can and will make mistakes, the issue that I have is that every mistake they make is disadvantaging Australia, in huge ways in some instances.

None of the rough decisions that the England batters received have affected their chances because they have played well enough to cover for those, something Australia have not done.


Another thing is that umpires are giving close decisions in favor of England than Australia and I am still inclined to think that Warne's appealing shenanigans (in every game, virtually) are part of the reason.

 

[Shoaib]

Never have I seen a series more heavily affected by poor umpiring than this one.
A significant reason England are being seen to have outplayed the Aussies is because they have saved by the umpires to a huge degree.

I think umpiring has been very fair in the whole Ashes.So,please don't try to find lame excuses for the defeat of your team.It was Harmison and Flintoff's sevastating bowling which became the reason of Australia's defeat rather than poor umpiring.Australia's performance is not more than that of a club team now.Umpires r human beings,so they r never expected to be 100% accurate.Before accusing the umpires in Ashes,first consider what your umpires do with the visiting teams in Australia.

 

[dinu23]

I remember that series. Wasn't there a poster held out by the fans that said "BC, YOU SOLD OUT" referring to the SriLankan umpire BC Cooray?

and a newspaper headline: "COORAY BATS FOR ENGLAND!"

 

[Slats4ever]

I think umpiring has been very fair in the whole Ashes.So,please don't try to find lame excuses for the defeat of your team.It was Harmison and Flintoff's sevastating bowling which became the reason of Australia's defeat rather than poor umpiring.Australia's performance is not more than that of a club team now.Umpires r human beings,so they r never expected to be 100% accurate.Before accusing the umpires in Ashes,first consider what your umpires do with the visiting teams in Australia.

Have u been watching? There are a few errors in your post.
Harmison's been the light that hasn't shon for England, if anything it's been Flintoff and a combo of Jones/Hoggard/Giles

Depends what club side you're loking at. Where you're from (Pakistan) I find that hard to believe as it was only a couple of years ago we bowled your then test side out for 50 and absolutely obliterated them. Fact is Australia are still the number 1 side in the world England have just made the previously ginourmous gap between 1 and 2 much smaller. There is still a huge gap between 2 and 3. Australia are not a club side.

 

[Slats4ever]

Another thing is that umpires are giving close decisions in favor of England than Australia and I am still inclined to think that Warne's appealing shenanigans (in every game, virtually) are part of the reason.

Which suggests a massive decline in the standard of umpiring on show.

 

[Choora]

Depends what club side you're loking at. Where you're from (Pakistan) I find that hard to believe as it was only a couple of years ago we bowled your then test side out for 50 and absolutely obliterated them. Fact is Australia are still the number 1 side in the world England have just made the previously ginourmous gap between 1 and 2 much smaller. There is still a huge gap between 2 and 3. Australia are not a club side.

Australia are the number team in the world and would be for some time around but that is not going to be for long. I see a big difference between English and Australian team and it won't take a long time for England to overthrow Australia for the number one spot.

 

[Shoaib]

Where you're from (Pakistan) I find that hard to believe as it was only a couple of years ago we bowled your then test side out for 50 and absolutely obliterated them.

That side lacked our main players like Wasim Akram,Inzamam,Shoaib Akhtar and some others but your present Aussie
side has all of its "so called superstars" and even then its looking none more than a club side.England have outplayed u in all departments of the game,so dont u be finding lame excuses for that like poor umpiring etc.

 

[marc71178]

4 or 5? I don't think this has been the worst umpiring series ever or anything, but come on. There were at LEAST three absolutely wrong decisions in the last test alone (Ponting, Martyn, Katich), and a host of dubious ones as well.

And with this Ponting one.

Would anybody have called it without multiple replays?

 

[Choora]

That side lacked our main players like Wasim Akram,Inzamam,Shoaib Akhtar and some others but your present Aussie
side has all of its "so called superstars" and even then its looking none more than a club side.England have outplayed u in all departments of the game,so dont u be finding lame excuses for that like poor umpiring etc.

I agree with you on the Pak side, it was indeed missing Inzamam,Saeed Anwar,Younis Khan and Youhanna but still getting out for 50+ score was awfull.

I think you should be more carefull with ur words, Australia are beaing beaten by a better team in England but are putting up a fight and thus they can't be termed as a "club side".

