***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[tooextracool]

They gambled with bowling their best two bowlers at the start but this meant when it went wrong they had no plan B - the runs had come too fast for Vaughan to want to risk Jones or Hoggard.

i'd say that the fact that runs were coming quickly of flintoff and harmison would have meant that he didnt have much to lose by bowling jones. i would have opened with flintoff and jones to be honest, because harmison just didnt look that threatening on this wicket,not to mention the fact that jones has been pretty good bowling at tail enders in the past. flintoff and harmison just bowled to much at the body, and lee and kaspa played them admirably.

 

[tooextracool]

or people could just accept that Umpires make mistakes both ways and it all evens out in the end, Pieterson might have got a bad one in the 2nd innings but he got a good one not that long ago. get over it and dont whinge unless you can prove that you can do a better job

oh im hardly whinging at all. the better team won the test match, and the better team won at Lords. but i hate having to listen to people saying ' kaspa didnt glove it' or what not. and theres no way anyone can assume that things 'evened out', for all we know pietersen might have gone onto score 100, or he might have been out the very next ball. but if technology is used, then no one can complain about wrong decisions, because the umpire only gets the same view that you(the average cricket watcher) does.

 

[tooextracool]

The use of technology in this match:

Pietersen "caught down the legside" - Technology inconclusive (we didn't see the angle that usually sorts these dismissals out ie. the view from behind)

Gillespie LBW - Technology inconclusive (Television looked dubious, Hawkeye said out)

Bell dismissal - Technology inconclusive (TV angle from behind gave some suggestion of a nick, Snickometer said zilch)

Pietersen dismissal - Technology says NOT OUT

Kasparowicz dismissal - Technology inconclusive (Definitely hit his glove off the bat but quite possibly hit the shoulder of the bat first)

Seems like a recipe for little more than even slower over-rates to me

benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, and the kaspa decision wouldnt have been needed to be made if the lbw had been given ITFP.

 

[tooextracool]

So 4 unconvincing innings that have all culminated in low scores dont count against him?

Why werent you an international selector when I was playing.

and if people were dropped on the basis of 4 failures, 2 of which came off unplayable balls, we'd be missing a fair few good players.

 

[tooextracool]

He surely couldn't, with the ball, be any less penetrative than Gillespie (in both the Tests) and Kasprowicz (in the second innings of this Test). I've always thought, when either McGrath or Warne are out, Australia should look to be more flexible, in terms of team make-up. Players like Gilchrist and Watson give Australia the capacity to be more flexible.

watson would only make things easier for england IMO. theres absolutely no way, anyone in his right mind could think that watson is even half the bowler gillespie or kaspa are(even in their current form), and think of the decline in batting that watson would create for whoever he replaces.

 

[Shane Warne]

watson would only make things easier for england IMO. theres absolutely no way, anyone in his right mind could think that watson is even half the bowler gillespie or kaspa are(even in their current form), and think of the decline in batting that watson would create for whoever he replaces.

Agreed. Watson would be pointless.

Brings nothing of substance to the table, England would probably lay into him worse than Gillespie.

Macgill.

 

[tooextracool]

i doubt the selectors would play macgill and warne in the same match.

actually i'd be extremely surprised if he didnt come in if the pitch looked like it was going to turn, considering that mcgrath is out and the rest of the seamers havent really caused too many problems for england this series. it wouldnt be a bad idea now either, because i think macgill and warne bowling in tandem, is more likely to cause flintoff a fair few problems, than having either of kaspa,lee or gillespie bowl with warne.

 

[King_Ponting]

Agreed. Watson would be pointless.

Brings nothing of substance to the table, England would probably lay into him worse than Gillespie.

Macgill.

But in doing that, it would mean that martyn is the reserve seamer. Dont think it'll happen. The Aussies will rely on the part time spin of clarke and katich to compliment warne. Leaving the three seamers unchanged

 

[Lillian Thomson]

According to the Daily Star in the UK, Australia have called up Shane Harwood to their squad as cover. He's 31 and taken 70 wickets for St Annes in Club Cricket in the Northern Premier League.

 

[King_Ponting]

According to the Daily Star in the UK, Australia have called up Shane Harwood to their squad as cover. He's 31 and taken 70 wickets for St Annes in Club Cricket in the Northern Premier League.

