Would be a great story but can't see us doing this - too long a tail. All out before my alarm goes off at 06:10
For that reason we need three 60 run partnerships - Root/Woakes, Root/Bairstow and Bairstow/Moeen - and we do it without even having to call upon Overton.
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.
What flaws?
You haven't been watching obviously. What ever ball tracking system they are using it has produced the most questionable results I (and many of the experts) have ever seen.
You do talk bollox.
Did you see Cook's dismissal? There is no way that ball was hitting the stump full on as suggested by this version of Hawkeye.
Furthermore I think I am entitled to an opinion without being abused.
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.
What flaws?
You haven't been watching obviously. What ever ball tracking system they are using it has produced the most questionable results I (and many of the experts) have ever seen.
You do talk bollox.
Did you see Cook's dismissal? There is no way that ball was hitting the stump full on as suggested by this version of Hawkeye.
Furthermore I think I am entitled to an opinion without being abused.
You are, Riv, but, you do talk rubbish at times- especially over your archaic dinosaur viewpoint on DRS and Technology, get over it, embrace it for all the very good things it has brought to the sport - after all, even India have accepted it now !
It's not rubbish, I am a purest and sport should be pure and without interference from external forces. Human fallibility is all part of sport. I do not understand why everyone accepts these systems without questioning. This current one being used by Cricket Australia is alarmingly inconsistent.
It's not rubbish, I am a purest and sport should be pure and without interference from external forces. Human fallibility is all part of sport. I do not understand why everyone accepts these systems without questioning. This current one being used by Cricket Australia is alarmingly inconsistent.
What are your thoughts on goal line technology in Football? Has that technology helped Refs to reach the right decision? You can be a purest all you like but if we can use technology to reach the right decision, that has got to be good hasn't it?
I refuse to get excited until the runs required are into double digits.
Until then, we're too far away to be sure.
Tomorrow's first session is huge, we lost two wickets a session so far and if we can get away with only losing two wickets in the first session tomorrow then we're halfway there.
The Aussie coverage has had a graphic they've been using all test match that showed as many wickets fall in the first session of a day in d/n tests as they do in the last.
So we're not out of the woods yet. But my god, things appear so much more optimistic than they did only two days ago.
I'd rather there was no technology in any sport apart from photo finishes in a race by humans or animals because a race ends at the finish line.
So no goal line technology then? But aren't photo finishes at the end of races for humans and horses technology that helps reach the right decision? I am confused. What has the race finishing at the finish line got to do with it? You said sport should be without interference from external forces. Photo finishes are external forces. You have just totally contradicted yourself.
I'd rather there was no technology in any sport apart from photo finishes in a race by humans or animals because a race ends at the finish line.
So in this day and age of TV with multiple replays available, you'd prefer just to let big, match defining mistakes happen and not even try to cut them out? Very odd
I've said, since the end of the First Test, that we would win this one. But, while I admire the optimism of some posters on here, the position in the match is way short of being 50/50. For my money, Australia are, if not dead cert, then very, very strong favourites to win. They only need six good balls.
If they blow it from here, Smith has to carry a lot of the blame for four things he's got wrong. He's failed with the bat, failed to enforce the follow-on (an utterly ridiculous decision), failed to hold on to an important catch and used up all of Australia's reviews for the rest of the game . This is really good news going into the third test, whatever the result of this one. Because their star player has a lot to work on and that will gnaw at his confidence, temperament and, hopefully, technique.
What might sway the match, and the series, in England's favour is if one (or more) of Australia's quick bowlers fail to keep their fitness. I wonder if Smith's decision to bat again was in order to protect his fragile attack. And, if so, are they carrying niggles that could become exacerbated. Wouldn't it be fitting if one of them was unable to play the third test due to bowling more than they would have, if they'd bowled us out under the lights, following on, and another gets crocked during it. 1-1 with a creaking attack looks a lot different to 2-0 with bowlers putting their feet up a day early.
Root, Woakes, Bairstow, Moeen, Overton. There's enough there to suggest we could push them close. We'll lose wickets on day five, no doubt. The question is how soon and how quickly we score in between.
I'd rather there was no technology in any sport apart from photo finishes in a race by humans or animals because a race ends at the finish line.
So no goal line technology then? But aren't photo finishes at the end of races for humans and horses technology that helps reach the right decision? I am confused. What has the race finishing at the finish line got to do with it? You said sport should be without interference from external forces. Photo finishes are external forces. You have just totally contradicted yourself.
