England v Australia, 1st Test, Trent Bridge, 10-14 July, 2013 (II)

Don't worry. Jonny B will try and flick a yorker through mid wicket. Eyes explode out of his head as middle stump explodes out of the ground. 11-5.

Well at least the post count is up. Over 1000 for this thread after just 2 days.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

Dello wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, I agree beamer. I can see us folding like the quivering wrecks we are. Good times.

I'm away on Sunday, was worried about misses the denouement.

Seems like I was being too optimistic.

At least you me and Monkey (sounds like a film) can have a bit of an I told you so about how sh*t England are if they lose.

I would pay to see the film.

Provided no troilism is involved.

What an awful ball to bowl when you are on a hat-trick.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:
At least you me and Monkey (sounds like a film) can have a bit of an I told you so about how sh*t England are if they lose.

I don't want to sound like an arrogant drug-addled hand-shandy, but I'm right so much I'm tired of saying such things.

I'd rather be proven wrong. As it is, this is shaping up for a completely abject performance. The only stopping us from ignominy are the two at the crease. If the Knicker Twins dig us out of this one, I'll sit on a giant comedy dildo down Bond Street.

PeterCS wrote:

beamer wrote:If we lose this I think we should follow the Aussies' example and sack the coach before the next one. And not to replace him with Ashley Giles...

You have just identified the flaw in your own line of argument.

Pilo will be licking his lips.

Relishing the chance, earlier than expected, to mastermind the last steps over the cliff.

Summer of the Four Coaches anyone? Mickey Arthur to do Tests 3 and 4, Bumble back to "flipping murder them" in the dead-rubber fifth.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:
At least you me and Monkey (sounds like a film) can have a bit of an I told you so about how sh*t England are if they lose.

I don't want to sound like an arrogant drug-addled hand-shandy, but I'm right so much I'm tired of saying such things.

I'd rather be proven wrong. As it is, this is shaping up for a completely abject performance. The only stopping us from ignominy are the two at the crease. If the Knicker Twins dig us out of this one, I'll sit on a giant comedy dildo down Bond Street.  

Well you can view it as without Agar (and Hughes I guess) Australia are a 9/117 team at the moment.

That's a lot more worrying imo.

Apparently the side on hotspot wasn't working because they were about to show Root's dismissal and they can't record new footage and show old footage at the same time.

So Sky could have cost England this test.....

Can the ICC fine the host broadcaster for that?

What is Gower waffling on about? The on-field umpire didn't make a decision on the stumping appeal.

baggygreen wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:
At least you me and Monkey (sounds like a film) can have a bit of an I told you so about how sh*t England are if they lose.

I don't want to sound like an arrogant drug-addled hand-shandy, but I'm right so much I'm tired of saying such things.

I'd rather be proven wrong. As it is, this is shaping up for a completely abject performance. The only stopping us from ignominy are the two at the crease. If the Knicker Twins dig us out of this one, I'll sit on a giant comedy dildo down Bond Street.  

Well you can view it as without Agar (and Hughes I guess) Australia are a 9/117 team at the moment.

That's a lot more worrying imo.

The sweetest, most exhilarating victories (and most dismal, demoralising defeats) are from obviously losing situations. A la Headingley 1981.

Trouble with back to back matches to open the series is that 1-0 can become 2-0 very quickly. There's little time for the losing side to regroup and make changes.

PeterCS wrote:

baggygreen wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:
At least you me and Monkey (sounds like a film) can have a bit of an I told you so about how sh*t England are if they lose.

I don't want to sound like an arrogant drug-addled hand-shandy, but I'm right so much I'm tired of saying such things.

I'd rather be proven wrong. As it is, this is shaping up for a completely abject performance. The only stopping us from ignominy are the two at the crease. If the Knicker Twins dig us out of this one, I'll sit on a giant comedy dildo down Bond Street.  

Well you can view it as without Agar (and Hughes I guess) Australia are a 9/117 team at the moment.

That's a lot more worrying imo.

The sweetest, most exhilarating victories (and most dismal, demoralising defeats) are from obviously losing situations. A la Headingley 1981.

Yes but it's not a victory yet and that abysmal top order still has to get through another innings

Did anyone notice how far Cook was backing up when they played the replay on the Root dismissal.

