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

Draw is the favourite now. Weather meant to be around on Monday, and England likely to avoid following on, whether it be because they make the runs, or because Clarke wont want to send his fragile bowlers back out there straight away.

Well don't get me wrong I thought it was absolutely plumb at the time. There's still a part of me that says it was out. But when I saw hotspot I just assumed he was going to be reprieved. One frame the ball hasn't hit the bat and there's no mark, the next frame it has and there is. And with Pietersen playing in front of his pad there's only really one explanation and that's that he got a thin edge off the back of the bat, as the ball ran past and across. My view is that you have to give that not out, if you're going to use hotspot. Otherwise there's no point spending the money on the technology.

Aust really had to wrap the England innings up on day three for any chance of a result. Barring Clarke making a suicidal sporting declaration in their second dig, the game has to be a draw.

Went to bed at Tea after the impressive dominance of KP and Belf in the middle session, thinking they looked like they'd easily bat through to 4-320 at Stumps.

So I'll take 7-294. More DRS controversy I see. Oh dear, Dharma-no-see-na.

Congrats to KP on his ton. He looked the class that he is. Belf again looked impassable, so stopping him making another ton was a relief.

Disappointing that Elmer again couldn't make an impact. KP and Belf were good but if he aspires to a long Test career, he needs more tricks in his box.

The quicks toiled manfully, and show that our pace attack is good enough to match it with most other attacks in the world, particularly when you consider Jimmeh's 0-million.

But with 3 days gone and 2 innings not yet complete, a draw and Ashes retained by England looks assured,

Just on the appeal that Aus didn't review v KP. A couple of things:

a) He was a mile down the track so not reviewing was entirely reasonable, especially considering Aus's previous woeful use of DRS;

b) Not sure why Boof thought letting Pup know it was out if reviewed was necessary. It just served to deflate the team further.

Red wrote:Don't care how many runs Starc makes, he's in to penetrate with the ball. Would have preferred Bird.

Starc waste of new ball.

Get Bird in action faction needs more members.  Starc has never really impressed with the red cherry.

Koo's success in previous Tests has all been with the old ball, when he hits the deck hard and gets it moving off the seam, or his height causes variable bounce. Agree he needs to improve his new ball efforts.

Watched the start, turns out it was a long day, only 2 pages of discussion!

I think the Poms needed to be all out by now.

Lyon started well but if he can't take top order wickets then there's no chance.

It's been a drawn since England first started crabbing. Barring an Aussie-style batting collapse in the second from them, Aus can't win this.

First session tomorrow, majority of time taken up by getting out the tailenders.
Afternoon and Evening session used to make 150-200 as quickly as possible.
England bat for a day and a bit with rain coming.

Nope, can't see a result. Only interesting thing will be if Warner opens to try and T20 it.

Gratz to England for retaining the Ashes.

England need to hang on for a session tomorrow. That'll clean out the follow on total and kill a chunk of time into the deal.

Not confident they will - Prior looks in horrible touch and the Aussie seamers have embarrassed England's in this game with how threatening they've continued to look on a supposedly dead track.

Bring on the Manchester rains.

PS: Bairstow is absolute dogshit.

Henry wrote:If only Bairstow was a specialist bowler, he'd be considered a decent test match number 8 batsman.

He's only going to make it as Prior's replacement behind the stumps. As a specialist batsman, he comes up short.

Dello wrote:

Henry wrote:If only Bairstow was a specialist bowler, he'd be considered a decent test match number 8 batsman.

He's only going to make it as Prior's replacement behind the stumps. As a specialist batsman, he comes up short.

Bairstow's best with the bat is well short of Prior's best. They like the look of Ben Foakes. He's the new Joe Root wonder boy in the eyes of those that matter. Jonny B could find himself in no-mans land.

And I can't imagine Clarke will enforce the follow on now should he get the choice. Three, probably four days in a row in the field with his fragile attack? Almost suicide.

Aye, Trev. We've proven that Rhino and Cot struggle to back up. Aus's only hope is to get the final 3 wickets quickly, add another 150 for a lead of around 350, and give the bowlers a day and a session to attempt to roll England.

But the weather will have a say in that.

baggygreen wrote:Watched the start, turns out it was a long day, only 2 pages of discussion!

This has surprised me. By this stage at Trent Bridge and Lords we were well into version 2 of the Test thread.

I get the feeling the interest in this Ashes series peaked at Trent Bridge. Most people want to see a contest. It's almost as if people have decided this series was as good as over after Lord's. Also, the standard of cricket has been poor. Not a patch on, say, 2005.

This test is intriguingly poised, but I suspect the weather may ruin it.

Henry wrote:I get the feeling the interest in this Ashes series peaked at Trent Bridge. Most people want to see a contest. It's almost as if people have decided this series was as good as over after Lord's. Also, the standard of cricket has been poor. Not a patch on, say, 2005.

Yeah, probably right, Trev. Nothing could surpass the might 2005 series for theatre, tenseness and great cricket, when Aus was expected to dominate as usual. A classic series. On of the best in my time following the great game.

