Smith should be thoroughly berated for that ridiculous decision to bat again. But, of course, he won't be, as the Australian media - particularly newspapers - close ranks, particularly when the opposition are England.
But his decision to bat again is unfathomable. He's handed England an undeserved advantage by allowing them a slither of hope. But, more than that, he's gifted a psychological gift by effectively admitting his attack cannot handle bowling for three sessions in a day.
Australia were miles ahead in this match. Their supposedly superior fast bowling armoury, backed up by an off-spinner who has taken more wickets than anyone in the world this year should have been asked - told, if necessary - to finish the job.
Australia remain clear favourites to win this match. But England are inching back into the game and getting back to parity in psychological terms. Woakes' confidence will be sky-high, Andserson is back to hooping it round corners, Overton has filled the bowling all-rounder role really well, Warner has failed again, Khawaja looks lost and Smith's Brisbane zenith has turned into an Adelaide nadir. All of this is due to Smith's stupidity, naivety and bloody-mindedness.
The scoreline now reads 53/4. Whereas it should, right now, be 2-0.
So, has Overton played himself into the side for the foreseeable future? I think his bowling should be nowhere near this Test side, but the Australians haven't got him out yet. Maybe see how he goes in the second innings, bowling and batting...
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
It was more like 15mm - certainly wouldn't want it upheld if you're the batsman
The evening session tomorrow will be crucial. Can England survive the Aussie quicks under the lights?
I was thinking the same. In which case the quicker we can get them out the longer we have to bat without the lights on and the more set the batsmen should be. Equally, if we do that, we hopefully won't have much of a second new ball to face under lights.
Spot the assumption - that we will bat for 80 overs plus!
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
It was more like 15mm - certainly wouldn't want it upheld if you're the batsman
Well it might be 15mm but it still hasn't pitched outside leg. And the purpose of the Law was to prevent leg side bowling - which it isn't.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
The evening session tomorrow will be crucial. Can England survive the Aussie quicks under the lights?
You mean you think we will reach the evening session ?!
I assume the Aussies will bat through until late afternoon, but will declare around dinner time (assuming they're not bowled out)
If, as is quite possible with Hanscomb and Lyon batting, that they are 6 down for say,70, then its quite possible we could be batting again before lunch- or not long after lunch. If we are 4 down by dinner then the evening session is almost irrelevent - so, to me, the middle session is likely to become the most crucial for England batting wise.
Strange decision by Smith granted, when Australia win tomorrow or Wednesday it will be completely forgotten about though
As Starc said in the post match interview, England will still have to bat twice under the lights to win/save the game, so it's not as if England have avoided this proble
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
DRS was principally brought in to eradicate the howlers - anyone of a certain age may remember some shocking decisions given by some Pakistani umpires in the 1990's and early 2000's, but these seemed to have gone since neutral umpires were introduced.
It seems now that DRS is being used as a tactical weapon as the vast majority of original umpires decisions are correct.
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
That is my point - if technology says that the ball would have hit the stumps, however small a part of that ball is, then it should be given out. In the same way that, however small a part of the ball pitches in line with the stumps, a batsman should also be given out LBW.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
Though I'm really not sure that Smith's first LBW should be overturned because a millimetre over half the ball pitched outside anymore than the same rule applies to "bowled". Either we trust the technology or we don't and as long as it is consistently right or wrong I don't see the issue.
I dont get your point AA, the same aplies to bowled (unless theyve changed the rules and i've missed it). To me, technology works wonderfuly well, and is a million percent better and more accurate than human eye - as is proved in virtually every Test Match. Smith wasnt out because more than half the ball pitched outside leg stump.
DRS was principally brought in to eradicate the howlers - anyone of a certain age may remember some shocking decisions given by some Pakistani umpires in the 1990's and early 2000's, but these seemed to have gone since neutral umpires were introduced.
It seems now that DRS is being used as a tactical weapon as the vast majority of original umpires decisions are correct.
I am probably of that 'certain age' Golfie and i disagree. To me, ignore the perceived reasons as to why DRS was implemented, but the key thing is to ensure that the right decisions are being made, full stop - and anybody who disagrees with the fact that DRS provides this is clearly either a total stick in the mud or blind. DRS also adds drama to a game - especially if you are at the game, which to me, enhances the viewing spectacle and entertainment. If you need to ask someone for justification for DRS, then maybe a good example is Damien Martyn in 2005 Ashes, who was given out lbw 3/4? times off big inside nicks. There was also the example of Tendulkar being out lbw off a big-inside nick (did i laugh) when India petulantly rejected the usage of. I know i've said it many times, but DRS is a brilliant add-on to cricket and i personally cannot see reason for anyone to diss it, full stop, none whatsoever. It might not have been 100 per cent to begin with , but i think theyve got it pretty much nailed now.
Comments
But his decision to bat again is unfathomable. He's handed England an undeserved advantage by allowing them a slither of hope. But, more than that, he's gifted a psychological gift by effectively admitting his attack cannot handle bowling for three sessions in a day.
Australia were miles ahead in this match. Their supposedly superior fast bowling armoury, backed up by an off-spinner who has taken more wickets than anyone in the world this year should have been asked - told, if necessary - to finish the job.
Australia remain clear favourites to win this match. But England are inching back into the game and getting back to parity in psychological terms. Woakes' confidence will be sky-high, Andserson is back to hooping it round corners, Overton has filled the bowling all-rounder role really well, Warner has failed again, Khawaja looks lost and Smith's Brisbane zenith has turned into an Adelaide nadir. All of this is due to Smith's stupidity, naivety and bloody-mindedness.
The scoreline now reads 53/4. Whereas it should, right now, be 2-0.
We are incapable of chasing 300 plus in the fourth innings at Adelaide.
Spot the assumption - that we will bat for 80 overs plus!
It seems now that DRS is being used as a tactical weapon as the vast majority of original umpires decisions are correct.
I just don't get why we should have tolerance levels for technology - either we trust it or we don't. If we do that and stick to two reviews per innings, then we remove "umpires call" from the equation and teams would have to be be careful to review only what they consider to be "howlers" e.g. a batsman is given out when he knows he's hit it. Which is exactly what technology was brought in to do. We don't, after all, have "umpires call" in tennis do we?
To me, ignore the perceived reasons as to why DRS was implemented, but the key thing is to ensure that the right decisions are being made, full stop - and anybody who disagrees with the fact that DRS provides this is clearly either a total stick in the mud or blind.
DRS also adds drama to a game - especially if you are at the game, which to me, enhances the viewing spectacle and entertainment.
If you need to ask someone for justification for DRS, then maybe a good example is Damien Martyn in 2005 Ashes, who was given out lbw 3/4? times off big inside nicks. There was also the example of Tendulkar being out lbw off a big-inside nick (did i laugh) when India petulantly rejected the usage of.
I know i've said it many times, but DRS is a brilliant add-on to cricket and i personally cannot see reason for anyone to diss it, full stop, none whatsoever. It might not have been 100 per cent to begin with , but i think theyve got it pretty much nailed now.