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

[superkingdave]

The 12th man, Jimmy Anderson. He's obviously got RSI from slicing the oranges.

anderson took 3 wickets against essex today

 

[greg]

Maybe Jones and Matthews were right then? cricinfo says they were offered the light and took it, but SBS is saying that they were never even asked. Pretty shocking if the latter is true, as they should be able to play on in any sort of conditions they like in an effort to win a vital test provided that it's not raining heavily.

I think there's some confusion about the situation when they first went off, and then when the umpires came to check it at 4:00

 

[Pratters]

Would the umpires really act that immaturely? Highly unlikely.

 

[Slow Love™]

The main problem with Dean Jones' comments on the umpires enforcing a light walk-off (rather than offering the option to Hayden and Langer) would be: how does he know these things? He and Matthews are sitting in a studio presumably watching the Ch4 coverage secondhand. Unfortunately, I got interrupted and missed what was actually shown when they first went off.

I'm just confused as to what their source would be, when nobody else watching it seemed to see the same thing (and in addition, there was Mark Nicholas' interview with the umpires that SP mentioned).

As to the second instance, I'm guessing that the light maybe needs to be better than it was when the batsmen took it originally for further play to take place? I find the rules concerning this confusing though.

 

[greg]

The main problem with Dean Jones' comments on the umpires enforcing a light walk-off (rather than offering the option to Hayden and Langer) would be: how does he know these things? He and Matthews are sitting in a studio presumably watching the Ch4 coverage secondhand. Unfortunately, I got interrupted and missed what was actually shown when they first went off.

I'm just confused as to what their source would be, when nobody else watching it seemed to see the same thing (and in addition, there was Mark Nicholas' interview with the umpires that SP mentioned).

As to the second instance, I'm guessing that the light maybe needs to be better than it was when the batsmen took it originally for further play to take place? I find the rules concerning this confusing though.

The Mark Nicholas interview claimed that the rules have changed and the batsmen can request a resumption at any point. Maybe they are not doing so because they don't want to lose face. Maybe they are happy with a draw having "been denied by the weather" :-)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The Mark Nicholas interview claimed that the rules have changed and the batsmen can request a resumption at any point. Maybe they are not doing so because they don't want to lose face. Maybe they are happy with a draw having "been denied by the weather" :-)

I'm going to assume you don't really think that and not bother countering it, but it's worth remembering that Australia are actually in front in this test at the moment.

 

[greg]

I'm going to assume you don't really think that and not bother countering it, but it's worth remembering that Australia are actually in front in this test at the moment.

Of course I was joking (although clearly it needs some explanation). I'm not sure they're that far in front - remember traditionally at the Oval if it begins to break up chasing smallish targets can be very difficult, so sides batting second will need a pretty decent lead. I still think people are assessing the game situation in the context of the series - so the Aussies are "in front" the less the draw seems a prospect (because a draw is a 'win' for england). If that makes any sense

 

[Mister Wright]

Really? God Deano talks some crap. I can't believe they took the light, when god knows how much time we might lose in this match due to bad weather. I'd love to know the rationale behind the decision, even if it does seem that the rain is becoming an issue this afternoon anyway.

With immenent rain coming, it would be a bit risky to be batting in bad light and lose a few wickets. It would be better for Australia to be starting tomorrow at 0/112 than 1/117.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

With immenent rain coming, it would be a bit risky to be batting in bad light and lose a few wickets. It would be better for Australia to be starting tomorrow at 0/112 than 1/117.

Yeah, but we're not talking about 20 minutes from stumps here... it's a whole session, that's 100+ potential runs. Giving that up because it's a bit dark is daft, unless you genuinely can't see.

 

[Mister Wright]

The main problem with Dean Jones' comments on the umpires enforcing a light walk-off (rather than offering the option to Hayden and Langer) would be: how does he know these things? He and Matthews are sitting in a studio presumably watching the Ch4 coverage secondhand. Unfortunately, I got interrupted and missed what was actually shown when they first went off.

I'm just confused as to what their source would be, when nobody else watching it seemed to see the same thing (and in addition, there was Mark Nicholas' interview with the umpires that SP mentioned).

As to the second instance, I'm guessing that the light maybe needs to be better than it was when the batsmen took it originally for further play to take place? I find the rules concerning this confusing though.

Why are you asking for clarification on anything Dean Jones says? We are into the 5th test, you should know by now that everything that comes out of his mouth is crap.

 

[Pratters]

Every thing seems to have gone wrong for the aussies in the tour!

 

[Mister Wright]

Yeah, but we're not talking about 20 minutes from stumps here... it's a whole session, that's 100+ potential runs. Giving that up because it's a bit dark is daft, unless you genuinely can't see.

