Ashes I - 2013 - In England

Also is it me or does Bairstow look like a deer in the headlights all the time. Every close up he looks like he's just landed in the middle and doesn't know what Cricket is.
 
Guess England made the right call with the night watchman. Score is probably 100 runs too low though
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Guess England made the right call with the night watchman. Score is probably 100 runs too low though
Click to expand...


350 or + is good here. Plenty to bowl at. Hard work will get you wickets. I feel that England lack the sidekick to Anderson here. That second seamer that will put pressure on and get wickets.
 
Watto loves planting that front foot and slaying through the line. On this deck if there is no swing he will be right in his comfort zone doing just that.
 
What a waste of a review. Clarke should berate him for that. Stupid, stupid review.
 
It doesn't spite just Clarke though, it spites the whole team. Besides, it surely would have been Rogers who told him to review it.
 
:lol: If test cricket were a board game, the Shane Watson card would have a;

Shane Watson (Posing as top order batsman)
+ Big booming drives
Fast starts against the new ball
- mentally weak
Injury prone

Crunch Time Phase.
- When Shane Watson is batting within 5 overs of a break in play;
You must roll 3 dice (6 sided). If the total is less than or equal to 17 Shane Watson is dismissed softly that over.
- When Shane Watson is nearing a batting milestone;
You must roll 2 dice before every over. If the total is less than or equal to 10. Shane Watson is dismissed LBW that over.
 
And there we have it, the Watson review has almost certainly cost them a wicket there as he surely would have reviewed that with two left. Instead he didn't want to waste a 2nd review on the 2nd wicket.
 
If I was coach and Australia had any depth I would have so much delight in dropping him.

Rubbish opener, even worse lower order batsman, horrible team player, terrible attitude towards bowling, unreliable under pressure the list of his faults are endless. In return you get some muscular drives and cuts for 25 runs in total.

In fact I'd probably drop him for Moises Henriques anyway.
 
JulesWinnfield said:
And there we have it, the Watson review has almost certainly cost them a wicket there as he surely would have reviewed that with two left. Instead he didn't want to waste a 2nd review on the 2nd wicket.
Click to expand...

How in earth has the ump given that though :lol: In all honesty.
 
I think Uzzy is a bit ... Dropped was gonna say square on massive caught behind or bowled across the front pad squared up candidate


Make them pay mate.
 
ghaliboy said:
How in earth has the ump given that though :lol: In all honesty.
Click to expand...

That is a VERY BAD umpiring decision. Umpire should be roundly criticised for that.

But I agree with other above, Watson's abuse of DRS has cost Australia proper use of the system meant to eliminate blatantly wrong decisions. The decision against Watson was never blatantly wrong, even if its just kissing, you should not call for that.

Teams need to view DRS not as a potential source of advantage but as a tool that helps eliminate obvious travesties. Australia trying to use it in the former and its costing them big time.
 
Umps are too scared to be seen giving the benefit of the doubt now. It's all about making the decision in accordance with a review denial/overturn.

I think the Rogers lb in the first game was an obvious case of 'its close.. Well review it cause I'm giving it'. Which I think is wrong


fecking hell Hughes you gumby.
 
Shocker of a decision, no idea how that was given as out. Awful, awful decision. Really feel sorry for Hughes.

EDIT: Wait snickometer shows he did hit it, shows the flaws in hotspot I guess.
 
Wtf is Hughes playing at though.

I don't care if hotspot was inconclusive or not, he knows he's nicked that so why on earth is he reviewing it? It's a waste.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Wtf is Hughes playing at though.

I don't care if hotspot was inconclusive or not, he knows he's nicked that so why on earth is he reviewing it? It's a waste.
Click to expand...

How has he known he's knicked that? :lol: he's reviewed straight away. Honestly didn't see any mark the noise could have been anyjing
 
There was a very feint nick and it was a very good decision from the umpires. Hughes wasting another review. Australian top order rivalling England's in incompetence. Up to Clarke now to play the Bell role and get Australia to a competitive total. Shocking stuff so far.
 
Judging by Hughes' reaction he didn't think he hit it so that absolves him from the blame. DRS is hsite
 
With one review left unless it's an absolute howler just accept the decision instead of hoping for luck.
 
akash02 said:
Judging by Hughes' reaction he didn't think he hit it so that absolves him from the blame. DRS is hsite
Click to expand...

snicko is the most technically conclusive of all the tools ... the sound waves cant lie nor are they a 'projected opinion' like hawkeye.

So, he defo nicked it. And if he nicked it, he knew it. Top pro's know, they can feel it. Even us sunday players know when we have nicked it, you feel it in your hands. So he also wasted that review.

Again, nothing wrong with DRS, its the Aussies who are using it totally in the wrong way.
 
akash02 said:
What??

If Hughes thinks he hasn't nicked it why should he not review it?
Click to expand...


Course he knew he nicked it. England players knew straight away. He knew it was an extremely feint nick and was hoping for a technology fail. Almost got it as well. You don't do that with one review left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.