Aussies outplayed by England or umpires?

[greg]

It's all very well saying things like "if Flintoff had been given out on 8 (I still can't believe the Australians are complaining about this one - a symptom of how little they looked like taking a wicket IMO) then he wouldn't have got a crucial 102" etc etc, but all that shows is that like all successful teams they are capitalising on their good fortune.

Most of the Aussie batsmen on the other hand are getting a close decision or a bit of luck in their favour ... and then getting 20.

 

[marc71178]

Test 3: Drawn, could have gone either way.

So Lee and McGrath were going to knock off 52 runs then were they?

 

[marc71178]

The only test in which the umpiring has significantly impacted on the result is the most recent one, simply because three clearly wrong lbw calls at crucial stages might have changed things a bit. Regardless, umpiring decisions even out and you can't blame them for everything.

3 clearly wrong?

Which is the 3rd one that is clear?

 

[marc71178]

Besides what does that have to do with England getting the extreme better of the umpiring this season

Again ignoring decisions highlighted above by others...

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's all very well saying things like "if Flintoff had been given out on 8 (I still can't believe the Australians are complaining about this one - a symptom of how little they looked like taking a wicket IMO) then he wouldn't have got a crucial 102" etc etc, but all that shows is that like all successful teams they are capitalising on their good fortune.

Most of the Aussie batsmen on the other hand are getting a close decision or a bit of luck in their favour ... and then getting 20.

Yep, Before Australia had lost a wicket in their first innings they had gotten away with at least two lbw shouts that would have gone on to hit the stumps, but they still soon ended up at 22-3. Of course since there are so many whinging convicts on here they completely ignore the decisions that go for their team, if you keep getting beaten and hit on the pad sooner or later you'll get one given as umpires just do not repeatedly give the benefit of the doubt. This is the same human nature type reason Gilchrist had to wait til this last Test before he was out lbw to a pace bowler - I'm sure he'll have been trapped by one before, but he was probably belting every other ball for 4 at the time, so he was given the benefit because it was a one off shout. It shouldn't happen but it does, just as most people would know that part-time bowlers generally don't get many decisions in their favour and people who play ugly hoiks, miss and are hit on the pad are frequently given out lbw.

 

[marc71178]

You say that these things have a way of evening themselves out, Australia will need to get the benefit of 20 dodgy decisions in a row to make up for the constant stream of **** decisions we have been copping.

Right then, list these 20 dodgy decisions (and then more to make up for the dodgy ones Australia have had in their advantage)

And no "We'll have a bowl" (c) R Ponting on Thursday 4th August is not one of them.

 

[marc71178]

and unfortunately nuffy's opinions and views are causing him to be branded "a sore loser" by some members on here. Really quite sad.

Have you even looked at any of his posts since he joined?

 

[marc71178]

that doesn't make much sense...

Of course not, because most people only notice the ones that hurt them, and not the ones that help them...

 

[greg]

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.

Well it would be a bit difficult to give examples of close decisions affecting England's chances seeing as we've won 2 of the 4 matches. If we had lost the second test then we could point to 2 or 3 (Pietersen's second innings dismissal and the Kaspa LBW not given, for example). In the third test we could point to Bowden giving Lee not out shortly after he came in which would have left australia 9 down with about 10 overs left. In the fourth test we could cite Giles LBW vs Warne in second innings (pitched middlend leg, Warne half-forward, hitting middlend off - far more clearcut than the exaggerated claims made about Flintoff not being given out in the first innings).

Overall the fact that contentious decisions against Australia have seemed more costly is simply a consequence of the fact that they have always been coming from behind in the games, and that when England have had the rub of the green (be it dropped catches or LBWs) they have generally capitalised, whereas Australia haven't - something that in Ashes series past has been one of the main differences between the two sides.

How often in this series have you seen an Australian have a 'let off' and get out within minutes? The last example of this being Clarke surviving a close LBW off Hoggard yesterday only to be caught behind without adding to his score.

Now go back to 2001, for example, and remember how often the reverse was the case.

 

[Slow Love™]

IMO, what all this demonstrates is:

a) Modern technology is certainly exposing a lot of mistakes the umpires are making
b) No matter how much people say it all evens out, these mistakes will usually favor one side over another
c) A large body of the supporters of the team that is hurt most will always complain about it, even if it makes absolute hypocrites of them (see the AUS vs PAK thread, and all the comments by Aussie supporters that people complaining about the umpiring standard should shut the hell up)
d) A large body of the supporters of the team that's perceived to be the beneficiary will always argue that the losing team's supporters are whining, before doing exactly the same thing the next match/series it happens to them

Perhaps some kind of solution is a little more technology being used. An old chestnut many have brought up before is the third umpire making front-foot no-ball calls, to free up the umpire on the ground to better concentrate on LBW appeals. We could also use replays (including the super-slomo, which is great) where there's a question of a nick or for difficult bat-pad calls. It seems that what's going on at present (basically technology reaching a level of detail that umpires can't perceive on the spot) is probably affecting the integrity of the game to a degree.

