Australia v England, 1st Test, Brisbane, Nov 25-29, 2010

Steven Finn into bowl now.

Henry wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Absolutely plumb.

Good, should teach Strauss a lesson for being such a farking muppet with his earlier reviews.

Err yeah, like him learning that lesson is more important than us winning the ashes.....

If he doesn't learn it quickly then we will be going through the entire ashes series essentially without the review system as he seems so inclined on wasting his reviews.

Here comes Finn to bowl long hops...

Paul Keating wrote:Pretty harsh on Dar, it sounded like an inside edge. Can't give those out.

Dead right PK. Although Dar got it wrong, he genuinely thought there was bat on ball - and no way a shocking error.

Henry wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Absolutely plumb.

Good, should teach Strauss a lesson for being such a farking muppet with his earlier reviews.

Err yeah, like him learning that lesson is more important than us winning the ashes.....

what? Getting the referral system right will go along way to winning.

seriously some of the referrals this game have been based on over excitedness (not that is even a word)

unless you are certain, then don't ho upstairs for the sake of it.

But the UDRS isn't suited for reviewing wickets. The "excitement" and adrenaline of a possible wicket situation tends to make the fielding captain make rash decisions. It's not the technology, it's the situation that its used in.

Paul Keating wrote:

Henry wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Absolutely plumb.

Good, should teach Strauss a lesson for being such a farking muppet with his earlier reviews.

Err yeah, like him learning that lesson is more important than us winning the ashes.....

what? Getting the referral system right will go along way to winning.

seriously some of the referrals this game have been based on over excitedness (not that is even a word)

unless you are certain, then don't ho upstairs for the sake of it.

Exactly, totally agree about the over excitedness too, it was clearly Strauss just impulsively going upstairs for it. Deserves his bad luck, stupid qunt.

We need to get a wicket in the next 5 overs or Australia will have survived the new ball and will run away with this.

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Absolutely plumb.

Good, should teach Strauss a lesson for being such a farking muppet with his earlier reviews.

Err yeah, like him learning that lesson is more important than us winning the ashes.....

If he doesn't learn it quickly then we will be going through the entire ashes series essentially without the review system as he seems so inclined on wasting his reviews.

Second review was fair enough. Clarke playing away from his body, a sound picked up by the stump mic (but evidently not allowed in the DRS), couldn't, on the face of it, been made by anything other than bat on ball. Hotspot didn't show up a little white dot, and that's the law now.

What can you do? Everyone thought it was out - every captain would've reviewed it.

DJ_Smerk wrote:But the UDRS isn't suited for reviewing wickets. The "excitement" and adrenaline of a possible wicket situation tends to make the fielding captain make rash decisions. It's not the technology, it's the situation that its used in.

What?

If Dar had doubt about whether there was an inside edge or not, shouldn't he have favoured England, in the knowledge that Aus still have two reviews left to challenge him if he's wrong?

Lovely stop in the infield by Colly. He's still got it.

vilkrang wrote:We need to get a wicket in the next 5 overs or Australia will have survived the new ball and will run away with this.

Don't be too disheartened yet ...... no team "runs away" with a game at 1.5 rpo off the bat and a few leg-byes. Hussey & Haddin are riding their luck big time so far, and itwon't necessarily last for ever.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

DJ_Smerk wrote:But the UDRS isn't suited for reviewing wickets. The "excitement" and adrenaline of a possible wicket situation tends to make the fielding captain make rash decisions. It's not the technology, it's the situation that its used in.

What?

Meh, I'm basically saying that captains shouldn't go on impulse when using the UDRS. Most of the time it won't work. But it's difficult to avoid doing so because of the hunger and eagerness to get a wicket.

Henry wrote:If Dar had doubt about whether there was an inside edge or not, shouldn't he have favoured England, in the knowledge that Aus still have two reviews left to challenge him if he's wrong?

No. That shouldn't enter his thinking at all.

Is it out or isn't it? No more, no less.

Dello wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Absolutely plumb.

Good, should teach Strauss a lesson for being such a farking muppet with his earlier reviews.

Err yeah, like him learning that lesson is more important than us winning the ashes.....

If he doesn't learn it quickly then we will be going through the entire ashes series essentially without the review system as he seems so inclined on wasting his reviews.

Second review was fair enough. Clarke playing away from his body, a sound picked up by the stump mic (but evidently not allowed in the DRS), couldn't, on the face of it, been made by anything other than bat on ball. Hotspot didn't show up a little white dot, and that's the law now.

What can you do? Everyone thought it was out - every captain would've reviewed it.

I didn't think it was out, as soon as they called for a review I was puzzled .

Henry wrote:If Dar had doubt about whether there was an inside edge or not, shouldn't he have favoured England, in the knowledge that Aus still have two reviews left to challenge him if he's wrong?

You miss the point Trev .... Dar said Not Out because he wasn't in doubt about an inside edge. Yes he could have given out and wouldn't have been wrong, but every commentator would have questioned his decision on hearing the noise. He called it honestly the way he heard/saw it.