Maybe they couldn't. If you look at the ground at the time when the players went off, the lights on the scoreboard were very strong, which is always an indication that the light is very poor. Also television tends to make it lighter than it actually appears.

 

[greg]

With immenent rain coming, it would be a bit risky to be batting in bad light and lose a few wickets. It would be better for Australia to be starting tomorrow at 0/112 than 1/117.

As they said on Channel 4, in the situation if they thought it was going to rain they should have waited for it to start before going off. They've basically gambled and lost.

 

[Mister Wright]

As they said on Channel 4, in the situation if they thought it was going to rain they should have waited for it to start before going off. They've basically gambled and lost.

But when you're trying to win a match, you have to take things in perspective. Ok, they could have risked batting in poor light after all the hard work they had put in to lay the platform for a big team innings, but they could have lost wickets also, and it would be very tough in that light for a new batsman. It is more important that they have that platform, you lose 1 or 2 wickets then that advantage is lost. Come back tomorrow with 10 wickets in hand, that's a much better scenario.

 

[Isolator]

But when you're trying to win a match, you have to take things in perspective. Ok, they could have risked batting in poor light after all the hard work they had put in to lay the platform for a big team innings, but they could have lost wickets also, and it would be very tough in that light for a new batsman. It is more important that they have that platform, you lose 1 or 2 wickets then that advantage is lost. Come back tomorrow with 10 wickets in hand, that's a much better scenario.

You're trying to win a match where time is of the essence.
In those conditions, they'd have had Giles and probably Collingwood bowling. They've got to back themselves not to get out. Quite an unbelievable decision, in my opinion.

 

[superkingdave]

Can anyone tell me why there are no spectators in the 2nd level (green seats) of the new stand? Is it still being built or....?

corporate hospitality, it filled up again when they'd finished their lunch

 

[Mister Wright]

You're trying to win a match where time is of the essence.
In those conditions, they'd have had Giles and probably Collingwood bowling. They've got to back themselves not to get out. Quite an unbelievable decision, in my opinion.

I can guarantee you Collingwood would not have been bowling. England want the Aussies off, so it would have been either Harmisson or Flintoff. I have no problem with them going off. Better to go in tomorrow as I said before none down than a couple. It has to be remembered that none of these test matches have gone into the last session of the 5th day. I know the drawn test did, but there was a lot lost due to weather. I don't think one session out of the game, which can be made up will mean all that much in the end.

 

[Knopfler]

I can guarantee you Collingwood would not have been bowling. England want the Aussies off, so it would have been either Harmisson or Flintoff. I have no problem with them going off. Better to go in tomorrow as I said before none down than a couple. It has to be remembered that none of these test matches have gone into the last session of the 5th day. I know the drawn test did, but there was a lot lost due to weather. I don't think one session out of the game, which can be made up will mean all that much in the end.

Better to go into tomorrow with more runs, and Australia can afford to lose 1 or 2 wickets for the chance of scoring 100+ more runs. This is not the time to be defensive.

Also, what makes you think a lot will not be lost this test due to weather?

Lastly, this first thing you said is very important..

England want the Aussies off

Surely if England want Australia off, then Australia should want to be on. Please explain how both teams could want the same thing.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Australia still marginally ahead as stumps are drawn on Day 2, for mine.

112-0 is a very strong start, and Langer is looking in good nick, but while Hayden has grafted his way to 35, he has never looked in the kind of form that makes you say "OK, the real Hayden is back". He just looks like he is still in the same form but isn't getting the deliveries he was getting earlier in the series.

Rain is forecast again tomorrow morning, and if certain forecasts are correct we could lose as much as two sessions to the weather, which will raise various questions as to what the Australians' batting strategy is going to be. Chances are from this point that they will make close to what England did - and the main question is, if they've only got 5 sessions left in the game, how long do they bat for once they get a lead?

They could declare at 400 (which they'll probably make), and back themselves to make 250-300, knowing that 5 sessions is too long for England to try and bat out for a draw.

They could declare at 500 (which they might make), and try and leave themselves chasing 150-200 on the last day, with the possibility being there that England could shut up shop and not leave them enough time to chase it.

They could declare at 600 (which they probably won't make), and try to bowl England out in a day or so, for either an innings victory or a very fast chase of about 50-70 on the final evening.

Privately, I don't think Michael Vaughan would mind letting the Australian innings drag on a bit and forcing Ponting to make a tough decision - going by previous events, there's no guarantee he'd make the right one. I'm not saying the draw is already foremost in Vaughan's mind, but he will know that a declaration will have to come at some point if England don't bowl them out, and the more play is lost tomorrow, the more pressure it puts on Ponting and Australia in the field.

 

[Isolator]

Surely if England want Australia off, then Australia should want to be on. Please explain how both teams could want the same thing.

Yup, well spotted.