Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket Team Summer 2019 -ICC World Cup and Ashes etc
Comments
-
As you say, there's no-one better. And there can be no more solid reason for picking someone than that.blackpool72 said:Chizz said:
It's very easy to pick out players that shouldn't be picked. But, unless you go into the game with only eight players, you have to replace them.blackpool72 said:
The real pity is that Roy Burns and Denly occupy three of the top four batting places.Sillybilly said:Bye bye Roy. Pity.
I know I'm stating the obvious but those three should be nowhere near our test side.
The fact that they are only emphasises our lack of batsman at the top of the order.
So, who would you choose as your two openers and top order batsman who are better, more reliable, more consistent and much more likely to score heavily than those three players, who currently have a 100% win record this Summer?
Chizz said:
It's very easy to pick out players that shouldn't be picked. But, unless you go into the game with only eight players, you have to replace them.blackpool72 said:
The real pity is that Roy Burns and Denly occupy three of the top four batting places.Sillybilly said:Bye bye Roy. Pity.
I know I'm stating the obvious but those three should be nowhere near our test side.
The fact that they are only emphasises our lack of batsman at the top of the order.
So, who would you choose as your two openers and top order batsman who are better, more reliable, more consistent and much more likely to score heavily than those three players, who currently have a 100% win record this Summer?
ink: :There is no one better at the moment that is my point our top order is nowhere near as good as it should be.
As for the three of them having a 100%win record this summer.
A win against Ireland lol.0 -
Agreed1
-
Having said that, I know two blokes who absolutely deserve to be dropped before the second Test. The umpires.2
-
Nice to be in the 40's only 1 wicket down for a change!2
-
Mark Wood out for the summer after knee surgery0
-
Boycott is full of wisdom:
England need a lead as we are batting 4th.
1 -
Trivia. No googling. This is on the men’s loo wall at Edgbaston (so I was told)
Who was the first batsman to face a ball in one day cricket.0 -
The opening batsman who takes 1suzisausage said:Trivia. No googling. This is on the men’s loo wall at Edgbaston (so I was told)
Who was the first batsman to face a ball in one day cricket.
0 -
So Root is bowled but not out!0
-
That's why Root is called the glue.3
- Sponsored links:
-
I saw it, because I was there yesterday. I won't give it away, but it's fair to say he wouldn't be everyone's first choice as a pinch hitter.suzisausage said:Trivia. No googling. This is on the men’s loo wall at Edgbaston (so I was told)
Who was the first batsman to face a ball in one day cricket.0 -
Its not someone like Boycott is it?Pelling1993 said:
The opening batsman who takes 1suzisausage said:Trivia. No googling. This is on the men’s loo wall at Edgbaston (so I was told)
Who was the first batsman to face a ball in one day cricket.
0 -
Boycott?Chizz said:
I saw it, because I was there yesterday. I won't give it away, but it's fair to say he wouldn't be everyone's first choice as a pinch hitter.suzisausage said:Trivia. No googling. This is on the men’s loo wall at Edgbaston (so I was told)
Who was the first batsman to face a ball in one day cricket.0 -
(Take this with a pinch of salt...)
Joe Root should have been given out...
He missed the ball, but was given out. The Aussies appealed (and, when you appeal, the appeal covers all forms of dismissal). The umpire gave it out. Root reviewed.
So, the review process checked, in order, what had taken place. It correctly showed the bowler hadn't overstepped. So it went on to check if he edged it and confirmed he didn't. They then checked whether it hit the pad (so could check the lbw) and confirmed it didn't. But, as the appeal covers all dismissals, ball tracker should have been used to determine if he had been bowled. The ball clipped the stumps, so would have shown up as "umpire's call" and the decision (out) should have stood.5 -
I'm going to take a handful of salt on this occasion Chizz!Chizz said:(Take this with a pinch of salt...)
Joe Root should have been given out...
He missed the ball, but was given out. The Aussies appealed (and, when you appeal, the appeal covers all forms of dismissal). The umpire gave it out. Root reviewed.
So, the review process checked, in order, what had taken place. It correctly showed the bowler hadn't overstepped. So it went on to check if he edged it and confirmed he didn't. They then checked whether it hit the pad (so could check the lbw) and confirmed it didn't. But, as the appeal covers all dismissals, ball tracker should have been used to determine if he had been bowled. The ball clipped the stumps, so would have shown up as "umpire's call" and the decision (out) should have stood.
2 -
Amiss? Warks playersuzisausage said:Trivia. No googling. This is on the men’s loo wall at Edgbaston (so I was told)
Who was the first batsman to face a ball in one day cricket.0 -
Being slightly more serious, it would be good to see ball tracker on that delivery, just to see how well it's calibrated, ie would ball tracker confirm the path of the ball hitting the stumps?Pelling1993 said:
I'm going to take a handful of salt on this occasion Chizz!Chizz said:(Take this with a pinch of salt...)
Joe Root should have been given out...
He missed the ball, but was given out. The Aussies appealed (and, when you appeal, the appeal covers all forms of dismissal). The umpire gave it out. Root reviewed.
So, the review process checked, in order, what had taken place. It correctly showed the bowler hadn't overstepped. So it went on to check if he edged it and confirmed he didn't. They then checked whether it hit the pad (so could check the lbw) and confirmed it didn't. But, as the appeal covers all dismissals, ball tracker should have been used to determine if he had been bowled. The ball clipped the stumps, so would have shown up as "umpire's call" and the decision (out) should have stood.0 -
Gutting!killerandflash said:Mark Wood out for the summer after knee surgery0 -
Fuck! That's a careless surgeon.cantersaddick said:
Gutting!killerandflash said:Mark Wood out for the summer after knee surgery1 -
Thats not where the problems with ball tracking come in. In that instance the ball tracking would be showing what actually happened. With this ball tracking is as near to 100% accurate as is possible.Chizz said:
Being slightly more serious, it would be good to see ball tracker on that delivery, just to see how well it's calibrated, ie would ball tracker confirm the path of the ball hitting the stumps?Pelling1993 said:
I'm going to take a handful of salt on this occasion Chizz!Chizz said:(Take this with a pinch of salt...)
Joe Root should have been given out...
He missed the ball, but was given out. The Aussies appealed (and, when you appeal, the appeal covers all forms of dismissal). The umpire gave it out. Root reviewed.
So, the review process checked, in order, what had taken place. It correctly showed the bowler hadn't overstepped. So it went on to check if he edged it and confirmed he didn't. They then checked whether it hit the pad (so could check the lbw) and confirmed it didn't. But, as the appeal covers all dismissals, ball tracker should have been used to determine if he had been bowled. The ball clipped the stumps, so would have shown up as "umpire's call" and the decision (out) should have stood.
The reason we have umpires call and the margin for error in LBW decisions is because the ball hit the pad and so what followed didn't actually happen. They are trying to produce a forecast of where the ball would have gone had it not have been stopped by the pad. They think it is pretty accurate and i trust it fully having looked into the analysis they do on it. However you can never be fully sure where the ball would have gone and so it is right to allow a margin for error or effectively a sensitivity test. Umpires call is, in my analysts opinion, the best way of dealing with the uncertainty.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Superb session of test Cricket with
just the one wicket to a Jaffa.
Good bowling and Disciplined batting.
Burns and Root : well played Rory and Joe.
4 -
Got distracted. Yes boycott.0
-
You are on form today mate.Chizz said:(Take this with a pinch of salt...)
Joe Root should have been given out...
He missed the ball, but was given out. The Aussies appealed (and, when you appeal, the appeal covers all forms of dismissal). The umpire gave it out. Root reviewed.
So, the review process checked, in order, what had taken place. It correctly showed the bowler hadn't overstepped. So it went on to check if he edged it and confirmed he didn't. They then checked whether it hit the pad (so could check the lbw) and confirmed it didn't. But, as the appeal covers all dismissals, ball tracker should have been used to determine if he had been bowled. The ball clipped the stumps, so would have shown up as "umpire's call" and the decision (out) should have stood.1 -
I’ll do the trivia from the ladies loo to avoid spoilers shortly!0
-
Where when and who played in the first international cricket match0
-
And who won0
-
SURREYsuzisausage said:And who won0 -
Was called Rhodesia then wasn't it ;-)blackpool72 said:
SURREYsuzisausage said:And who won8 -
suzisausage said:I’ll do the trivia from the ladies loo to avoid spoilers shortly!
Did you see anything else interesting in the men's loo0 -
Very good!Cafc43v3r said:
Was called Rhodesia then wasn't it ;-)blackpool72 said:
SURREYsuzisausage said:And who won0
