It absolutely would. Especially when you consider umpires call decisions.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Yeah, we are saying exactly the same thing.
I agree it was a massive glaring mistake from umpire Wilson. He wasn't giving 'benefit of doubt', he simply believed it was not hitting. Only reason I can think why he gave not out was he assumed it was spinning towards leg side, whereas replay showed it to be classic off stump off spin. (He has already made many glaring mistakes in series so far and I question if he is fit for purpose, but that's entirely another subject).
DRS was created to absolve these types of glaring mistakes, and not for a marginal call or punt, which the review Paine used up a few moments before, for Cummins against Leach, certainly was. Hence why I used the word 'abused'. Paine admitted as much in his post match interview:
"Patty Cummins said 'I think it might have pitched in line but I think he hit it'. And I said 'well, he definitely didn't hit it', but I was worried where it pitched. Then it was just a spur of the moment [decision] ... have a dabble at it." https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...unt-australia-headingley-hoodoo-strikes-again
If DRS was used by captains/batters to only challenge genuine glaring mistakes (which is how its been designed and implemented), the system works very well and there would be no issue in an entire game. I think teams will learn from this and change their usage accordingly.
Last edited:
47 off 21 balls and 29 in 8 balls in the penultimate phase of the innings .... even KP hasn't had that level of ferocity in a test match?
I read that Stokes also broke KP's record for most 6's in an Ashes innings, which was 7, and is now Stokes's 8.
Also I don't think even Chris Tavare scored as slowly as 2 off first 63 balls! Tavare was hidden away at the very beginning of my cricket memories, away until you just mentioned him! Oh what a day!
Last edited:
Yeah there's no proper stylistic comparison to going from hitting @ around 4 to hitting @ around 350. I was just thinking of the 2 biggest polar opposites of well-known English test batsmen.
That Stokes had a period where he scored 3 runs off 72 balls and had another period where he scored 28 runs off 8 balls in the same innings is melting my brain a good 8 hours after it occurred.
.
"a photo captured how, with Leach still metres short of his crease, Tim Paine and David Warner were running towards Lyon to celebrate victor. But the same image also shows what Paine and Warner could not see, and Lyon had just realised. The ball had burst through his hands, trailing harmlessly away behind him as Leach scrambled back. There, more clearly than any other instant, was the Test match. The day on which Lyon overtook Lillee on Australia's list of wicket-takers will be one he does not ever wish to relive."
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...unt-australia-headingley-hoodoo-strikes-again
.
"a photo captured how, with Leach still metres short of his crease, Tim Paine and David Warner were running towards Lyon to celebrate victor. But the same image also shows what Paine and Warner could not see, and Lyon had just realised. The ball had burst through his hands, trailing harmlessly away behind him as Leach scrambled back. There, more clearly than any other instant, was the Test match. The day on which Lyon overtook Lillee on Australia's list of wicket-takers will be one he does not ever wish to relive."
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...unt-australia-headingley-hoodoo-strikes-again
.
I see your point, but I don’t agree.
I’m not saying umpires should favour teams with fewer reviews left, just that they should be aware of the context of the game in some situations. In this case, with 2 runs to win and a wicket in hand, the game is ending imminently. On a decision that is, at WORST, closer to out than not out, the benefit of the doubt should go to Aus.
Also, where’s the logic in wasting reviews to get favour from the umpire? You wouldn’t need favour from the umpires if you have reviews left...
Yeah. All fair. But he must have had some doubt. Giving not out was a gamble, as it couldn’t have been verified in the moment. Giving out ultimately would have produced the correct answer given England had two reviews. That’s something I’d have though an umpire would have considered. But there’s an argument that the umpires should give no thought to match context, and there is merit to that too.
I'm not saying wasting reviews, but just not being quite as safe with them.
I don't think an umpire should take reviews into account at all. They should call it as they see it.
That great intangible in sport ‘pressure’ affects everyone on the field.
In this case, Stokes for the shot itself, Wilson for his decision, and how can we forget Paine wasted review and poor Lyon for the missed run out 1 ball before!