No, when a race is finished it is finished but if a ball crosses a line the game is not over. I really don't understand your fascination with my opinion. It is what I think and no amount of trolling will change my mind. Just leave it.
I'd rather there was no technology in any sport apart from photo finishes in a race by humans or animals because a race ends at the finish line.
So in this day and age of TV with multiple replays available, you'd prefer just to let big, match defining mistakes happen and not even try to cut them out? Very odd
Not odd at all, we managed without it long enough, in my opinion it simply does not enhance the enjoyment of sport. Simple as that.
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.
What flaws?
You haven't been watching obviously. What ever ball tracking system they are using it has produced the most questionable results I (and many of the experts) have ever seen.
You do talk bollox.
Did you see Cook's dismissal? There is no way that ball was hitting the stump full on as suggested by this version of Hawkeye.
Furthermore I think I am entitled to an opinion without being abused.
If only there were some way of determining where the ball was going to go...
I'd rather there was no technology in any sport apart from photo finishes in a race by humans or animals because a race ends at the finish line.
So in this day and age of TV with multiple replays available, you'd prefer just to let big, match defining mistakes happen and not even try to cut them out? Very odd
Not odd at all, we managed without it long enough, in my opinion it simply does not enhance the enjoyment of sport. Simple as that.
Woaaaah, try telling that to the 15k at The Oval waiting for a run out or stumping or is it hitting scenario - its added loads to the tension and excitement - dont tell me, (and i know you go to games) that you just turn your back , and put your hands over your ears in these situations?. And also dont even start to try to talk to me about DRS if Root was given out lbw off a big inside edge in the first over tomorrow were DRS not being used. Your entrenched out-of-date views are rubbish.
Boycott used to play his batting in 10 run spells, he said i don't care how long it took to get to 10 then 20 etc, as long as i did it, England have all day tomorrow, but bet they are all out before lunch.
Add those numbers together from where we are (assuming a new day means you start on 0 and all that nonsense), you get to 156 which is still 22 short.
Will all four of those players be able to bat to their average score and/or beyond on a day five pitch?
hmmm, good points Callum, i suppose Overton,Jimmys abd Broadys would take us over the line, but thats not the point - if we are getting down to them then we have lost.
Add those numbers together from where we are (assuming a new day means you start on 0 and all that nonsense), you get to 156 which is still 22 short.
Will all four of those players be able to bat to their average score and/or beyond on a day five pitch?
hmmm, good points Callum, i suppose Overton,Jimmys abd Broadys would take us over the line, but thats not the point - if we are getting down to them then we have lost.
I'd have faith in those three to knock off 20 ish runs against a new old ball... doesn't mean my arse wouldn't be clenched for the duration though.
It'll be bad enough watching Root and the recognised batsmen bat!
I've said, since the end of the First Test, that we would win this one. But, while I admire the optimism of some posters on here, the position in the match is way short of being 50/50. For my money, Australia are, if not dead cert, then very, very strong favourites to win. They only need six good balls.
If they blow it from here, Smith has to carry a lot of the blame for four things he's got wrong. He's failed with the bat, failed to enforce the follow-on (an utterly ridiculous decision), failed to hold on to an important catch and used up all of Australia's reviews for the rest of the game . This is really good news going into the third test, whatever the result of this one. Because their star player has a lot to work on and that will gnaw at his confidence, temperament and, hopefully, technique.
What might sway the match, and the series, in England's favour is if one (or more) of Australia's quick bowlers fail to keep their fitness. I wonder if Smith's decision to bat again was in order to protect his fragile attack. And, if so, are they carrying niggles that could become exacerbated. Wouldn't it be fitting if one of them was unable to play the third test due to bowling more than they would have, if they'd bowled us out under the lights, following on, and another gets crocked during it. 1-1 with a creaking attack looks a lot different to 2-0 with bowlers putting their feet up a day early.
Root, Woakes, Bairstow, Moeen, Overton. There's enough there to suggest we could push them close. We'll lose wickets on day five, no doubt. The question is how soon and how quickly we score in between.
Not impressed with Smith as a captain, he doesn't have that air of calm authority that the best captains have. Today he looked and was rattled, the second review was daft, especially as it Australia were well on top, and it was only Malan, who had barely scored at that point and didn't look like scoring. You can understand a risky review if it was Root on 125
I've said, since the end of the First Test, that we would win this one. But, while I admire the optimism of some posters on here, the position in the match is way short of being 50/50. For my money, Australia are, if not dead cert, then very, very strong favourites to win. They only need six good balls.
