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

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think as we saw yesterday, in patches his accuracy is fine. He bowled a couple of spells where most things hit the mark and a couple of balls that would have got just about anyone out, and a couple of spells which were absolutely all over the place.

The difference between Tait of 03/04 and Tait of 04/05 was that in the second season he bowled far more of the good spells than the bad ones, and often took several wickets when he bowled the good ones.

I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't managed to reverse the ball out yet. I've always been under the impression that, like McGrath, Flintoff and Jones (and unlike Lee), he can reverse the ball in both directions.

 

[luckyeddie]

Harmison is the key for the rest of this Test. I really think he's got to bowl more deliveries at the stumps. In the absence of Jones, he's really go to step up, if England are going to win.

I've got a suspicion that Hoggard will be key again, especially if the heavy/thundery weather that's forecast comes through. Harmison has by and large been a bit-part player since Lord's though - not bad, but could do a lot better.

 

[Nate]

Thing One:

I think Slater`s commentary has been unexpectedly good. A future for him?

 

[Nate]

Thing Two:

Agreed that Hoggard is the key.

 

[Nate]

Thing Three:

Tait definately bowled well, despite his figures. Many a play and miss.

 

[Nate]

Squidddddddddddddddddddddddddddyyyyy!

 

[greg]

I never did. The guy looks like a nudger type of player. I just don't see how he will succeed against good attacks, given that he only looks to nudge the ball and almost never plays any real stroke at the ball.

Sounds like a perfect description of Thorpe to me ;-)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thing One:

I think Slater`s commentary has been unexpectedly good. A future for him?

Yeah, Slater is cool. He was good in New Zealand as well. I think he'll be around for a while.

 

[greg]

I don't reckon he was out, but I'm not complaining. We've had plenty of decisions going against us, and it's nice to get one back. e.g. when Strauss edges it to the keeper, he's given not out, and when Martyn edges it, he's given out (lbw)

Or not given out, caught behind (I'm sure someone must have half-appealed at third man or something for that one - should have been good enough for the umpire )

 

[Nate]

And that edge by Strauss! How can you not give that? Bah on you Rudi, bah!

 

[greg]

Yeah, Slater is cool. He was good in New Zealand as well. I think he'll be around for a while.

Mark Nicholas was surprisingly excellent yesterday in his explanations of Warne's bowling. English spin bowling would probably be in a much better state if every spinner had had him captaining them.

 

[shaka]

probably given not out because the appeal was not good enough (only a guess). I thought it was out and was proved right.

 

[greg]

probably given not out because the appeal was not good enough (only a guess). I thought it was out and was proved right.

Watching it live my thought process was "oh no he's nicked it... why haven't they appealed? I must be wrong. "

I'm not surprised the umpire was doubtful.

 

[Nate]

Lee sure was confident!

 

[marc71178]

FOD will undoubtedly be able to quote the rule verbatim, but I think that only applies if you are struck in line with the stumps.

Righto - still it's easy to see why it was given, since as it hit he did move in line with the stumps.

 

[Craig]

Squidddddddddddddddddddddddddddyyyyy!

Blatant post boosting.

 

[marc71178]

It seemed a regulation dismissal and, as such, Warne in particular didnt rant and rave as per usual.

But he also didn't rant and rave after it was turned down, which you have to admit is very out of character.

 

[greg]

Lee sure was confident!

I think the trouble was that Lee thought it was a regulation nick and in the normal course of events would have just carried on running to receive the congratulations from the slips. The trouble was when he realised the keeper and slips were not appealing he had to go into plan B and appeal himself, with the result that the whole thing looked completely unconvincing (Warne for example was raising his arms in a sort of "oh that was close" type way, and had to suddenly try to turn it into proper appeal.)

I got the sense that Lee's obvious frustration had as much to do with his fielders behind the wicket as the umpire.

 

[marc71178]

That's right. If you're struck on the full the umpire must assume the ball is continuing on the same path - (more or less suits the spinners only).

All the other LBW rules still apply so that if you are hit outside the line you are not out.

If the batsman is playing a genuine shot?

 

[Craig]

WTF happened to my post?

I'm sure I posted it and it has gone!