I think we've seen the answer to those who wonder if Overton will play in the next Test if Wood is fit - he's bowled one over in this innings.
Strange because he looked alright in the first innings and took the most wickets.
His one over went for 8 and to be fair with Anderson (21-7-40-5) and Woakes (16-3-36-4) bowling as well as they have it's probably been difficult to bring those two off.
Don't give us much hope for winning, but it should at least give our bowlers some confidence. Australia aren't really that good but our first innings has cost us badly.
We will probably lose this match but we have proven that we can be competitive with the ball - we restricted them to 328 in the first innings of the last Test and bowled them out for 138 in the second of this one. If our batsmen can step up then we really aren't far behind. But that is a big "if" at the moment simply because, in three innings, our top score is 83.
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?
And I don't trust it and if this Test doesn't show everyone its flaws then it never will. Technology has no place in sport.
So goal line technology in Football is not a good thing? You do talk some rubbish.
Opening partnership of 100+ needed to put some pressure on their bowlers. I don’t see it happening but as Geoff Boycott said it’s a funny old game (or am I getting mixed up?)
Opening partnership of 100+ needed to put some pressure on their bowlers. I don’t see it happening but as Geoff Boycott said it’s a funny old game (or am I getting mixed up?)
Geoffrey would be more “my gran/mom could knock those off using a stick a rhubarb against this attack”
Opening partnership of 100+ needed to put some pressure on their bowlers. I don’t see it happening but as Geoff Boycott said it’s a funny old game (or am I getting mixed up?)
Geoffrey would be more “my gran/mom could knock those off using a stick a rhubarb against this attack”
I think you’re thinking of Jimmy Greaves who famously said ”my gran/mom could knock those off using a stick of rhubarb against this attack, Saint”
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?
And I don't trust it and if this Test doesn't show everyone its flaws then it never will. Technology has no place in sport.
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?
And I don't trust it and if this Test doesn't show everyone its flaws then it never will. Technology has no place in sport.
So goal line technology in Football is not a good thing? You do talk some rubbish.
It's strange how (and I am admittedly tempting fate) that their bowlers don't now look anywhere near as threatening as ours did earlier today. And they have a new ball.
Good fight back, but I fully expect us to fall short by about 50 to 60 runs.
That would represent an outperformance according to the BBC: “In the last decade, England have been set 350+ to win 15 times. Not only have they never won, they've never got within 100 of the target.”
Comments
Aus all out 138.
England need 354 to win lol