Certainly there is still strong interest here but had Australia won in TB it would still be at fever pitch. We know we will lose but it's now a matter of avoiding the whitewash. In reality we've been highly competitive in two of the tests but Lord's was a disaster. Still I feel more sanguine about the home series now.

The KP non-referral was costly but as Whateley said on TO, it was a case of the boy who cried wolf. Of course the friction between Clarke and Watto may not have helped.

Moving inexorably towards a draw with the likelihood of weather intervention.

skully wrote:Went to bed at Tea after the impressive dominance of KP and Belf in the middle session, thinking they looked like they'd easily bat through to 4-320 at Stumps.

So I'll take 7-294. More DRS controversy I see. Oh dear, Dharma-no-see-na.

Congrats to KP on his ton. He looked the class that he is. Belf again looked impassable, so stopping him making another ton was a relief.

Disappointing that Elmer again couldn't make an impact. KP and Belf were good but if he aspires to a long Test career, he needs more tricks in his box.

The quicks toiled manfully, and show that our pace attack is good enough to match it with most other attacks in the world, particularly when you consider Jimmeh's 0-million.

But with 3 days gone and 2 innings not yet complete, a draw and Ashes retained by England looks assured,

Agree, thought it was wrong of Clarke to bring Lyon into the attack when KP came to the crease though. He was only going to play him in. The best chance on this track of getting KP early was to have Watson and one of the quicks in tandom. The reality is that we haven't got a decent spinner so will struggle when conditions suit the slow men.

Red wrote:Certainly there is still strong interest here but had Australia won in TB it would still be at fever pitch.

Yup, that was the key. Pity we fell just short. Would've set up a cracking series. Now it's a bit of a damp squib.

Lyon is still the best spinner you've got.

Henry wrote:Lyon Warne is still the best spinner you've got.

Fixed

skully wrote:

Henry wrote:I get the feeling the interest in this Ashes series peaked at Trent Bridge. Most people want to see a contest. It's almost as if people have decided this series was as good as over after Lord's. Also, the standard of cricket has been poor. Not a patch on, say, 2005.

Yeah, probably right, Trev. Nothing could surpass the might 2005 series for theatre, tenseness and great cricket, when Aus was expected to dominate as usual. A classic series. On of the best in my time following the great game.

I agree, 2005 was the tits. Even though we lost the series, and indeed seemingly every critical session, the cricket and the theatre of the series was sublime.

Henry wrote:

Big Dog wrote:The most likeley decision was that they did'nt want to waste a review on a tail end night watchman. Quite logical when you think of it. Even if the decision was overturned, he probably would'nt have lasted much longer so why bother.

Bresnan has three first class centuries, a test average of 30, and is very capable. I just can't believe he didn't know that the ball had clipped his shirt, not his bat. That's something you feel. Like I said, it wouldn't have been a wasted review because it was so obviously not out. Even Michael Clarke said that if the decision had gone the other way, Australia wouldn't have reviewed it.

I read that as both teams having decided the third umpire process is a total lottery and that it's not worth asking for a review unless it's an utter, utter howler of a legside lbw or lbw with the cover hit off the ball ...

The non-referrals of Bell (? c Haddin) and KP (? lbw for 62 off Watson) yesterday appeared to reflect a 'well, it won't be given anyway, so why bother?' attitude. Perhaps things are moving in the direction of the DRS only being used for utter howlers, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

re the follow-on decision ...

If Clarke has a chance to enforce the follow-on, he should, on the basis that Australia has to win this match to stay in the hunt for the Ashes, and to win we need a) 13 English wickets and b) only one more run than they have scored. With rain threatening and time at a premium, the follow-on offers us the best chance of completing this task (despite the hazards involved).

If we do not get a chance to enforce the follow-on, we will need to risk a loss (with a declaration or frenetic collapso batting to a fairly low second innings score) if we are to have a chance to win.

So ... really hoping the weather stays away today, and that we get a chance to enforce the follow-on.

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:

Big Dog wrote:The most likeley decision was that they did'nt want to waste a review on a tail end night watchman. Quite logical when you think of it. Even if the decision was overturned, he probably would'nt have lasted much longer so why bother.

Bresnan has three first class centuries, a test average of 30, and is very capable. I just can't believe he didn't know that the ball had clipped his shirt, not his bat. That's something you feel. Like I said, it wouldn't have been a wasted review because it was so obviously not out. Even Michael Clarke said that if the decision had gone the other way, Australia wouldn't have reviewed it.

I read that as both teams having decided the third umpire process is a total lottery and that it's not worth asking for a review unless it's an utter, utter howler of a legside lbw or lbw with the cover hit off the ball ...

The non-referrals of Bell (? c Haddin) and KP (? lbw for 62 off Watson) yesterday appeared to reflect a 'well, it won't be given anyway, so why bother?' attitude. Perhaps things are moving in the direction of the DRS only being used for utter howlers, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

Which is what DRS was intended for in the first place, not so?