If we can win this one it must surely compare with Beefy Botham's heroics of the '70s when we followed on in an Ashes Test in England and won.
Heard on the telly last night that no team has successfully chased over 250 in a Test against Australia since 1928. History in the making.
And only one team has ever lost having not enforced the follow on. Let's hope Smith is still smiling when he becomes the leader of the second to do so.
That's interesting. Do you know who and against whom?
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.
I'm all for technology in sport, but on this one occasion I agree with Riv. No way was the ball that got Cook out hitting the middle of leg. At best it may have shaved the stump, but was possibly missing. Also, I can't believe all those lbw's were "going over". I'm not being funny, but I normally call the decision right 99% of the time, but definitely haven't in this Test. Is it something to do with the pink ball ?
Fucking England cricket team... only thing reliable about them is they'll string you along before crushing your hopes until they're denser than your average Millwall fan.
What a shame. I didn't want to put the mockers on it before, but it seems to be a pattern with Joe that if he gets runs one day and is not out overnight, he is often out straight away the next day. Hoped today would buck that trend, but it was not to be.
Dodgy decision from Aleem Dar. He knows we have reviews and Australia don't.
I do think that that is a very valid point. Is an umpire going to be influenced by a vociferous appeal simply because he knows that the bowling side has no right of review? I'd like to think not but we are all human and it might just be a sub conscious thing to do so.
What a shame. I didn't want to put the mockers on it before, but it seems to be a pattern with Joe that if he gets runs one day and is not out overnight, he is often out straight away the next day. Hoped today would buck that trend, but it was not to be.
A 4th innings top score of 86 would, unfortunately, indicate just that. Absolutely fantastic bat won't be a great until he takes us home in these circumstances.
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.
Could be an exciting & nailbiting final day. However, I always think back to a lovely summers day about 10 years ago. Can't remember who we were playing but it was a sunday morning & I woke up looking forward to a great days play. Pieterson was batting & I thought I'd settle down to watch some fireworks. play started at 11am & by 11.10 he was out & the day was effectively over. Just think the same will happened tomorrow. By the time the new ball arrives Root, Woakes & Ali will be out & the tail will then be blown away.
I hate being right. One thing you can rely on is England letting you down. One more wicket before the new ball & I'm going to bed.
Dodgy decision from Aleem Dar. He knows we have reviews and Australia don't.
I do think that that is a very valid point. Is an umpire going to be influenced by a vociferous appeal simply because he knows that the bowling side has no right of review? I'd like to think not but we are all human and it might just be a sub conscious thing to do so.
I also have to agree. He took an age to give Woakes out.........why ?? If he heard something then he should have raised his finger straightaway - its not like it was an lbw appeal when he has to think about where it might have pitched or height etc. Very dodgy. Was it in his mind that a "not out" would have given the Aussies no right of appeal, but an "out" and we could go upstairs & so could overturn a "mistake"...........a no brainer imo.
If we can win this one it must surely compare with Beefy Botham's heroics of the '70s when we followed on in an Ashes Test in England and won.
Heard on the telly last night that no team has successfully chased over 250 in a Test against Australia since 1928. History in the making.
And only one team has ever lost having not enforced the follow on. Let's hope Smith is still smiling when he becomes the leader of the second to do so.
That's interesting. Do you know who and against whom?
I heard it on BT but didn't catch the exact details but wiki refers this as the only Test in which it has happened:
South Africa v Australia, Kingsmead, 1950 In a four-day Test (with one rest day in the middle of the match), South Africa won the toss, chose to bat, and posted 311. The offspinner Hugh Tayfield took 7–23, helping to bundle out Australia for 75, giving South Africa a first-innings lead of 236. South African captain Dudley Nourse elected not to enforce the follow-on owing to forecasts of rain, but in their second innings South Africa folded for 99. Thanks largely to an unbeaten 151 from Neil Harvey, Australia made 336 in 123.6 overs to win by 5 wickets.
And the way things are going this isn't, unfortunately, going to be the second time it happens!
By all accounts, the decision not to enforce the follow on stems back 16 years to the India v Australia Test in Calcutta when Steve Waugh did so - and they lost!
Australia, who had won their 16 previous Test matches, including the first of the three-Test series between the two teams had scored 445 in the first innings of the second Test and restricted India to 171. Australia then enforced the follow-on.
Laxman scored 281 and Dravid 180 with India making 657/7 in their second innings (a lead of 383) before declaring just before lunch on the final day. Australia were 212 all out and lost by 171- and this was the only time in history that a side has been able to declare the follow-on innings and still win. India went on to win the third Test and therefore the series.
And there goes Moeen sweeping Lyon, he reviews and "umpires call". As I have said before the sweep is a "risk/reward" shot and sweeping against the spin is simply not the answer. He simply did not have to do it!!!!
So now we have, as feared, Bairstow batting with the tail.
Comments
No way was the ball that got Cook out hitting the middle of leg. At best it may have shaved the stump, but was possibly missing.
Also, I can't believe all those lbw's were "going over".
I'm not being funny, but I normally call the decision right 99% of the time, but definitely haven't in this Test.
Is it something to do with the pink ball ?
5 mins to go. Come on England!
Night all.
Aus 93%
Eng 7%
South Africa v Australia, Kingsmead, 1950
In a four-day Test (with one rest day in the middle of the match), South Africa won the toss, chose to bat, and posted 311. The offspinner Hugh Tayfield took 7–23, helping to bundle out Australia for 75, giving South Africa a first-innings lead of 236. South African captain Dudley Nourse elected not to enforce the follow-on owing to forecasts of rain, but in their second innings South Africa folded for 99. Thanks largely to an unbeaten 151 from Neil Harvey, Australia made 336 in 123.6 overs to win by 5 wickets.
And the way things are going this isn't, unfortunately, going to be the second time it happens!
By all accounts, the decision not to enforce the follow on stems back 16 years to the India v Australia Test in Calcutta when Steve Waugh did so - and they lost!
Australia, who had won their 16 previous Test matches, including the first of the three-Test series between the two teams had scored 445 in the first innings of the second Test and restricted India to 171. Australia then enforced the follow-on.
Laxman scored 281 and Dravid 180 with India making 657/7 in their second innings (a lead of 383) before declaring just before lunch on the final day. Australia were 212 all out and lost by 171- and this was the only time in history that a side has been able to declare the follow-on innings and still win. India went on to win the third Test and therefore the series.
So now we have, as feared, Bairstow batting with the tail.