England v Australia, 1st Test, Cardiff, July 8-12 (II)

Of that was deliberate, pretty clever you have to admit.

Well, that was a very acceptable outcome after the mortification of seeing England's tail-enders slaps around with ease.

Well played Fleas and Drunk, 1-249 chasing 435 is way better than I expected.

Oh, and horrie, get that up ya. S.Katich 104 no.

Horrie is c by his a.

You know, skull, i've always suspected h of being a closet fleas fan . . . . I'm sure he's filled his bag in celebration . . . .

tac wrote:You know, skull, i've always suspected h of being a closet fleas fan . . . . I'm sure he's filled his bag in celebration . . . .

Hmmm, maybe taccy. But h and I have an understanding. He will give it to me unmercifully, I will generally ignore him but stick it right up him every time (and it is often) Fleas does well.

I would happily discuss the relative merits of our rock solid opener over a beer with the old blurter.

JKLever wrote:

tac wrote:Damn, I though tI'd fixed that typo . . .

Still looks an even test. If England don't get another "rogue" ball for the 2nd new ball, they could still limit Oz to something around 450 . . . .

Haven't heard anything about the day other than the score. Looks like the 2nd new ball and early wickets will be vital...

Actually i'd never back England but the 12.5's on offer for an England win actually look a bit ridiculous - even should Aus bat all day tomorrow and end up with a lead of 100 - England would in reality be a lot better bet than 12.5! And that's coming from a pessimist!

Was the SA series all over again. England's bowlers can't trouble decent batsmen if the conditions aren't weighted heavily in their favour.

England couldn't get any swing, and simply had no other ideas. Not helped by Broad bowling some garbage and Swanny and Panesar looking innocuous.

Everyone looked off their game. Flat and uninspired.

Graham Onions' stock has gone through the roof today. As has Harmison's, probably.

Katich and Ponting batted well, but they weren't the toughest hundreds they'll ever score and there was a sense of inevitability about it from about 50 onwards.

Really poor day for England - and it started so promisingly with a decent tail wag, for once.

Yeah, Dello, the intent shown by the tail with the bat was a good sign . . . I like to see the tail hit out or get out . . .

Swann wrote:We can whinge and moan about the ball going soft, and the
wicket being flat, and Katich not being given out lbw off me when he
was plumb.

Yeah, like that was the only plumb LB that wasn't given during this match so far. What a tool.

Zat wrote:

Swann wrote:We can whinge and moan about the ball going soft, and the
wicket being flat, and Katich not being given out lbw off me when he
was plumb.

Yeah, like that was the only plumb LB that wasn't given during this match so far. What a tool.

But he's hardly going to be talking about Aussie lbw's turned down as a reason the England attack had no bite is he?

I like Swanny. Good bloke.

Caught the first 5 or 6 overs of the reply and I already feared the worst so wasn't surprised by the score tbh, I don't care how many runs Hughes scores off his legs just don't feed him that short and wide sh!t - it HAS to be straight and at him FFS

When did it become okay for players to dispute an umpires decision in the media? Does the Goose have subi blood?

Seriously, the match referee should reprimand him. It's bringing the game into disrepute.

Freddie looked like DKL, Ambrose, Macco and Spofforth rolled into one in his first spell. Maybe that was just because he was bowling to Hughes who is absolute pants

Invader Zim wrote:When did it become okay for players to dispute an umpires decision in the media? Does the Goose have subi blood?

Seriously, the match referee should reprimand him. It's bringing the game into disrepute.

Pretty much when the ICC decided to allow a "review" system that to all intents and purposes encourages players to show dissent to more or less every decision the umpire makes. It's a road to hell.

Shoeshine wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:When did it become okay for players to dispute an umpires decision in the media? Does the Goose have subi blood?

Seriously, the match referee should reprimand him. It's bringing the game into disrepute.

Pretty much when the ICC decided to allow a "review" system that to all intents and purposes encourages players to show dissent to more or less every decision the umpire makes. It's a road to hell.

The ICC opened the Pandora's box way before that. The whole bowling/chucking angle thing encouraged by video that apparently shows every bowler chucks, yet neither those videos, nor the accompanying analysis have been released for public scrutiny. Then the debacle that has been video review by umpires alone was brought in. If the challenge system was to work properly, it should be limited requests from players at the expense of any umpire referrals. Meaning the players either have to put up with the decision or consider very carefully if they wish to challenge.

That's how it is now, you get 3 unsuccessful referrals.

The referral system needs to be heavily modified, but is a definite step towards the right direction.

tac wrote:You know, skull, i've always suspected h of being a closet fleas fan . . . . I'm sure he's filled his bag in celebration . . . .

yeah the zat bag and the zim bag are both overflowing...well done fleas who made the most of being dropped and getting a couple of favourable decisions...he always seem to get the rub of the green...still being a talentless chokarian oxygen theif he needs all the luck he can get...the jury (and the hanging judge) are still out on all this...fleas inability to turn the strike over pre and post lunch did not help phew...i thought it was phew who really changed the momentum of the match and he received sfa support from the senior opening partner.

well done punter...a great knock...esp well done jgk who I am certain has extended the mortgage to back the poms

Hehehe, typical sook Vomit. Fleas is a legend and will be the rock that we built upon if we retain the Ashes.

How's the fund raising going to get the chucker in town? Sold a few chook raffle tickets have you, old bean?

doremi wrote:That's how it is now, you get 3 unsuccessful referrals.

The referral system needs to be heavily modified, but is a definite step towards the right direction.

