England v Australia, 2nd test, Lord's, July 16-20 (II)

Who's our 'next' bowler? Swann? Anderson ?

Today's spell was special, if we can find someone who can do that even occasionally then I'll be pleased.

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

*Sigh* No. It isn't that simple. It is anything but that simple. Low catches should never be referred.

Of course. The umps should just continue to get them wrong.

But I see your *sigh* and raise you one

My point is made. You are saying the decision is wrong because of what you saw on television. Television does not work with low catches. It has been demonstrated time and again that the two dimensional images cannot cope with the foreshortening effect of the long lens, and a ball held six inches off the ground appears to be on the floor. This is a fact, whether you like it or not, and your comment that it was wrong is materially incorrect, because you do not and cannot know that, and nor can I.

And you are whingeing by the way.

Exactly, Dermot Reeve & Tony Greig both proved this foreshortening effect 10 years ago. They proved they had the ball firmly in their hands on close up but when the camera panned back it looked like the ball was resting on the ground.

And the thing is with the deciision - on Boparas clearly the umpires did not see it so referred it. On the Hughes catch clearly Doctrove saw it so didn't need to go upstairs.

And if we are playing by the spirit of cricket which Ponting so clearly loves, surely that dictates this is left to the umpires to decide

Oh poo, Mr Pompous Sunshine. You are foreshortening my patience.
I am not whingeing. I do not whinge. I am whingeless.

Am I to believe that the great Greig, in a scientific/photographic/guesseriffic experiment, demonstrated the foreshortening effect? I am duly impressed.

We will not discuss Bopara. That case was obviously different. Technology always works, when it favours one's own country.

JKLever, I can only say you are blinded by your success. I can't be mean to you, because you were the only forummer on this board, who actually showed interest in my excitement at going to an Ashes Test at Lord's. I have a soft spot for you.

If it's pompous to point out a reality that you can't seem to grasp, then it must be remarkably stupid to fail to spot that reality. The Bopara incident precisely points out the idiocy of going to a TV replay, because it then has to be given not out. The umpires should have made their own minds up.

'Ooh... Mr. Snippy.'
You proved my point, oh pompous puss.
I saw your team win and I know I couldn't believe my bloody eyes, so you must be right.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Who's our 'next' bowler? Swann? Anderson ?

Swanny right now. Leading wicket-taker in Tests in 2009, isn't he?

He's not special, but he's a solid spinner and competitor.

footwork wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

footwork wrote:Proving or disproving catches etc, should be as easy as REFERRING them upstairs. What a pity this wasn't done yestee. Pontificating is also irrelevant. Two wrongs do not a right make.

*Sigh* No. It isn't that simple. It is anything but that simple. Low catches should never be referred.

Of course. The umps should just continue to get them wrong.

But I see your *sigh* and raise you one

My point is made. You are saying the decision is wrong because of what you saw on television. Television does not work with low catches. It has been demonstrated time and again that the two dimensional images cannot cope with the foreshortening effect of the long lens, and a ball held six inches off the ground appears to be on the floor. This is a fact, whether you like it or not, and your comment that it was wrong is materially incorrect, because you do not and cannot know that, and nor can I.

And you are whingeing by the way.

Exactly, Dermot Reeve & Tony Greig both proved this foreshortening effect 10 years ago. They proved they had the ball firmly in their hands on close up but when the camera panned back it looked like the ball was resting on the ground.

And the thing is with the deciision - on Boparas clearly the umpires did not see it so referred it. On the Hughes catch clearly Doctrove saw it so didn't need to go upstairs.

And if we are playing by the spirit of cricket which Ponting so clearly loves, surely that dictates this is left to the umpires to decide

Oh poo, Mr Pompous Sunshine. You are foreshortening my patience.
I am not whingeing. I do not whinge. I am whingeless.

Am I to believe that the great Greig, in a scientific/photographic/guesseriffic experiment, demonstrated the foreshortening effect? I am duly impressed.

We will not discuss Bopara. That case was obviously different. Technology always works, when it favours one's own country.

JKLever, I can only say you are blinded by your success. I can't be mean to you, because you were the only forummer on this board, who actually showed interest in my excitement at going to an Ashes Test at Lord's. I have a soft spot for you.

If it's pompous to point out a reality that you can't seem to grasp, then it must be remarkably stupid to fail to spot that reality. The Bopara incident precisely points out the idiocy of going to a TV replay, because it then has to be given not out. The umpires should have made their own minds up.

