Ashes to Ashes

Jon do you want salt and pepper on that?

Howard

Wow that was close.
Well done England.

Howard

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Game on!!!!

The series has begun. As andy said, Game On!

Hopefully England can sort out some of the issues they still have, and an England victory over a ful strength Aussie side would be something to savour, we should be in for a great summer.

Matthew

Riveting entertainment, bravery and committment. How nice to contrast with that bunch of self-aggrandising, overpaid prima donnas strutting around the Millenium Stadium this weekend.



Bruce

Wow that was a great game - well done England. Bring on Old Trafford. I haven't seen all the fielders on the boundary since Ian Botham's big match all those years ago. Mind you though 7 slips and a gully has also been unused since Dennis Lillee retired.

Well done Flintoff showing great guts and Pietersen is looking good too he should open the one day batting and do a Gilchrist. Nice change since Chris Ath (?) came to Perth displaying the full range of defensive strokes and sending the crowd to raptuous snores with the slowest test century.

This is following a bad trend though first the rugby, now the cricket, what is next, soccer ?!?

Gus

Tough luck Oz - great effort. Unlike some, I rather enjoyed yesterday Chelsea scraping in by 1, England by 2, Somerset by 3.

But it was a pity that on TV "The Analyst" - who is usually excellent in his observations - had to cast doubt on whether or not the last Aussie wicket was technically out or not. For those not watching on C4, a slo-mo replay showed that the batsman only had one hand on the bat at the instant the ball struck his other hand.

Ron, perhaps technically he was not out, a bit unlucky but then the same could be said of Pietersen and a few others. The bottom line is that if you are not in control of the shot there is a possibility that you get out. Had he controlled the shot he would have stayed to face another ball.

cheers
Gus

I think when the umpire raises his finger you're out no matter how many hands you have on the bat. Always best to accept the decision and move to the next game. It was a great match and 1-1 sets it up for more great matches. Both sides played it in great spirit.

I agree with you both (Gus & ROTF) - when the umpire decides, you walk or stay whether he is later proved right or wrong.

My point was that instead of shouting and screaming at how well we had performed and what a result for England etc, the commentator had to go and find a negative aspect to a fantastic achievement and put a slight downer on it.

I wish we could hear more from the stumps-microphone. I heard Michael Atherton say that they have a control in the commentary box that enables them to listen to all the sledging and banter around the wicket - that would add a new dimension to the coverage!

Have a good day

Ron

As many viewers observed with the aid of video replay, a couple of England batters did not willow the ball but were given out, and a couple of Oz batsmen were probably LBW but were given not out.

I suspect that given the competitive success of the Oz great side that loss to them of bowlers/final dismissal being brought into question by video-TV rerereplays adds to English pleasure.

Boycott in his good Cowdrey lecture the other week did suggest that each side could have up to 3 options per innings to elect that umpires go to 3rd-4th umpire for video 'evidence'.

'The technology is there - let's use it' (Liverpool manager after Champions' League semi, 2nd leg).

For series after series we played the game relying on the integrity of the umpires and the goodwill of the players.
Except during the bodyline series things seem to have worked out rather well.
I would suspect that the players would rather keep with the old traditions and that it is only the viewing audience who hold to the belief that the video evidence should be continuously broadened.
As they say in that other great game " let the rub of the green prevail".

Lomo

I agree totally.

Techonlogy will not give definitive answers anyway, look how often is is unhelpful when deciding about nicks/floored catches etc. Cricket umpires should be helped by technology where it may be useful (such as runouts) but still be the people making the decisions for LBW, catches etc

Bruce

I am quite traditional on cricket and am still happy to go by the umpires decision. I think that in cricket the batsmen are in control and if they make a mistake they might get out. Usually the batsman is out 'beyond doubt' but sometimes he might be a bit unlucky when the umpire got it wrong when he was 'almost' out. However had he controlled the shot he would not have been in a position where the umpire had to use his judgement.