Shane harwood? what that victorian bloke? ha what a joke. Cant believe he is next in line after tait..

 

[Shane Warne]

But in doing that, it would mean that martyn is the reserve seamer. Dont think it'll happen. The Aussies will rely on the part time spin of clarke and katich to compliment warne. Leaving the three seamers unchanged

Be it on their own heads then.

They only need two seamers.

 

[greg]

benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, and the kaspa decision wouldnt have been needed to be made if the lbw had been given ITFP.

(Most) People can accept that umpires are fallible. People wouldn't be able to accept technology being fallible - which is why technology is only currently used in situations where it can almost always give a 'definitive' answer. If you think umpires get stick now, how do you think it would be if the 3rd umpire, with access to the same pictures as everyone else, (and therefore no "excuses") made decisions that people didn't agree with? Who would want the job (especially in an Indian match)?

 

[King_Ponting]

if a two seamer situation occurs kaspa will get dropped, not gillespie. Because whilst kaspa is a good first change bowler, he hardly, if ever, opens the bowling for australia. As gillespie is more inclined to the opening role, he will retain his postion, however as ive said before i find this situation highly unlikely to eventuate

 

[greg]

According to the Daily Star in the UK, Australia have called up Shane Harwood to their squad as cover. He's 31 and taken 70 wickets for St Annes in Club Cricket in the Northern Premier League.

They don't know what they're talking about. He's filling in as a net bowler to give the others some rest.

 

[tooextracool]

That ball pitched just outside leg-stump and forced the stroke. He did have to play at it because he wouldn't have had any idea how far it was going to turn. Imagine if, considering his second-innings dismissal at Lords, he'd left it and been out bowled around his legs. You would have been tearing him a new one (and rightly so).

That's what makes Warne's leg-side line so difficult to play compared to other bowlers. Other spinners you can kick away or play confidently at but Warnie turns it so much, it's very difficult to determine whether it's going to spin back and hit the stumps or whether you can kick it away. Warnie also bowls at a quicker pace than traditional spinners, further complicating the decision. That was a great ball from Warnie and Bell didn't do a much wrong. Anyway, it's all too easy from the couch to berate someone for 'playing at a ball they shouldn't have' in hindsight. Until that point, he'd played the leg-side balls from Warne really well, hitting against the spin into the leg-side. That's why it took a good one to get him.

id agree with that. the plan was to use their bat as much as possible against warne, given that pietersen was the most successful against warne last test doing exactly that. bell had been successful for all of that inning doing exactly that, and its a bit silly to blame him for continuing something that had been working for him.

 

[steds]

Shane harwood? what that victorian bloke? ha what a joke. Cant believe he is next in line after tait..

I can't believe Tait is next in line after Kasprowicz

 

[King_Ponting]

I can't believe Tait is next in line after Kasprowicz

Umm 60 wickets at 20 last pura cup season........ Home ground is the second flattest track in australia? Whats so hard to believe about that?

 

[Swervy]

Be it on their own heads then.

They only need two seamers.

Recent history suggests seam is the way to go at Old Trafford , and it is only late in the game when the spinners really get results (even Murali needed 60 overs to take 3 wickets a couple of years ago)

In the last few years as well, it actually hasnt got that much harder to bat as the game has gone on, the pitches have tended to allow high scoring..I wouldnt really want to go into a test with only two seamers, coz I think that would be asking for a lot of problems in the first innings

 

[tooextracool]

(Most) People can accept that umpires are fallible. People wouldn't be able to accept technology being fallible - which is why technology is only currently used in situations where it can almost always give a 'definitive' answer. If you think umpires get stick now, how do you think it would be if the 3rd umpire, with access to the same pictures as everyone else, (and therefore no "excuses") made decisions that people didn't agree with? Who would want the job (especially in an Indian match)?

people will accept the decision that a third umpire makes, because if the third umpire couldnt be certain that something was out/not out, then neither could anybody else.
benefit of the doubt goes to the batter, much like it does with the run outs and stumpings.

 

[greg]

people will accept the decision that a third umpire makes, because if the third umpire couldnt be certain that something was out/not out, then neither could anybody else.

You think? I don't

If you ran a poll on the Bell dismissal, for example - was he definitely out, definitely not out or not sure I'll bet you would get a healthy number of votes for each option.