 

[Slow Love™]

3 clearly wrong?

Which is the 3rd one that is clear?

He might be talking about the Ponting one - "clearly wrong" is both accurate and inaccurate, in a way. From the umpire's perspective, and from the initial replays, it certainly looked out. The super slomo footage did demonstrate pretty clearly that Ponting edged it onto the pads, and therefore the decision was shown conclusively to be incorrect.

Can't say I blame the ump for calling it out though. It was a very, very tough one to spot.

 

[duffer]

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've always maintained Bucknor is about the most overrrated official in sport and that's only been proven in this series.

If ever an umpire was one to be swayed by home town crowds this guy takes the cake. Big appeal, get the crowd behind you and Bucknor will buckle every time. Half the time I reckon he doesn't even know why the players are appealing (look at that decision he made in the last test when he looked to the square leg umpire before firing the bloke). I'm not saying Bucknor is biased....just incompetent.

Look at not only how many POOR LBW decisions have been given against the Aussies in this series as well as how many GOOD ones England have received. Warne has fair dinkum missed out on half a dozen plumb decisions that would have been game-turning

These decisions have had an ENORMOUS influence on this tight contest despite what anyone thinks.

I'm not saying Australia deserve to be up in the series (despite what I've sarcastically said in other posts) or that England have played badly......and I also know that you will always get home town decisions against you wherever you play (even in Australia). But what I AM saying is that the amount of poor decisions in favour of England in this series is absolutely absurd.

Add to the fact that in many cases the England batsmen helped by these decisions have gone on and made big scores you just can't help but wonder what might have happened with a level playing field.

Having said all that please don't follow this up with all those 'sour grapes' type of accusations. I've played enough cricket around the world to know what to expect. I still think this is the greatest series I've ever seen and actually couldn't give a stuff if Australia lose the ashes after all these years.

Good luck to England and bring on the Oval.

Get well McGrath......and Jones.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Never have I seen a series more heavily affected by poor umpiring than this one.

I don't know how old you are but in the late 80's there were consecutive tours of Pakistan by England and Australia when Shakeel Khan, Shakoor Rana etc fired out the tourists batsmen faster than Fidous Fog.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Well lets be realistic now shall we.

This series the umpires have benifited England more than Australia. That is fact.
We have the technology, we should use it in this high level. They use it for every thing in the Rugby Codes, why not in Cricket.

 

[howardj]

As Allan Border has noted, the dominant team - because they tend to create more chances, apply more pressure, and have the momentum - usually gets the 50/50 calls, their way. The umpires don't deliberately favour the dominant team, it just tends to work out that way. As he said, it was the case with the Windies in the 1980's, and it's certainly been the case for Australia in the last few years. Accordingly, having been the better team, England have had the momentum during games and decisions which could have gone either way, are slightly favouring them.

 

[greg]

Never have I seen a series more heavily affected by poor umpiring than this one.

Sri-Lanka - England 2000/1

Might as well have tossed 3 coins at the start of the series and spent the rest of the time on holiday. There have been maybe 4/5 very bad decisions in the whole of this Ashes series. (not marginal or mistaken, but clearly wrong). At times on the above mentioned tour there were that many in one session!

 

[Mermaidman]

wether you get bad decisions are not you don't call the fans effing pommy c**s like what kattich said, i remember when phil tuffnell used to play in ashes series in Australia he was terrified to get the ball because of the abuse the aussies were giving him. did tuffnell shout abuse to them ?, in this series the Barmy Army have been giving the aussies a taste of their own medcine and they don't like it, the last thing Jason Gillespie should have done has had a moan about it, he was a champion at sledging when he was ontop of his game.

 

[honestbharani]

Perhaps you can enlighten us with some examples of Haydens comments that so inflame you, I haven't heard him say a single thing in this series.

Bradman wouldn't have averaged 99.94 if he was umpired by Bucknor, Bowden or Dar, they'f find a way to give him out.

For starters, before the start of the 2003 test series against India, he said "someone like Laxman is afraid of fast bowling".


What in God's name was that? I mean, even if Laxman is the worst player of fast bowling in history, it doesn't mean he is "afraid" of fast bowling. IT just means that he is not good enough to play that type of bowling. I guess Laxman paid him back with interest though, seeing how he went in the series. But that is just one. I cannot waste my time picking out all the stupid stuff he has said.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sri-Lanka - England 2000/1

Might as well have tossed 3 coins at the start of the series and spent the rest of the time on holiday. There have been maybe 4/5 very bad decisions in the whole of this Ashes series. (not marginal or mistaken, but clearly wrong). At times on the above mentioned tour there were that many in one session!

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.

 

[honestbharani]

Sri-Lanka - England 2000/1

Might as well have tossed 3 coins at the start of the series and spent the rest of the time on holiday. There have been maybe 4/5 very bad decisions in the whole of this Ashes series. (not marginal or mistaken, but clearly wrong). At times on the above mentioned tour there were that many in one session!

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?