In the past the umpire was in the best spot to make that judgement. Anyone sitting in the grandstand can't claim to have a better view than the umpire. However with video technology it appears that the umpire is not infallible and occasionally makes a mistake. I think there are two ways around it a) accept that the ump makes the occasional mistake and just get on with it, b) use the third umpire for all non obvious calls. The downside of b is that it will create a minute hold up as we see with potential run outs and fielding near the rope. Furthermore it is not always clear from the video evidence if someone should have been out. I think sport is just a game and am quite happy to stick with (a) but I think it is only a matter of time before we move to (b) due to public pressure.

cheers
Gus

quote:

For series after series we played the game relying on the integrity of the umpires and the goodwill of the players.

The problem is that where is no longer goodwill of the players, when was the last time you saw a batsman walk on a none obvious decision?.

Given this I think we should use technology where possible. I seems strange to me we use technoligy to decide whether something was a 4 or not but not for lbw decisions.

I am a big fan of hawkeye and think it should be used for lbws. OK I agree it is not completely infallable, but that doen't matter, the point is it is consistant. There have been some truely awful lbw decisions in recent years (though not in this series yet) where e.g. the ball has pitched 1 foot outside leg. Hawkeye would intoduce a level of consistency that cannot be acheived without it.

The problem as I see it is where will this will all lead us. The decision is supposed to be made in the batsman's favour if there is any doubt in the umpire's mind.
Do we then have an arbitary situation where when Hawkeye shows the ball just grazing a stump that this is out, or do we then have the proposition that a third umpire will decide if this is close enough.
I say let's leave it to the man in the middle and with catches the integrity of the players.
I also believe each captain should sign a code of conduct and set an example by walking when he knows he is out.
It has to start somewhere.
Yours with no great hope that the latter would ever happen.

Incidentally Greeny, my forebears came from Derbyshire. They called their property on the Darling Downs in SE Qld Carlton Hills which I assume is an area in your county. They ran sheep there and it stayed in the family for 100 years. Not bad by Australian standards.

I also think the issue is about trickle-down to other levels. I play weekend cricket, the umpires are given a basically excellent reception, everyone knows they'll make mistakes but a degree of respect for them remains. Any murmur of dissent about a decision is punished by the League. The 'benefit of the doubt favours batsmen' and so it should stay. If we had hawkeye then test match scores will be a great deal lower!

If pro cricket starts to bypass the authority of the umpire (which is what technology risks doing) then it will diminish them at al levels. Just look at the abuse dished out to footie refs.

Bruce

PS I do not 'walk'. I tend to be bowled middle stump to save argument.

quote:

Originally posted by greeny:
The problem is that where is no longer goodwill of the players, when was the last time you saw a batsman walk on a none obvious decision?

Adam Gilchrist - World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. He was actually given not out by the umpire (Koertzen - hmmmmmm ). He's apparently said that that's his policy and he'll walk during the Ashes if he genuinely feels he's out.

quote:

Originally posted by kevj:
Adam Gilchrist - World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka.

not to mention a few weeks ago (against one of the county sides?) when he mistakenly thought he'd edged a ball.

Nice to see Oz drop several chances/Vaughan-Bell do their bit. Long way to go in this 3rd Test. 470 by lunch tomorrow with 5 down would be a platform. Lee-McGrath who were both supposed to be absent ill did pretty fine, and it was kind of Marcus T. to give Warnie his 600th. Umpires did fine too it seemed.

Chumpy,
If you need that for a platform what would you require for a solid foundation???
Nice to see the captain get a few. I hope England repay the favour.

Solid foundation = Piles (650+).

Let's hope Sir Warne gets his 1st Test hundred today then Jones the Keep can take a chance. England lead with good-forecast weather permitting might be about 90. Oz will bowl England out for 145, then win by 5 wkts.

Hmm, could be a tight one today, 400 to win seems unlikely but I think Australia can hang on for a draw (although that is not exactly their natural way of playing). How England will be cursing the lost day to rain.

The momentum really has changed in this series now, I think England have 'won' almost every session of play so far, perhaps with the exception of Warne's counter-attack with the bat.

Bruce

Phew, that was tight!

What will these two serve up next I wonder. A last ball tie?

Bruce