LOL - second innings was a glorified one-day game. Woakes is a good one day player, and I can see him being a part of the one day team plans. He's not a test standard player.
With respect TMA this is rubbish. He was picked as a 3rd seamer. Woeful is not and never will be capable enough in this role. We should pick bowlers to take wickets, not because they can also get runs.
I was there with mates. A great days play & most unexpected. Brilliant to see us get "The Ashes".
However, cricket needs to update its' rules to at least the 20th centuary.
They should do more to achieve the 450 overs in a match, if needed.
Why can't they start at 10.30 (not in September) if required?
Why can't they reduce lunch to 30 mins if required ?
Players came on with drinks bottles all day long. This must have wasted time.
Why can't umpires stop the watch, when time wasting is going on ?
They were playing under floodlights. I saw a game there a few weeks ago that finished at 9.30pm (T20). All they had to do, was change the ball from red to white and sightscreens from white to black.
These are ideas off the top of my head. An absolutely brilliant days play spoiled because of antiquated rules.
personally i thought it was a moody declaration for the Aussies why would they give us a chance to record a 4-0 victory over them for the first time in history
they realistically had no chance of bowling us out in that short a period and were leaving themselves open for the humiliation of a 4-0 defeat
the movements of money backing England on betfair stunk whilst we were at the tail end of our first innings , someone knew the aussies would declare early
personally i thought the aussies manufactured the games finish out of nothing , not in a million years did we deserve to win that test and if i was captain of oz i would never have given England a sniff of a victory and 4-0 , good for the crowd but he's not there to please us English cricket fans
I just think the 4-0 stigma being stuck with Clarke forever would not have been worth the small chance of 3-1 and breaking that 13 month without winning a test run
It was a brilliant day - really enjoyed it. Got some great videos but no idea how to upload them. One of Jeruselum and the players coming out, one of the umpires being boo'ed and one of them lifting the urn. We were in the bedsner upper so quite near the players as they were coming in and out.
We were meant to be there Saturday too, but the rain stopped that, so we watched SkySportsAshes all day including the repeat of Melbourne 2010 and tried to spot ourselves in the crowd whilst reliving our favourite Mitchell Johnson moments. top weekend!
They obviously couldn't do it Sunday, but to make up for lost time, where possible, they should start at 10.30 if possible on days 2-5 to make up the time. They did that in Oz.
That Ryan Harris spent a lot of time in the outfield going the wrong way to where Clarke was telling him to, just to waste time.
With respect TMA this is rubbish. He was picked as a 3rd seamer. Woeful is not and never will be capable enough in this role. We should pick bowlers to take wickets, not because they can also get runs.
My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek. No need for any due respect!
If they come off for bad light earlier in the test match, like English batsmen chose to do, then the umpires have to take the players off again if it reaches that same level.
You cant have England deciding it is too dark on Thursday and come off for bad light and then let them carry on, on Sunday when it reaches that same 'dangerous' level.
If they come off for bad light earlier in the test match, like English batsmen chose to do, then the umpires have to take the players off again if it reaches that same level.
You cant have England deciding it is too dark on Thursday and come off for bad light and then let them carry on, on Sunday when it reaches that same 'dangerous' level.
Cake and eat it comes to mind.
It has nothing to do with the players.
The ICC stipulates that the decision to come off for bad light is the Umpire's alone to make. The first time they come off for bad light in a Test the Umpires take a light meter reading. If the light worsens past that point layer in the Test then automatically they go off for bad light and don't re-emerge until the light has improved.
Previously the situation you outline was the case - teams would appeal against the light if it suited them and the umpire's would suspend play. Another day and the light would be just as bad/worse and they'd want to stay on. There was a celebrated case in 1953 when Trevor Bailey had to bat all day on the last day of a Test to save the match for England. He appealed against the light causing the umpires to have to formally meet and agree that the light was ok to continue playing in - which it was as it was a cloudless day with bright sunshine, but it wasted a couple of minutes.
Perhaps a tweak in the regulations needs to be made - in the last hour (when the bowling side must bowl a minimum of 15 overs) the umpires should have the ability to suspend going off if a result can be achieved.
England had won the series and while it would have been good to win 4-0 rather than 3-0 so it didn't make any difference to the outcome of the series, imagine if England had needed to win the game to win the Ashes or win the series.