If they blow it from here, Smith has to carry a lot of the blame for four things he's got wrong. He's failed with the bat, failed to enforce the follow-on (an utterly ridiculous decision), failed to hold on to an important catch and used up all of Australia's reviews for the rest of the game . This is really good news going into the third test, whatever the result of this one. Because their star player has a lot to work on and that will gnaw at his confidence, temperament and, hopefully, technique.
What might sway the match, and the series, in England's favour is if one (or more) of Australia's quick bowlers fail to keep their fitness. I wonder if Smith's decision to bat again was in order to protect his fragile attack. And, if so, are they carrying niggles that could become exacerbated. Wouldn't it be fitting if one of them was unable to play the third test due to bowling more than they would have, if they'd bowled us out under the lights, following on, and another gets crocked during it. 1-1 with a creaking attack looks a lot different to 2-0 with bowlers putting their feet up a day early.
Root, Woakes, Bairstow, Moeen, Overton. There's enough there to suggest we could push them close. We'll lose wickets on day five, no doubt. The question is how soon and how quickly we score in between.
Which is what I was hoping when I posted this before the series began:
In addition to a drawn series I have backed the following:
Joe Root - top England bat. At 7/4 any real value has flown out the door but I just think that the situation is tailor made for him. And if we are going to get a result out there then he will need to be a major contributor.
Chris Woakes - top England bowler. Seems to have found his form again and is our quickest bowler (3/1)
Usman Khawaja - top Australia bat. Has a touch of class about him but has struggled to show that overseas. Averages 64 at home though and with Smith and Warner taking up much of the market, the 5/1 available is too good to resist.
Nathan Lyon - top Australia bowler. All the focus is on the Aussie quickies but Lyon will be the one fixture in their bowling attack. Was a revelation in India and Bangladesh this year but is also very good on home pitches so have availed myself of 11/2.
Comments
Furthermore I think I am entitled to an opinion without being abused.
I do not understand why everyone accepts these systems without questioning. This current one being used by Cricket Australia is alarmingly inconsistent.
Until then, we're too far away to be sure.
Tomorrow's first session is huge, we lost two wickets a session so far and if we can get away with only losing two wickets in the first session tomorrow then we're halfway there.
The Aussie coverage has had a graphic they've been using all test match that showed as many wickets fall in the first session of a day in d/n tests as they do in the last.
So we're not out of the woods yet. But my god, things appear so much more optimistic than they did only two days ago.
If they blow it from here, Smith has to carry a lot of the blame for four things he's got wrong. He's failed with the bat, failed to enforce the follow-on (an utterly ridiculous decision), failed to hold on to an important catch and used up all of Australia's reviews for the rest of the game
. This is really good news going into the third test, whatever the result of this one. Because their star player has a lot to work on and that will gnaw at his confidence, temperament and, hopefully, technique.
What might sway the match, and the series, in England's favour is if one (or more) of Australia's quick bowlers fail to keep their fitness. I wonder if Smith's decision to bat again was in order to protect his fragile attack. And, if so, are they carrying niggles that could become exacerbated. Wouldn't it be fitting if one of them was unable to play the third test due to bowling more than they would have, if they'd bowled us out under the lights, following on, and another gets crocked during it. 1-1 with a creaking attack looks a lot different to 2-0 with bowlers putting their feet up a day early.
Root, Woakes, Bairstow, Moeen, Overton. There's enough there to suggest we could push them close. We'll lose wickets on day five, no doubt. The question is how soon and how quickly we score in between.
I really don't understand your fascination with my opinion. It is what I think and no amount of trolling will change my mind. Just leave it.
Your entrenched out-of-date views are rubbish.
Woakes averages 30
Moeen averages 34
Bairstow averages 39
Add those numbers together from where we are (assuming a new day means you start on 0 and all that nonsense), you get to 156 which is still 22 short.
Will all four of those players be able to bat to their average score and/or beyond on a day five pitch?
It'll be bad enough watching Root and the recognised batsmen bat!
Another way to look at it:
Highest Test Score:
Root 254
Woakes 66
Moen 155
Bairstow 167
We cross the line if all four achieve just 28% of their best ever test scores.
I'll get me coat.
*arse clench tightening*