England v Australia, 3rd Test, Old Trafford, 1-5 August, 2013

Henry wrote:I reckon Clarke will declare an hour after lunch with 450 on the board.

Probably close to the mark.

Henry wrote:I reckon Clarke will declare an hour after lunch with 450 on the board.

I think he will bat out.

450 doesn't seem like quite enough but what choice is there?

Clarke has declared early on a couple of occasions in the past. Should have cost him the test against Sri Lanka at Sydney but the Lankans panicked as usual.

I've just put money on England winning. Not saying I fancy them but Australia have a losing habit at the minute. It could be their Adelaide.

selfish Warner and Watson the true cancers of the team.

Nath wrote:selfish Warner and Watson the true cancers of the team.

Poison 'em with chemo drugs, Nath,

My tuppence on the rotten umpiring FWIW.

Did I read that all the international umpires on the panel are either English or Australian, apart from the four clowns we have for this series, and the return ?

My solution to the current mess would be to have one English umpire, and one Australian standing on the field, with a neutral third umpire for the referrals. Even the poorest of our (eng/Aus) umpires are of a higher standard than the four we have. I really don't think bias is a real issue - and the neutral TMO should ideally counter any instance which may occur.

Also, to counter the possibility of "own team favouritism", I'd allow the square-leg umpire to ask for a review of the bowlers-end umpire decisions, if he's not able to do that already. The obvious example being the Broad not out. Had an English umpire given not out, an Aussie at square leg could have it reviewed, irrespective of whether Australia had any team reviews left or not.

Any good reasons why that's not an acceptable solution ?

England could have done with Monty in this one. But nobody could have expected anything but loyalty and conservatism from Team England.

Did Strauss just praise Clarke for having 'good eyeball coordination'?

Will the cheap digs at Murali never end?

Growler wrote:My tuppence on the rotten umpiring FWIW.

Did I read that all the international umpires on the panel are either English or Australian, apart from the four clowns we have for this series, and the return ?

My solution to the current mess would be to have one English umpire, and one Australian standing on the field, with a neutral third umpire for the referrals. Even the poorest of our (eng/Aus) umpires are of a higher standard than the four we have. I really don't think bias is a real issue - and the neutral TMO should ideally counter any instance which may occur.

Also, to counter the possibility of "own team favouritism", I'd allow the square-leg umpire to ask for a review of the bowlers-end umpire decisions, if he's not able to do that already. The obvious example being the Broad not out. Had an English umpire given not out, an Aussie at square leg could have it reviewed, irrespective of whether Australia had any team reviews left or not.

Any good reasons why that's not an acceptable solution ?

What umpire in their right mind would review a decision from square leg? It would cause a lot of tension between the two umpires. I doubt the square leg umpire had the slightest clue that Broad had edged to first slip at Trent Bridge.

They keep taking about Bairstow like he's Jonty Rhodes II in the field. He runs like a twat and hasn't got a great arm. Average fielder, really. Not great, not poor, just average.

Were the England fielders shaking Broad's hand there for him bringing up his hundred?

This is all well and good but we can't win unless we can take twenty wickets.

Henry wrote:They keep taking about Bairstow like he's Jonty Rhodes II in the field. He runs like a twat and hasn't got a great arm. Average fielder, really. Not great, not poor, just average.

MIchael Johnson ran like a twat, didn't mean he wasn't fast though.

Henry wrote:

Growler wrote:My tuppence on the rotten umpiring FWIW.

Did I read that all the international umpires on the panel are either English or Australian, apart from the four clowns we have for this series, and the return ?

My solution to the current mess would be to have one English umpire, and one Australian standing on the field, with a neutral third umpire for the referrals. Even the poorest of our (eng/Aus) umpires are of a higher standard than the four we have. I really don't think bias is a real issue - and the neutral TMO should ideally counter any instance which may occur.

Also, to counter the possibility of "own team favouritism", I'd allow the square-leg umpire to ask for a review of the bowlers-end umpire decisions, if he's not able to do that already. The obvious example being the Broad not out. Had an English umpire given not out, an Aussie at square leg could have it reviewed, irrespective of whether Australia had any team reviews left or not.

Any good reasons why that's not an acceptable solution ?

What umpire in their right mind would review a decision from square leg? It would cause a lot of tension between the two umpires. I doubt the square leg umpire had the slightest clue that Broad had edged to first slip at Trent Bridge.

If that's true Trev, then from the reaction on here and the television, he'd be the only person on the planet who didn't know Broad had edged the ball. Sure, the square-leg umpire won't review if he's not certain, but that's not an argument against giving him the option of reviewing.

As for tension between umpires, it works both ways - you're not really suggesting an outright howler wouldn't cause tensions are you?

OP Tipping wrote:This is all well and good but we can't win unless we can take twenty wickets.

Aus took 20 at Trent Bridge and 17 at Lords so it hasn't been a massive problem so far. Now you have runs on the board to bowl ate too.

200 at last for The Enforcer.

Ends Clarke's thrilling innings. Will it inspire his team?

Growler wrote:

Henry wrote:

Growler wrote:My tuppence on the rotten umpiring FWIW.

Did I read that all the international umpires on the panel are either English or Australian, apart from the four clowns we have for this series, and the return ?

My solution to the current mess would be to have one English umpire, and one Australian standing on the field, with a neutral third umpire for the referrals. Even the poorest of our (eng/Aus) umpires are of a higher standard than the four we have. I really don't think bias is a real issue - and the neutral TMO should ideally counter any instance which may occur.

Also, to counter the possibility of "own team favouritism", I'd allow the square-leg umpire to ask for a review of the bowlers-end umpire decisions, if he's not able to do that already. The obvious example being the Broad not out. Had an English umpire given not out, an Aussie at square leg could have it reviewed, irrespective of whether Australia had any team reviews left or not.

Any good reasons why that's not an acceptable solution ?

What umpire in their right mind would review a decision from square leg? It would cause a lot of tension between the two umpires. I doubt the square leg umpire had the slightest clue that Broad had edged to first slip at Trent Bridge.

If that's true Trev, then from the reaction on here and the television, he'd be the only person on the planet who didn't know Broad had edged the ball. Sure, the square-leg umpire won't review if he's not certain, but that's not an argument against giving him the option of reviewing.

As for tension between umpires, it works both ways - you're not really suggesting an outright howler wouldn't cause tensions are you?

So what, the Aussies, wiping away their tears, plead with their Aussie mate standing at square leg to review the decision of the English umpire? We'd all be crying foul, and the umpire would be between a rock and a hard place.

You don't see the square leg fielder being consulted when it comes to deciding whether to review or not either, do you. It's because they have a crap view of what's happened.

187 does strike sometimes.

Well ploayed Clarke. But he really doesn't fancy Broad, does he. Constantly flinching against him.

I think Broad has bowled a lot better this series than his figures suggest. Gone past the bat plenty of times and has often just looked threatening.

Fantastic knock from Clarke. Was always going to happen at least once this series.

Just saw Warner's review.

What farkin arrogance to review.

And farkin delusion to review.

Paul Keating wrote:Just saw Warner's review.

What farkin arrogance to review.

And farkin delusion to review.

And all this after his countless apologies and determination to reform and be the ultimate team-man.

It's nice to be able to ask what a good dec score would be for Australia, without bitter irony.