The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[alfie]

If I ever have to play against you I will be aware to watch out for mankads

I don't really compute why Mankad's are controversial. The batsman is attempting to get a head-start on a run, which is cheating. Why would it be against the spirit of the game to defend against someone trying to cheat against you? If you don't want to be a victim of it, stay in your crease. Simple....

If I were the coach of a side, I'd have my team doing it at every opportunity. All out Mankad.... no problems.

Hey I was joking !

Mankads - as long as it is a genuine case of someone trying to steal some ground rather than a tricky pause ( like some penalty takers maybe ?) by the bowler to catch someone out , are justified I guess - though I'd prefer to do without them. And I don't really believe you'd ask a team to be looking for such when they should be concentrating on just bowling and fielding.

How do you feel about appeals under 37.4 if a batsman picks up a ball and hands it to a fielder ?

[alfie]

As for Pope the replacement by Lawrence is automatic , surely. He's in the squad , in form , and like for like - plus he can bowl a bit of relief spin.

I get the appeal of using a vacancy to fit Foakes in : had it been at the start of the series might well have been on (and In truth it was the option I preferred) But they are not now going to move the batting order around mid series . Brook - who might reasonably have been tasked with the number three spot - has had a shaky time against the Australian pace men in this last game so would be a tricky time to push him up , I think.
Stokes could bat three of course. Puts all the left hand options at the top but that isn't a deal breaker. I just reckon he wants to be there in the middle to either rescue the innings or kick on from a good start so don't think that is happening either.

Hope they don't do anything too "funky" like picking five bowlers and sending Moeen in at three...

[sussexpob]

How do you feel about appeals under 37.4 if a batsman picks up a ball and hands it to a fielder ?

I would say that 37.4 has to be read into the context of law 37 as a whole, and that it only applies if returning the ball obstructs the fielder - but others may interpret differently.

In short, I would be pretty p*ssed of to be dismissed for doing it, but I know Steve Waugh absolutely hated opposition batters doing it, and had a few arguments (though never appealed) with players that did. I think the reason was a sweaty glove on the dry side of the ball would stop it reversing.

Ironically, Steve Waugh is one of only 6 odd players who ever got out handled ball...

[Durhamfootman]

I don't really compute why Mankad's are controversial. The batsman is attempting to get a head-start on a run, which is cheating.

[meninblue]

A specialist or wicket keeper allrounder batsman playing since decades of professional cricket should wait for umpires call or inform umpires that they are moving out of crease after an over or after the ball is played.
I did not see Jonny's wicket but a keeper batsman should not have forgotten very basics, especially playing in front of thousand of spectators and millions of viewers. The small basics they do are learnings for many wannabe cricketers. The positive is that many young cricketers must have learnt something what not to do. It's a refreahing lesson for cricket professionals imo. Be focussed and aware at this level. This is lapse by Jonny.

It was upto Alex to do a favor for Jonny and England team by not running him out. He didn't do that favor and let Jonny's lack of awareness go unnoticed.

Iirc remember Dhoni called Ian Bell after that run out? But that was not Ashes. Would Dhoni do it in India Pakistan match ? Likewise for England and Australia this is Ashes. So i do not see anything wrong if someone from England or Australia dismiss tgeir opponent trying to take every advantage if opponent mistake. Its not friendly bilateral match.


Asides, i think Aussies were favorites even though the partnership was on. I felt Australia had put a match winning total.

[GarlicJam]

You are free to disagree Alfie, but in my opinion that is the spirit of test cricket - asking for nothing, giving nothing. Outfoxing your opponent and punishing their errors. Of course, there are limits. I am not saying that condoning everything. I like to see players shake hands at the end, and share a beer, leave everything on the field - but on the field, the rules govern what is fair.

When you apply for your Australian citizenship, Sussex, feel free to use me as a referee.

You'd get to support a better cricket team, and we'd still let you support England in the Rugby.

[bigfluffylemon]

You are free to disagree Alfie, but in my opinion that is the spirit of test cricket - asking for nothing, giving nothing. Outfoxing your opponent and punishing their errors. Of course, there are limits. I am not saying that condoning everything. I like to see players shake hands at the end, and share a beer, leave everything on the field - but on the field, the rules govern what is fair.

When you apply for your Australian citizenship, Sussex, feel free to use me as a referee.

You'd get to support a better cricket team, and we'd still let you support England in the Rugby.