Time for a cheeky Mankad maybe?

baggygreen wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

baggygreen wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:
At least you me and Monkey (sounds like a film) can have a bit of an I told you so about how sh*t England are if they lose.

I don't want to sound like an arrogant drug-addled hand-shandy, but I'm right so much I'm tired of saying such things.

I'd rather be proven wrong. As it is, this is shaping up for a completely abject performance. The only stopping us from ignominy are the two at the crease. If the Knicker Twins dig us out of this one, I'll sit on a giant comedy dildo down Bond Street.  

Well you can view it as without Agar (and Hughes I guess) Australia are a 9/117 team at the moment.

That's a lot more worrying imo.

The sweetest, most exhilarating victories (and most dismal, demoralising defeats) are from obviously losing situations. A la Headingley 1981.

Yes but it's not a victory yet and that abysmal top order still has to get through another innings

Aye.


All today has done is push the odds for the inevitable England win out some.

beamer wrote:Trouble with back to back matches to open the series is that 1-0 can become 2-0 very quickly. There's little time for the losing side to regroup and make changes.

The thing is, neither side is good enough to make use of an apparent "momentum".

baggygreen wrote:
Well you can view it as without Agar (and Hughes I guess) Australia are a 9/117 team at the moment.

That's a lot more worrying imo.

I do view it as that. That's what makes it worse - no plan B, the bowlers can't carry out plan A.

Betfair still has this close to evens.

Agar the Horrible on to do for KP...

Four points on the Trott dismissal (and similar events):

1. It's a droll turn of events if the "error-correcting" technology - through a key malfunction - reverses a correct decision.

2. I don't agree with the argument "stop sooking" - if there is an error, it is entirely legitimate to bring it up.  Not for ever, but for a bit.

3. HOWEVER, the batsman in such borderline cases rarely has much cause for complaint. If he's depending only on a wing and a prayer that he got a feather (or with catches, didn't), he'd actually be better off saving his energy moaning, and dedicating himself to employing a better technique.

So that he gets a bit more than a feather on an LB shout (or leaves, or hits, where he snicked) a bit more often in future.

4. Australia seem to have had the rub of the green and the overall benefit of marginal decisions so far. But that's just the game. Agar earned his team some luck.

beamer wrote:Trouble with back to back matches to open the series is that 1-0 can become 2-0 very quickly. There's little time for the losing side to regroup and make changes.

It's such a weird game, nothing is at all certain.

Not even a tame belfohl dismissal.

PeterCS wrote:2. I don't agree with the argument "stop sooking" - if there is an error, it is entirely legitimate to bring it up.  Not for ever, but for a bit.

Well, if we lose this series then we can forever claim it was down to that blind Yarpie third umpire. Along with the 25 useless England players who featured in the series...

The Rogers LBW should never have been given ...highly unlikely to satisfy the lbw requirements by bowling right arm around the wicket unless the ball is very full ...hawk eye is shown up as garbage if you do the geometry on that ball

The stumps are 20 cm wide ...a ball is approx 7cm wide ...Youtube replay shows that Anderson's hand was over the return crease when he released it ...Hawkeye (from cricinfo) has the ball pitching at 6m on off stump ...if the ball has come in 122cm in 14 metres (12.8m is above popping crease) it will move another 52cm by the time it hits the stumps (57 if above popping crease) or miss the stumps by more than 30cm (a foot)

The ball needs to land within 3 m of the stumps (1.8 m from the popping crease) to hit the stumps from where Jimmy released it (if it pitches in line with off stump)

(Assumption that the ball has no swing or seam movement )

The Agar stumping was probably out ...it depends on how the 3rd umpired has been briefed on how to give decisions ...

The Root LBW should have been given on the Hawkeye evidence as shown (but as I said before Hawkeye is shit)

Root should be spoken to about dissent ...If he isnt going to call for a referral for a ball he has been given for a nick he needs to get off the field straight away

If Dar gave Trott not out because he thought he nicked it then his decision should not have been overturned ... If that wasnt the reason then Dar made a shocker

Shell: gone into. If these two batsmen are still at the crease by the time I get home, I'll beat off a leprechaun on Maundy Thursday.

I have to say such games bring alive the serene beauty of Test cricket to the true and increasingly diminishing connoisseurs of the game, for where in the vulgar shorter forms of the game can you point and laugh at Australia, then point and laugh at England, then Australia, England, England and so on, let's keep this going as long as we can please.