Crazy 10 minutes. Pressure. Mental.
Personally I think umpires shouldn’t take match context into consideration and just call it as it is. Not sure what the official directive is; worth finding out.
Interesting discussion.
Last edited:
A lot of people are overreacting about the decision based on the ball tracking result. On regular view it seemed like a faster ball from Lyon which hit the front pad before hitting the back leg . It definitely wasn't a straight forward plumb lbw by any stretch
Slept on it and still undoubtedly the best Test innings of all time - still can’t believe what I witnessed.
So what’s the England team for the fourth test?
I’d go with Burns, Sibley, Denly, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Foakes (wk), Archer, Leach, Broad, Anderson (Woakes if he’s not ready). Selectors will probably stick with Buttler and just move Denly up to open though.
I’d go with Burns, Sibley, Denly, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Foakes (wk), Archer, Leach, Broad, Anderson (Woakes if he’s not ready). Selectors will probably stick with Buttler and just move Denly up to open though.
Reckon he had a couple of scoops last night 
Great that he's acknowledged Leach in his celebration tweets as well. The heartfelt love of the slightly drunk 
Same. Stokes and Leach scored more in their final wicket stand to win the test than the entire England team scored in the first innings.
Last edited:
Smith likely to be back for the 4th test.
Jimmy also likely to be back, a risk to play him but if he's fit he'll be a huge, huge lift.
fecking hell I can't wait.
Jimmy also likely to be back, a risk to play him but if he's fit he'll be a huge, huge lift.
fecking hell I can't wait.
Australia have a certain amount of right to feel aggrieved but they choked just like the umpire, except they choked first by throwing their review away.
It happens all the time in sport and Stokes made his luck. The umpire would have raised his finger under different circumstances but that performance bought Stokes a get out jail free card. That innings mesmerised everyone.
I wouldn’t say this makes it right but wouldn’t you hate to be the umpire who has to deny the sport of a legendary moment?
It happens all the time in sport and Stokes made his luck. The umpire would have raised his finger under different circumstances but that performance bought Stokes a get out jail free card. That innings mesmerised everyone.
I wouldn’t say this makes it right but wouldn’t you hate to be the umpire who has to deny the sport of a legendary moment?
Last edited:
Phenomenal from Ben Stokes. Absurdly good cricketer and a very likable guy. Hats off to England that was immense this weekend, very much game in on the last 2 tests.
What is the error on the ball tracker? Ben Stokes seems to think the one that wasn't given was going down leg anyway despite what the ball tracker said.
When I first saw it I thought it was going down leg honestly, the DRS has it straightening a lot more than I thought it did when I first saw it, almost as if it had accounted for it coming off the front pad. But when I saw the slo mo after wasn’t so sure.
Completely different circumstances but the Stokes innings reminded me somewhat of KP's innings on the final day of the 2005 Ashes, a mix of skill, courage and huge self belief in their ability to overcome everything sent their way. Although the LBW was a terrible decision i think the umpires had got fed up with Aussies appealing after what seemed like every delivery (except the ones that flew to the boundary that is) which i know is going to happen in pressure situations but i really don't think it helped their cause alongside a stupid use of the DRS system.
So instead of the ECB capitalising on what has so far been a magificent summer for English cricket they instead roll out a competition which very few seem to want. The World Cup and now The Ashes have shown that a new format isn't needed to increase excitement in the game. The formats are already there, it just needs special players to produce special moments.
So instead of the ECB capitalising on what has so far been a magificent summer for English cricket they instead roll out a competition which very few seem to want. The World Cup and now The Ashes have shown that a new format isn't needed to increase excitement in the game. The formats are already there, it just needs special players to produce special moments.
Another thing is we haven't seen (or at least I have not) seen any ultraedge replays.
Totally agree.
I have just listened to the radio commentary on 5 live sports xtra. And even though I watched it yesterday, the hair on the back of my neck was standing up.