'Ooh... Mr. Snippy.'
You proved my point, oh pompous puss.
I saw your team win and I know I couldn't believe my bloody eyes, so you must be right.

I like you. You're funny.

Dello wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Who's our 'next' bowler? Swann? Anderson ?

Swanny right now. Leading wicket-taker in Tests in 2009, isn't he?

He's not special, but he's a solid spinner and competitor.

Perhaps The New Greg Matthews? Actually no, Swannee can bowl a bit better.

And has all his own hair. For now...

Great Day.
History was reversed and I woz there!
In the end it really was all too easy ... and Fred made it so.

Though have to say, the ball that beat Clarke was, for me, the ball of the match. Flighted, drifting in, yorker length to a batsman who had played him so easily the previous day and who looked set on 136. Absolute jaffa!

But the day was Fred's ... and he soaked up every bloody second of it!
Great bowling with plenty of speed and incredible variety. The one that got Siddle looked like his fast legbreak ... (which he always hurls down in practice and before starting a new spell) .

Funniest and most telling moment of the day -
England team's warm up 6 a side footie under the Tavern/Mound Stands at 9.30 this morning.
KP (reffing) whistles up for a deliberate Fred shoulder barge on Luke Wright who goes down like Ronaldo in pantomime ...
"Bollocks" shouts the big man grinning at his audience... who then cheer him loudly from the stands ... the 'foul' is reversed and the free kick awarded to Fred who lobbed it into the "box" for Bops to score!!

It just HAD to be Freddie's day after that!
Michelle - and his name up on the Board for the first and only time.

A Great Test match - missed out on shed loads of work ... but it was well worth it in the end.

PS - Anyone offering Edgbaston tickets on here ?

Merlin wrote:
Funniest and most telling moment of the day -
England team's warm up 6 a side footie under the Tavern/Mound Stands at 9.30 this morning.
KP (reffing) whistles up for a deliberate Fred shoulder barge on Luke Wright who goes down like Ronaldo in pantomime ...
"Bollocks" shouts the big man grinning at his audience... who then cheer him loudly from the stands ... the 'foul' is reversed and the free kick awarded to Fred who lobbed it into the "box" for Bops to score!!

Two things. 1) Flintoff's knee can't be all that bad if he's up for some footie a hour before play. Either that or he's an idiot.

And 2) WTF was Luke Wright doing there? Are they grooming him to become Fred's natural successor?

Fred barely moved a yard each side of his left winger spot ... collecting and then passing the ball on .... hands deep in pockets .... fiddling generally!!
That is, until Lukie got near him .....

Yeah, we were gobsmacked to see Luke Sussex there ... the blond spikey hair gave it away ... he did come on as sub midway thru the morning for a off-looking pale-faced Onions.

Must've been his day off from scythe duty at the farm.

Are you SURE it wasn't

??

He was doing 12th man duties for most of the match.

LINK to info.

No, it was definitely Luke Wright.

Wright's not a Sussex boy by the way. He's an import.

Nah, was definitely Luke Wright. He's their like-for-like replacement for Freddie when he gets crocked :|

btw:

That guy must be known to his mates as "Kurt" (if you make a silent "-ck-"), or something unmentionable (if you don't).

So, then - England's post-Ashes XI vs SA:

Strauss
Cook
Yardy
Joyce
Collingwood
Prior +
Wright
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Kirtley

No. Bell for Collingwood, surely.

And possibly a recall for Batty in place of Swann?

Has Murray Goodwin qualified yet?

It'll be alright.

You lot will probably win this Ashes.

Then, most of you won't care whoever and his gramma whups your collected ar$es for ever after.

Till the next Ashes when you wake up panicking.

So it goes, the cycle.

I really rate Ed Joyce. Still.

furriner wrote:It'll be alright.

You lot will probably win this Ashes.

Then, most of you won't care whoever and his gramma whups your collected ar$es for ever after.

Till the next Ashes when you wake up panicking.

So it goes, the cycle.

I'd take that right now Furry!

furriner wrote:

So it goes, the cycle.

You mean like the India v Pakistan ... Pakistan v India ... India v Pakistan .. Pakistan v India cylcle every 4 months furry?

JKLever wrote:Has Murray Goodwin qualified yet?

Goodwin's a legend. I had to hold his beer in a benefit match when an inconsiderate batsman had the gall to hit the ball to where he was fielding.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:I really rate Ed Joyce. Still.

He's a decent player. Not sure he's international class, but England didn't give him much of chance to prove or disprove that theory.

Not having much of a season with Sussex though - averaging 34 with the bat. James Kirtley is averaging 33...