3rd Ashes Test, Headingley, Aug 22-26

[Alviro Patterson]

I can see why Joel Wilson did not give it out LBW, ball was practically bowled yorker length and kept drifting away without looking like it would turn straight.

I am not convinced DRS has tracked the ball right. How can a full ball drifting past leg stump, can square up and hit between leg and middle stump 3/4s high?

[bigfluffylemon]

No modding way.

How can that have happened? You don't score 67 all out, need to chase 359, need 75 on the fall of the last wicket, and still win. That just doesn't happen.

I said somewhat tongue-in-cheek that miracles come along every 20 years at Headingley so we're due. Apparently we were

Stokes played the innings of a lifetime in the World Cup final, now he's done the second innings of a lifetime twice in a summer. On top of a heroic bowling effort in the second innings as well. One of the all time great innings? Has to be right up there with Botham '81, Lara '99, Gooch '91 and Laxman '01. The quality of the bowling probably isn't quite as good as against those efforts, but it's not bad.

Botham and WIllis, Headingley '81
Flintoff Edgbaston '05
Stokes and Archer, Headingley '19

in the same breath? Feels like it should be.

[bigfluffylemon]

Right, now for far reaching changes in the batting.

Ok, I might be willing to concede that Stokes should keep his place.

[bigfluffylemon]

Mustn't overlook Archer, Hazlewood and Labuschagne's efforts in an incredible match. 8 wickets, 9 wickets and 2 fifties respectively.

Stokes also saved the game for England at Lord's. England could easily have lost that game from the situation at the start of day 5.

[ianp1970]

Tenth-wicket partnerships to win a Test match, as a % of first-innings score:

**Stokes & Leach, Eng v Aus 2019: 113%**
Nourse & Sherwell, SA v Eng 1906: 53%
Perera & Fernando, SL v SL 2019: 41%
Inzamam & Mushtaq, Pak v Aus 1994: 22%
Johnston & Ring, Aus v WI 1951: 18%

[bigfluffylemon]

A bit sad to see the press here are bitching about the umpiring (and some are throwing the word 'Kiwi' around in the context of Stokes, conveniently overlooking Khawaja (born Pakistan) and Labuschagne (born South Africa) in the Australian team).

Australia could and should have won the match. They dropped Stokes, fluffed a run out, used up a review on a blatantly not out decision (even Cummins said to Paine 'don't bother'). They also got their tactics completely wrong in the last partnership. The bowling to Leach was dreadful, virtually nothing on the stumps, lots of short stuff he could leave alone, without any really nasty bouncers. Too much width and too many full bungers to Stokes, and they spread the field with England 9 down and 60 to get, rather than keeping everyone round the bat.

As for the alleged 'howler' itself, I completely agree with AP. In real time, it was quite reasonable not to give it out - it struck the pad so quickly after pitching it was almost impossible to tell with the naked eye that it had straightened as much as ball tracking showed it had (which was a hell of a lot). Even a modest amount of turn had it missing leg.

And I don't agree with the idea floating around that it should have been given out because England had a review left and Australia didn't. If you're going to take that approach, why bother with on field umpires at all? Just let the machine decide everything. Losing a review if you're wrong is supposed to keep captains honest and only call for a review overturn the true howler, not go for speculative reviews. Far too many (including England) use it when they're desperate for a wicket on the offchance. That's not what it's for. Finally, the umpire's decision does matter, because there's the little matter of 'umpire's call' for the marginal decision. So the umpire has to do what they think in the moment, not give the benefit of the doubt to the team with no reviews left.

There's no doubt England have had some good fortune in the World Cup final, and in this game, but that's cricket.

[sussexpob]

I can see why Joel Wilson did not give it out LBW, ball was practically bowled yorker length and kept drifting away without looking like it would turn straight

When DRS first came in, umpires found out very quickly that those drifting spinning balls straighten a lot more than previously assumed. In fact, after the myth that batsman with a full stride down the pitch could hardly ever be given out lbw unless it was hitting well below the knee roll, the amount of straitening from spin has been one of the greatest eye openers for umpires since technology. You used to find about 1-2 years after it came in, after the initial shock, umpires started to give anything that pitched middle and leg as long as the ball wasnt clearly an arm ball, assuming the ball has straightened. Id say 95% of the time this assumption is correct.

What is clear is, as technology has moved on I dont think umpires are that concerned about learning their art as much. 5-10 years ago in its infancy, umpires seemed to be looking at tech to improve their own decisions and learn how the ball behaves more; now, I cant see this process being used.

Imo, Wilson should be well aware of the usual behaviour of these balls, and should have said to himself "middle and leg, full"..... he has to give it out. The more I see it the more it looks very out.

If you want to say its very full and wont straighten in time because it wont spin so it looks less out, you also have to say it has less distance on the angle to miss the stumps. Is a yorker length ball bowled at a normal angle that strikes middle-leg line ever going to miss the stumps? Unless you are releasing the ball from ridiculous angles, youd have to assume no.

Its just a bad decision. I dont think we can defend it.

[sussexpob]

[quote="backfootpunch" you seem to be suggesting that the tech should be shelved, which would be a huge step backwards[/quote]

I think Yuppie makes a valid point myself. We have had to sacrifice large tranches of the entertainment value of the game because integrity is deemed important enough to spoil the flow of the contest, but we then put bizarre processes in place that allow games to be decided on mistakes that could be corrected. This is verging on ridiculous. Recently, I cant remember the exact figure, but its posted somewhere on a discussion about overs rates..... I think the exact figure was 16-20 reviews a game on average.