I don't disagree. My mate said the reason they declared so early, was because they were desperate for a win, having not won a Test for 13 months !
There was no way England were going to lose 10 wickets in 44 overs, and especially not on a slow Oval wicket. Clarke badly miscalculated the target thinking England would get nowhere near it and settle for a draw. This was about claiming a moral victory and making some England batsmen sweat out the last few overs with ten men crowded around the bat.
I don't disagree. My mate said the reason they declared so early, was because they were desperate for a win, having not won a Test for 13 months !
There was no way England were going to lose 10 wickets in 44 overs, and especially not on a slow Oval wicket. Clarke badly miscalculated the target thinking England would get nowhere near it and settle for a draw. This was about claiming a moral victory and making some England batsmen sweat out the last few overs with ten men crowded around the bat.
I imagine he was hoping for a few wickets, to leave Cook or someone blocking the ball for 20 overs, so that they could sarcastically slag off our slow batting, caution etc
Comments
Root,
Cook,
Trott,
Pietersen,
Bell,
Ballance(very impressed everytime I have seen him, made for test cricket)
Prior
Broad,
Swann,
Tremlett
Anderson
Other players to make trip, Bairstow reserve wicketkeeper, Finn, Taylor, Paneser, Bresnan
However, cricket needs to update its' rules to at least the 20th centuary.
They should do more to achieve the 450 overs in a match, if needed.
Why can't they start at 10.30 (not in September) if required?
Why can't they reduce lunch to 30 mins if required ?
Players came on with drinks bottles all day long. This must have wasted time.
Why can't umpires stop the watch, when time wasting is going on ?
They were playing under floodlights. I saw a game there a few weeks ago that finished at 9.30pm (T20). All they had to do, was change the ball from red to white and sightscreens from white to black.
These are ideas off the top of my head. An absolutely brilliant days play spoiled because of antiquated rules.
We really need a rethink.
personally i thought it was a moody declaration for the Aussies why would they give us a chance to record a 4-0 victory over them for the first time in history
they realistically had no chance of bowling us out in that short a period and were leaving themselves open for the humiliation of a 4-0 defeat
the movements of money backing England on betfair stunk whilst we were at the tail end of our first innings , someone knew the aussies would declare early
personally i thought the aussies manufactured the games finish out of nothing , not in a million years did we deserve to win that test and if i was captain of oz i would never have given England a sniff of a victory and 4-0 , good for the crowd but he's not there to please us English cricket fans
but fairplay to him for doing it
We were meant to be there Saturday too, but the rain stopped that, so we watched SkySportsAshes all day including the repeat of Melbourne 2010 and tried to spot ourselves in the crowd whilst reliving our favourite Mitchell Johnson moments. top weekend!
That Ryan Harris spent a lot of time in the outfield going the wrong way to where Clarke was telling him to, just to waste time.
You cant have England deciding it is too dark on Thursday and come off for bad light and then let them carry on, on Sunday when it reaches that same 'dangerous' level.
Cake and eat it comes to mind.
It can't be dangerous if there are floodlights and you continue with a white ball & black sightscreens.
The ICC stipulates that the decision to come off for bad light is the Umpire's alone to make. The first time they come off for bad light in a Test the Umpires take a light meter reading. If the light worsens past that point layer in the Test then automatically they go off for bad light and don't re-emerge until the light has improved.
Previously the situation you outline was the case - teams would appeal against the light if it suited them and the umpire's would suspend play. Another day and the light would be just as bad/worse and they'd want to stay on. There was a celebrated case in 1953 when Trevor Bailey had to bat all day on the last day of a Test to save the match for England. He appealed against the light causing the umpires to have to formally meet and agree that the light was ok to continue playing in - which it was as it was a cloudless day with bright sunshine, but it wasted a couple of minutes.
Perhaps a tweak in the regulations needs to be made - in the last hour (when the bowling side must bowl a minimum of 15 overs) the umpires should have the ability to suspend going off if a result can be achieved.
England had won the series and while it would have been good to win 4-0 rather than 3-0 so it didn't make any difference to the outcome of the series, imagine if England had needed to win the game to win the Ashes or win the series.
So close!