Ha. I've been here years now and I still support England cricket, but started supporting Australia in rugby. Got that one the wrong way round

[bigfluffylemon]

I don't really compute why Mankad's are controversial. The batsman is attempting to get a head-start on a run, which is cheating.

Yep, was going to post something similar myself. I couldn't believe the vitriol spouted when Deepti Sharma ran out Charlie Dean last year. Dean was at least a yard out of her crease before the delivery stride. Yet the commentators on TMS and some of the other pundits were decrying it as some great sin by the bowler.

[bigfluffylemon]

As for Pope the replacement by Lawrence is automatic , surely. He's in the squad , in form , and like for like - plus he can bowl a bit of relief spin.

I get the appeal of using a vacancy to fit Foakes in : had it been at the start of the series might well have been on (and In truth it was the option I preferred) But they are not now going to move the batting order around mid series . Brook - who might reasonably have been tasked with the number three spot - has had a shaky time against the Australian pace men in this last game so would be a tricky time to push him up , I think.
Stokes could bat three of course. Puts all the left hand options at the top but that isn't a deal breaker. I just reckon he wants to be there in the middle to either rescue the innings or kick on from a good start so don't think that is happening either.

Hope they don't do anything too "funky" like picking five bowlers and sending Moeen in at three...

I hope they can find a way to fit Foakes in and take the gloves of Johnny. It hasn't worked. England's perennial problem of having too many 5-7s and not enough 1-3s continues, although Duckett has gone pretty well on his return to the side by attacking.

[Slipstream]

MacPherson of Telegraph think it's

Crawley, Duckett, Brook, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes, Wood, Broad, Robinson.

Where is Tongue? It looks as if Stokes is saying he can't bowl so that seems why Woakes is in otherwise is it 5 bowlers and Ali.

Should be - Crawley, Duckett, Stokes, Root, Brook, Bairstow, Foakes, Ali, Broad, Wood, Tongue

[Arthur Crabtree]

The press rarely get selection right, or are just sparking talking points.

I'd like to see Tongue retained. But maybe they think there's crossover with Wood.

[alfie]

As BFL says , the main problem for England is that they still haven't nailed down a fully functional top three. Pope has done rather well since coming back at three : or at least he was doing well until this series. Probably unfair to read too much into a couple of games - in which he copped a bad injury too ; but he didn't have the success he'd hoped for to improve that poor record against Australia. And Crawley - who in fairness has been dismissed by a couple of good balls and hasn't been total rubbish - still never suggests permanence.

Duckett surprised me - and a lot of people I suspect - after his two similar dismissals at Edgbaston. Suggests he's learning ; although he was nearly caught in the same way early this time. Two good innings : more to do yet to make an ironclad case ; but a bit of promise there , eh ?

I get the "bring back Foakes " calls. As I have previously said , I would have preferred to have him retained at the start of the series , just let Jonny bat ; but obviously that ran into the same problem they have now - how do they shuffle the batting ? My choice then would have been to move Brook to the top (replacing Crawley) ; but after seeing Brook against Starc and Cummins in this last match I'm not so keen on that right now ; and the same applies to having him take Pope's now vacant slot. Reckon Brook may become a number three in time. But not yet. In any case Foakes isn't in the squad so that move wasn't on at this stage.

For this week I would prefer to see Lawrence in - at least give him a chance to show what he can do , otherwise what is the point of having him as "reserve batsman" ? Four pace bowlers (it is Headingly after all) and let Root - and a bit of Lawrence perhaps - for spin relief. With Woakes at eight it all looks more solid ; and if Wood is fit I think the bowling could be quite adequate whichever combination they settle on.

But I have a sense they are determined to justify the Moeen recall so are likely to tailor the side around that. Hope it works but not holding my breath...

[bigfluffylemon]

Duckett's averaged over 60 in 8 matches since his recall, with 8 50+ scores in 16 innings. Given his style he's bound to fail sometimes, but I think he's earned a decent run, rather than being judged on Edgbaston.

[bigfluffylemon]

England do have yet to nail down 1-3, but on the bright side, it used to be pretty common that Root at 4 would be walking out with the scoreboard 30-2 after 10 overs, and having to rescue the team from being 4 down before lunch. At least that has become less frequent ( have probably jinxed us for the next game now).

[Gingerfinch]

Smith's 100th test tomorrow. After his mediocre start to test Cricket, where he was a batter who could bowl a bit, did anyone seriously believe this man would not only make 100 tests but have 32 test tons to his name with an average of 60?
Not pretty to watch but awkward and effective.