With one of the failed reviews- The appeal for caught behind off Clarke's inside edge, snicko later (like 10 minutes later FFS) showed a sound as the ball passed the bat. So Strauss was correct to review it, but the technology was too slow to show it whilst the decision was being made.

So there you go, the ashes could be decided by some dimwit in the channel nine TV van.

Growler wrote:

vilkrang wrote:We need to get a wicket in the next 5 overs or Australia will have survived the new ball and will run away with this.

Don't be too disheartened yet ...... no team "runs away" with a game at 1.5 rpo off the bat and a few leg-byes. Hussey & Haddin are riding their luck big time so far, and itwon't necessarily last for ever.

Only has to last until the new ball "session" passes - which will be soon.

Haddin starting to fancy a piece of Finn, I reckon...

Dello wrote:

Henry wrote:If Dar had doubt about whether there was an inside edge or not, shouldn't he have favoured England, in the knowledge that Aus still have two reviews left to challenge him if he's wrong?

No. That shouldn't enter his thinking at all.

Is it out or isn't it? No more, no less.

Indeed, that England wasted their reviews is there own fault and shouldn't alter the umpire's decision making.

JGK wrote:Ponting needs to drop down the order. Clarke needs to be dropped until he is fully fit. North needs to be dropped full stop.

Ponting - that should have happened two years ago, but the arrogant qunt isn't fit to likc the soles of the boots of AB and SRW, who knew when moving down the order would have been better for the team, and far more important than their ego.
Clarke - Ponting v2.0
North - Even I'd rather see Hodge in the Test team. And for mine, the fat retarded vomit shouldn't be allowd within a million miles of another baggy green.

embee wrote:Whoever let Clarke play ...Clarke , Physio , Drunk , Selector , Weet Bix ...should be shot , sacked , electrocuted , water boarded , shot again and told to farque off from Oz cricket forever ...It was a giveaway he wasnt close to fit when he skulked around at mid off/on all day rather than in the slips or at point ...his batting just confirmed it

ANDREW HILDITCH... COME ON DOWN...

Bradman wrote:We have a bunch of over-paid wankers as batsmen; our bowlers are either the next coming of DKL or sh!t*, our captain is a dickhead and his deputy's no better, and the only decent player we've got is either over-worked or not used properly. Add to this a national selection panel who decided Lord Ted was a good role model and a governing body that thinks...... (well actually it doesn't think).

Sageness multiplied by wisdom.

horace wrote:I do not understand why Clarke is playing - doubtless the story will be he was fit to play but unforch injured his back while walking out on the ground....

The last time Brett Lee leftthe dressing room, he forgot to take his sponsors' exemption with him. Clarke found it and is now using it with impunity.

Red wrote:Clarke declared himself fit so he's 100%

You really do believe what you read in the Herald Sun, don't you.

skully wrote:

Fred Nerk wrote:Just watching the tail end of the day 1 highlights.

Anybody worked out the significance of the diff colored balls next to each bowlers name when they put up the bowling figures? I sure as hell haven't....

It's simple, Nerky. Each player has a colour allocated to them and their coloured ball appears on the worm below at the score at which they took a wicket. I think Siddle was blue so there were 3 blue balls at 197 on the score worm to mark his hattrick.

Nein Sport probably designed the graphics to be watched in HD. Nein management then decided to make a point to the govt about multi-channeling and decided to f*ck them, and indeed the viewers, over and show the cricket only in SD.

Mick Sawyer wrote:Since when have Cricket Australia have had a policy of encouraging skin cancer?

I witnessed a bloke have a cap confiscated on admission yesterday because it had a tiny, 1 inch golden arches logo.

Yet they're willing to allow gigantic Warneburger billboards on thesightscreen. Even though Kentucky Fat and Cholesterol is the 'official calorie overload supplier for Cricket Australia'.

Paul Keating wrote:

Henry wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Henry wrote:Absolutely plumb.

Good, should teach Strauss a lesson for being such a farking muppet with his earlier reviews.

Err yeah, like him learning that lesson is more important than us winning the ashes.....

what? Getting the referral system right will go along way to winning.

seriously some of the referrals this game have been based on over excitedness (not that is even a word)

unless you are certain, then don't ho upstairs for the sake of it.

PK and vilks 15 -0 Henry

Dello wrote:

Growler wrote:

vilkrang wrote:We need to get a wicket in the next 5 overs or Australia will have survived the new ball and will run away with this.

Don't be too disheartened yet ...... no team "runs away" with a game at 1.5 rpo off the bat and a few leg-byes. Hussey & Haddin are riding their luck big time so far, and itwon't necessarily last for ever.

Only has to last until the new ball "session" passes - which will be soon.

This was the point I was getting at. It's now or never.

Strauss might want to give Anderson a break. Put Collingwood on for some stock overs.

Or throw the ball to Swanny.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Strauss might want to give Anderson a break. Put Collingwood on for some stock overs.

Or throw the ball to Swanny.

Yes, Paul Collingwood with the new ball would be inspired captaincy.

JD stop being such a Jonah sir, if you please