Yep. The reason they went for this was because they didn't want a situation where the umpires referred everything "just to be on the safe side". Trouble is, you then create a situation where the players are encouraged to question the umpires - to all intents and purposes, to offer dissent. You then saw the players become ever more openly critical of the umpires on the field. In any case, I am yet to be convinced that it will lead to better decision-making. It seemed to work tolerably well in South Africa, but in the West Indies it was an absolute shambles. Quite simply, the technology isn't up to offering definitive answers to many of the questions. Hotspot is a non-starter, because it doesn't always show up and even when it does there are only three such cameras in the world. Hawkeye is simply not accurate, no matter what is claimed, and we've all seen the problems caused by low catches when dealing with a two dimensional image.

Very often when dealing with a thin edge for a catch or an lbw, it is simply not possible to determine whether it occurred or not.

The TV companies love it of course - it makes them a critical part of the game, which is exactly what they want.

A few American sports tried TV technology and abandoned it completely as more trouble than it was worth, deciding that the umpire's decision was to be final, flawed as it might be. Personally (and I suspect I might be in a minority) I would prefer exactly the same thing to happen in cricket. Line decisions such as run outs I can live with, but cricket simply isn't a game of fact much of the time, it is a game of opinion.

skully wrote:Hehehe, typical sook Vomit. Fleas is a legend and will be the rock that we built upon if we retain the Ashes.

How's the fund raising going to get the chucker in town? Sold a few chook raffle tickets have you, old bean?

hehehe...points at shield threads where I am still waiting for a S response...given the chokarian's complete lack of history in being the acknowledged matchwinner (for Aus) in any test match - let alone series; it seems S is expecting we will hold the ashes through manufacturing draws in each game of the series

have just read all posts on the thread Mark II...it is an object lesson in why test cricket is such a wonderful game...read the rise and crashing fall of pom postering as phew and then punter (and the lotto winning fleas) turned the tide over 2 and a bit sessions...who knows what twists, turns and vagaries we can expect in the next three days....
'
I Love Test Cricket - it tests and brings out the best in all of us - players and fans alike

this pretty even test following on from the two Aus v SA series gives us all a great treat.

Shoeshine wrote:

doremi wrote:That's how it is now, you get 3 unsuccessful referrals.

The referral system needs to be heavily modified, but is a definite step towards the right direction.

Yep. The reason they went for this was because they didn't want a situation where the umpires referred everything "just to be on the safe side". Trouble is, you then create a situation where the players are encouraged to question the umpires - to all intents and purposes, to offer dissent. You then saw the players become ever more openly critical of the umpires on the field. In any case, I am yet to be convinced that it will lead to better decision-making. It seemed to work tolerably well in South Africa, but in the West Indies it was an absolute shambles. Quite simply, the technology isn't up to offering definitive answers to many of the questions. Hotspot is a non-starter, because it doesn't always show up and even when it does there are only three such cameras in the world. Hawkeye is simply not accurate, no matter what is claimed, and we've all seen the problems caused by low catches when dealing with a two dimensional image.

Very often when dealing with a thin edge for a catch or an lbw, it is simply not possible to determine whether it occurred or not.

The TV companies love it of course - it makes them a critical part of the game, which is exactly what they want.

A few American sports tried TV technology and abandoned it completely as more trouble than it was worth, deciding that the umpire's decision was to be final, flawed as it might be. Personally (and I suspect I might be in a minority) I would prefer exactly the same thing to happen in cricket. Line decisions such as run outs I can live with, but cricket simply isn't a game of fact much of the time, it is a game of opinion.

In the NRL, the video ref must be called on by the ref in the middle. It's a debacle on a regular basis.

In the NFL, after starting with an eye in the sky reviewing plays left, right and centre, they realised just how many offences could be picked up if they went forensically through the game. They went to challenges only, with the possibility of booth review late in halves to stop coaches using it for tactical reasons. It works well. The removal of referrals from the central official means players have to put up or shut up. And FWIW TV broadcasters there - with much bigger money at stake - don't go on and on about incorrect decisions. Something cricket coverage would benefit from.

MLB has introduced extremely limited video replay decisions. I believe mainly to determine close calls on 'foul' balls v home runs. Can't say much more than that, haven't watched a lot of MLB in recent years.

Tennis has exculsively a limited number of challenges. After some initial teething problems, it seems to be working fairly well now. Even though tennis is festive.

In Rugby Union the referral must be made by the bloke in the middle. There are far fewer things a TMO has the ability to rule on in Rugby than in Leeeeeeeg, and the process seems to work OK for the most part. Happy to stand corrected but I don't recall too many glaring f*ck-ups frrom Video refs in Rugby Union.

Cricket has tried to incorporate everything. Player referrals and Umpire referrals, as well as trials of the video ump calling no balls. As I've said repeatedly, get rid of the ability of the bloke in the middle to refer anything upstairs. The players would then have to accept a lot more decisions because with only three challenges, they'd have to be almost 100% certain they were dudded before challenging. As it stands, the umpire, if he feels pressure from the players, can refer upstairs himself in many cases, thus saving one team a challenge. Which makes the whole system just so much bollocks as it stands.

For h, from Dickinfo...

"He (Fleas) is far removed from the batsman who was bemused by reverse swing in 2005 and it's one of cricket's great comeback stories."

....

"57.42

Katich's Test average in the last 14 months. In 29 innings he has scored six centuries and seven fifties."

Nuff said.

S, I will still keep that long length of rope handy. Very festive that you now rely on crocinfo commentary for support

Now I'm not the biggest fan of Fleas, but it's a tad unfair of cricinfo not to mention how regularly he was sawn off in 05.

Says the man leading the gayest move in history to get the biggest cheat in the game to his state in the name of winning some sh!t domestic festivity.

Aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha.