The Ashes 2013

You have to say that Agar is clearly a talented cricketer, he's a complete unknown quantity to England and he's batting way below where he should be. The array of shots he was playing was that of a quality number 4 or 5. Botham summed it up perfectly, we lost our discipline when he came in, we tried to rough up a 19 year old on debut, we forgot to bowl line and length and it has potentially cost us the test.

As for our openers, I thought we were just getting on top, the Aussies had bowled well and always put the ball on a good line and length. The way Root got out was poor, the ball that got Trott was a beauty, not the sort of delivery you want first up, most players would have struggled with that.

 

Lucky boy Cook. Poor shot, dragged it on the pull and it missed his off-stump by about an inch. Went down to the boundary for four.

 

Anyone a fan of The Duckworth Lewis Method, the band? I loved their first album.

 

Yes, loved jiggery pokery !

 

Well played Broad and Bell. Broad may have been slightly lucky though! Another 60 or 70 to be safe I would think.

 

Fair to say we deserved that luck after the agar stumping when he was on 6 and the iffy trott decision. Bat until lunch and the game is ours, IMO.

 

This test is a text book on why test cricket is a wonderful fornat of the game. How the game has swung back and forth and how the wicket is changing ever so slightly meaning different tactics must be deployed by the captains. Also the Broad controversy also shows something important. As I see it Clarke is to blame for using his third ref reviews up on gambles rather than saving them for when it matters.

It has been great - and I wouldn't put it past the Aussies to come back to win it in the end.

 

Anyone who thinks that Australia wouldn't have done the exact same thing ( i.e. play against the spirit of the game to gain an advantage) should look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65_spUU05s

The New Zealand team needed a six off the last ball, so the Aussies bowled underarm.(incident starts about 5 minutes in).

 

I think broad should have walked. Opportunity missed to set a mark regarding levels of sportsmanship within the series. Can't complain now no matter what gamesmanship the aussies follow up with.

 

The Aussies themselves have no complaints and would have done the same. Doesn't make it right, but a few decisions earlier in the game didn't go England's way so this one evens things up.

 

Theres a big difference between getting a slim nick when you're not 100% sure yourself and hitting the ball outright. By the spirit of the game he should have walked. It does prove that these decisions do even them selves out.

If we can get another 50 on the board i think that will be enough. Anyone chasing 300 on a turning pitch and against bowlers like Anderson are going to struggle

 

How can anybody bang on about gentlemanly conduct and fair play when cricket is run by betting syndicates? Amazing how a No 11 got 98...

 

The technology is a new thing and not an excuse to replace sportsmanship ... He should have walked. He knows it, everyone knows it and he has brought shame to English cricket.....



Anyway forget cricket, now let's see how we can beat the new loan regulations

 

What a load of bowlarks, why the **** should he have walked the Aussies would not have!

Even if he did consider walking I think the bad decisions we got earlier in the match probably had a factor in his decision not to do so!

So as far as I am concerned justice was done!

 

Our friend Martin Samuel is at it again ... suggesting Broad should have walked for the sake of sporting integrity.... that from a so called leading football reporter who does nothing to condemn the widespread greed, cheating and poor sportsmanship that is rife in that game.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cr...ad--walked-sports-sake.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

He should have walked. It's Cricket's USP to be fair. It will be a hollow win if we get it.

 

I don't like the "The Aussies wouldn't have done it" argument. You've no right to object to unsporting behaviour if you are not a paragon of sportsmanship yourself. This incident has robbed us of moral high ground, which is worth more than a test win.

 

But we're not going to win this test anyway.

 

Thankfully we had a nice little spell at the end there. Took the score from 161-3 to 164-6. Aussies still 137 behind, Swann is turning it miles and Anderson and Broad are moving the ball a lot in the air. New ball due in 9 overs time, not sure if they'll take it straight away, depends on conditions in the morning I guess. We SHOULD wrap this up with 70 odd runs to spare, but you never know, look what happened in their first innings!

 

Blimey, nerve racking or what?

England need one wicket, Aussies need 29 runs, Anderson gone off injured!

 

Not again, the ******s are looking like they might just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I hate to say our boy Finn will probably be seen as one of the main culprits if this comes about :dismay::dismay::dismay:

 

he will now

 

Need a wicket now nownow now cmon england stop feckin around

 

Wow one of the most exciting test matches I've ever seen. What a game. Fantastic win to come from behind, then the aussies came back into it, then we did, then they did again and we came out winners.

 

Ha ha Aussies on twitter calling us cheats re the final wicket?

 

Bloody hell that was close. Who said test cricket was boring? 5 days of twists and turns. Fantastic.

Re: not walking/cheating. Why didn't Haddin walk for the last wicket? Frankly at that level and with everything at stake I don't think the players are going to throw everything away for the 'sprit of the game'.

 

It was a fair game, if anything we were the ones screwed over by the review system all in all. One quick question; why does the ball have to be pitching within leg and off stump when reviewing if in the end it's going on to hit the wicket anyway?

 

It can pitch outside off too. Only if its down leg it can't be out. Also there is some vague rule about if it hits the pad outside the line then they must have attempted a shot, if not they can be given out if they just pad it away with no attempt at hitting it.

 

If the ball pitches OUTSIDE of off stump and hits the pads IN LINE of the wickets and then be shown to go on and hit the stumps it should be given LBW (provided the ball hasn't hit the bat before the pads.)

If the ball pitches OUTSIDE of off stump and hits outside of the line of the wickets the batsman should not be given out LBW if he's played a shot at the ball (and missed it.)
As simms says though, if the ball pitches OUTSIDE of the off stump as well as hitting the pads OUTSIDE of the wickets and the batsman hasn't played a shot then he can be given LBW if the ball were deemed to go on to break the wicket.

If the ball pitches OUTSIDE of leg stump you cannot be given out LBW no matter where it hits the pads (in line or not of the wicket) or if the batsman is or isn't playing a shot. Outside of leg stump = NOT OUT re. LBW.

The reason for not being able to be given out if the ball pitches outside of leg stump is to deter what is seen as negative bowling, ie on or down leg side.
I presume the need to hit in line of the stumps as well as pitch in line too is to make the bowler attack the wicket and not bowl a constant negative line way outside of the off stump. Maybe. Just my opinion and will bow to anyone with greater knowledge.

Oh, and screw you Australia - you ****ed it up by waiting for our batsmen to get themselves out in the 2nd innings rather than try to get them out as Anderson did to you in your 2nd innings.
Our bowlers attacked your batsmen, your bowlers sat back. And all that guff about never taking a backward step.. *******S!! 1-0

 

Watching this test made me realise how much I miss playing youth cricket, a T20 game starting at 6pm in the evenings used to be a lot of fun.

 

Brilliant game, closer than what I would have hoped, went to do gardening after lunch as couldn't take the nerves watching it!

Happy to be off to Lords next week as well. Hopefully Finn will play better if picked for his 'home' test match.