And apart from the brilliance of the cricket, two things stand out.
1. The noise and cheering of the crowd was pretty much non-stop. Puts Old Trafford to shame.
2. The incredible sportsmanship of the Australian players. Even though it must have hurt to loose such an important match, the way they congratulated Stokes was terrific and I admire them for that.
What a match. Even tops 1981 and definitely 2005.
That's exactly what Stokes insinuated outside of the heat of the moment in the press conference. He said that there was no spin on the ball and it was going to go past leg - he also mentioned the fact it came off the front pad. The way he said it was interesting I thought, he was saying it matter of fact like this was something that DRS was known for amongst the players.
Well said. Let's remember the fantastic cricket and drama and not umpires decisions or review calls. Yes it was significant but the cricket was really the winner here.
He's spoken about it since and hasn't suggest he hit it, so I doubt there was bat.
DRS has the impact on the front pad so it definitely knows it hit him there and I think if you watch it again in full speed and slow motion there's not much to suggest that it's got the path of the ball wrong. In fact, I think it's impossible it hits him on the pad where it did if it doesn't turn.
We've seen Kohli walk this summer when he's not touched it. All it needs to do is flick the bottom of the glove or something and it would be given not out. Watching it real time there's a lot for the umpire to take in. I think where Stokes has ended up with his right leg has influenced the umpire's perception of where it has hit him. Real time, I'd have said not out (of course) but the replay is conclusive in terms of ball tracking. It's a little bit unfair to rail against the umpire when we haven't seen the full package of replays (imagine if it was a no-ball!) but understandable considering how bad they have been all summer.
Last edited:
I thought it was out realtime, but I agree that it's not a shocker. It's a difficult call in a very high pressure situation and you can see why it was given not out. In fact, I'm not even sure Wilson can see where it has hit Stokes on the first viewing, and you can't expect the umpires to guess.
At the end of the day, there were 3 different opportunities presented to Australia to win that game in the last few overs: Harris takes the catch, Lyon completes the run out, and Paine doesn't waste the review on a very blatantly not out decision. They might have created even more if they had bowled better to Leach. They folded under the pressure and lost the game because of it; Wilson's decision might have been a harsh way to have it hammered home, but if they'd won that game they'd have got out of jail for free having been incredibly sloppy when it counted.
What are you saying? That if his stumps had been splayed all over the pitch, that Wilson should have called a no ball?
Australia fell apart at the seams in that last hour, which was incredible considering how much control they had in the test from the end of their first innings up until the 2nd new ball in the 4th innings. Where Australia really missed Smith in that test match was in the field, his experience and counsel would have been invaluable to Paine and the bowlers in that final passage of play.
England also had a whole heap of luck....or Stokes made his own luck.
Smith would have hung around and set England a target of over 400. 359 was never a target that was unattainable given England's talent, more a question of application and patience
And the time left in the match. England had 2 days and 2 sessions to chase that down. They always knew that if they just survived the runs would chase themselves.
It's why Stokes could afford to be on 2 runs from 70 odd balls.
Also worth remembering England played on the pitch when it was doing the least in terms of seam (it only really swung on day 1). The pitch never really developed to the point where it was ragging in terms of spin either.
Anywhere I can listen to TMS radio of the last 30 mins of play from yesterday?
Roy and Buttler have both only scored 55 odd runs in 6 innings, which is appalling, given the requirements.
Anderson will most likely come in for Woakes, but that significantly weakens the batting.
Some tough calls ahead.
Yeah it looked dead to me.
As you say though, Aus bowled poorly yesterday. They were out on their feet after the effort of the previous day. You could even argue that England could have won more convincingly had they not gifted a few wickets.
Yeah that tail looks horrible. But it doesn't look like we have much choice. Woakes has been off-colour throughout the series.
If we are going to remove Woakes though (and assuming we don't rush Moeen back ahead of Leach) we're going to need to bat really sensibly aren't we. We can't afford to squander early wickets with such a long tail.
So I'd suggest we bring in Sibley for Roy too.