 

[Slats4ever]

That side lacked our main players like Wasim Akram,Inzamam,Shoaib Akhtar and some others but your present Aussie
side has all of its "so called superstars" and even then its looking none more than a club side.England have outplayed u in all departments of the game,so dont u be finding lame excuses for that like poor umpiring etc.

Glenn Mcgrath!

Man you have some serious issues. to suggest that Australia is any less than being amongst the top 3 test sides in the world still suggests problems. England have thrashed other opponents over the past few series, yet Australia have come pretty close on England's home ground and you liken them to a club side.

 

[AndrewM]

Australia have been comprehensively out-gunned, bar the first test.

To attribute the results due to bad umpiring is poor show.

In the 2001 New Zealand in Australia test series, New Zealand were arguably denied winning the 3rd test by several crucial umpiring decisions on the fifth day, some simply farcical, which would have meant a 1-0 result to the New Zealanders. Include Langer's plumb LBW in the first test, first over by Cairns. It goes on...we didn't suddenly blame decisions for our misforturne. Touch on them fine, but to use it as the basis of your beating... another story.

It is quite ironic that i read the "Australian fans" thread and then took a look at this one.

At the end of the day, umpires are only part of the equation. You get good and bad decisions, and they generally even out.

A true fan can stand up and give credit where credit's due.

 

[age_master]

Australia have been outplayed by England, both teams have copped a few poor decisions through the series, it happens, its part of the game, yes it can be very dissapointing but well get over it!

 

[age_master]

I still think that the excessive appealing of Warne has played a big part in him not getting a few of the 50/50 decisions in his favor. In fact, I think if he had controlled his appealing more, even he would have got a few LBW decisions in his favor, when they were clearly not out.

Warne generally doesn't get many of the 50/50 calls his way i dont think, hes certainly had plenty of good appeals turned down. if anything i would say the umpires are more influenced my the crowd than the bowler appealing these days.

 

[greg]

4 or 5? I don't think this has been the worst umpiring series ever or anything, but come on. There were at LEAST three absolutely wrong decisions in the last test alone (Ponting, Martyn, Katich), and a host of dubious ones as well.

If you read my post again you will see I wrote "not marginal or mistaken, but CLEARLY WRONG". Off hand I can think of the Katich and Martyn decisions in this test and the Martyn decision in the last.

Beyond that there are probably many that were marginal, but the fact that "the balance" appears to have been going against Australia is probably more due to the extent that england have capitalised on their good luck. For every Warne LBW that Australians won't let go we could cite one that England haven't got, just clearly not as costly because we've usually got them shortly afterwards. It is a fact of life that bowlers who have 50 close LBW appeals are more likely to get more decisions overall than bowlers who have 10.

 

[greg]

And i read a report in the newspaper that in the final session of the 4th test Gilchrist was heard to encourage his team with the words "we're due a dodgy decision at some point lads". Way to get the umpires on your side, Adam!

 

[age_master]

And i read a report in the newspaper that in the final session of the 4th test Gilchrist was heard to encourage his team with the words "we're due a dodgy decision at some point lads". Way to get the umpires on your side, Adam!

your not supposed to have umpires on your side, they are supposed to be neutral

 

[SJS]

Brett Lee thinks differently

"It's a very tough job," Lee said. "If I was to sit here and say we copped a few bad calls, then it's going to look like sour grapes and I am not into that. I think there are other things we can do to try and win Test matches other than worrying about if the person's putting his finger up. Things do tend to even themselves out.

"We're talking about two world-class umpires. They've got 0.3 seconds to make up their minds if the batsman has hit it, if it's hit his pad, if he's nicked it behind, if it's flicked his sweater.

"Then we head straight to the replay. We have got the commentators that see it in super slow-mo. I mean it's a pretty tough call. They might be able to see a blatant edge that's gone to the keeper but things happen, it all happens so quickly, so I am not going to say the umpires have done a bad job."

One of the most crucial decisions as the Trent Bridge Test reached its climax was Bucknor's refusal of Lee's lbw appeal against Matthew Hoggard. Bucknor turned it down in the belief that Hoggard hit it - a verdict supported by Hoggard after the match - but Lee convincingly argued that Bucknor made the right decision for the wrong reasons.

"I knew it hit Hoggard on the foot so I asked Steve Bucknor: 'Was that missing?' He said no, but that he hit it. I said, 'But, if he didn't hit it, was that out?' And he said that it was. But seeing the replay, it hit him straight on the foot and it was missing leg-stump. So it wasn't out."

The Guardian
3oth August 2005​