So lets say conservatively, on average we spend 40 minutes (2 per review) getting decisions right a game, but here with a series on the line a bowler was dredging back to his mark preparing to bowl his final ball, while people at home had already seen a replay that showed he'd just won the match. 40 minutes of less cricket is ok, but with the series and urn on the line, an extra 20 seconds is excessive?

The first ball of this series was edge and not given out. The first wicket of this series was given and was not out. In fact, the whole of the first test was an umpiring disaster, and Australia lost a lot of wickets in that first innings incorrectly. The limiting requirement for reviews also limits the capacity of integrity. You are therefore always going to have issues.

I for one am of the opinion having the capacity to make a right decision, but not being allowed to question it, for whatever reason, is far worse a situation than not having the capacity to question it. You cant strive for integrity of decision making while accepting that 50% of wrong decisions can just be ignored. That makes no sense.

Integrity comes at the cost of entertainment value, of the flow of the game..... is it worth having an imperfect system at the cost of longer days? At the cost of falling attendances due to less overs, less of a spectacle? Is losing tech a step backwards, or is a step forwards for many aspects of the game?

[yuppie]

The main press in Australia has always been a bit of a joke, and its only going to get worse with the Government and Murdoch assault on the ABC and SBS. Thats best saved for another thread though.

This summer has a feel of destiny for English cricket. It just seems that things are aligning for them this summer.

Well written SP and put into words in a way that i never could.

[sussexpob]

ou keep saying that but arent saying how the system can be improved

What would you change?

Umpire's call - Get rid of it. The computer has a margin of error fractions of a mm.... if its out, its out. If its not out, its not out. Having reviews being turned down because only merely 3 inches of ball is clattering a stump is ridiculous.

Umpire reviews - Why are umpires forced to make decisions when they have assistance? In the NFL, referee's routinely use technology to get their own decisions right, even when a team can challenge their decisions too. An umpire should be allowed to send a decision without any prejudice upstairs..... no soft signal, no opinion, no umpire's call..... he signals for DRS on appeal, the booth makes the call.

Mandatory review for key moments - Again in NFL, any decision made within 2 minutes of the end of the half is subject to mandatory review. This means any debatable calls, catches or touchdowns have to be reviewed by the replay booth if they have impact in the crucial moments leading to a result. Cricket could easily implement this, such as the umpire sending last wicket decisions upstairs to be reviewed automatically, or ones impacting the last 2-3 overs of a limited overs game.

Extra reviews for penalties - If a side is that convinced they have snared a player, and its a howler, allowed them to buy an extra review for a 10 run penalty.... if its correct, no penalty is paid. Same for a batter.

[Durhamfootman]

now that I've seen the highlights, I was impressed with the way Stokes didn't celebrate his fifty at all, and only vaguely waved his hand when he got to his hundred. There is something very admirable in a player who is as focused on the job in hand as Stokes was yesterday

It's wonderful to see crowds as animated as they were at Headingley yesterday and Lords a few weeks ago. The ground must have been rocking.... well it was... it must have been wonderful to be there and experience it. The sort of thing a person will carry around with them for the rest of their lives

Good luck OT... having to try and match that

[Arthur Crabtree]

Absolutely agree with bfl on the use of DRS.

It's pretty normal for people to scrutinise a possible counterfactual alternative after a reversal of fortune. It's a good thing in a way because it makes us learn where we might do better next time.

I'm hoping England will use this unexpected opportunity to come back into the series to make some necessary changes. I'm guessing they won't because they'll be put off by the perceived risk. Anderson will come in for Woakes. But Roy should be dropped, with Sibley the pundit's choice. Buttler should go, probably for Pope. I'd leave out Bairstow for Foakes (thanks Surrey). I think in real life, Roy and Woakes will be the only changes. Really bold action would see Denly make way too.

Burns/Sibley/Root/Denly/Stokes/Pope/Foakes/Archer/Broad/Leach/Anderson. Moeen too because it's OT and there might be something for the spinners. Woakes in the squad to cover the pace bowlers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I for one am of the opinion having the capacity to make a right decision, but not being allowed to question it, for whatever reason, is far worse a situation than not having the capacity to question it. You cant strive for integrity of decision making while accepting that 50% of wrong decisions can just be ignored. That makes no sense.

Paine broke the mechanism by reviewing a decision he knew wasn't out, but was desperate enough to take a chance with very long odds.

[Durhamfootman]

will Stokes be okay for OT? He talked of his glut 'twanging'. Imagine if he was ruled out?

The players will take all of the credit for the win yesterday.... absolutely none of the credit will go to the selectors, Bayleaf et al, despite the win because they've been selecting the wrong players (taking a punt on Roy, taking a punt on Santiago's fitness, taking a punt on Moeen coming back into form, taking a punt on Root at 3 and on and on) and giving them all the wrong plans (dominate the bowling, hit your way out of trouble, put the Aussies on the back foot). Remember Thorpe after the 67 all out? We picked the right team and the players need to do better........ so when things are going badly it's the fault of the players... while the win keeps them in their jobs a little longer, they won't like this match being remembered as a stunning England triumph despite the incompetence of the England hierarchy

For this reason I suspect that England will only make one change other than the Santiago for Woakes swap. It's tempting to think it will be Roy, and he is certainly the most obvious candidate.... however... that would involve a loss of face for the selectors and I'm not sure they will allow that to happen. We have 2 keepers in the side and Roy is really a middle order batsman in red ball cricket. I could see Roy dropping to 5 or 6 with Buttler (who was unlucky yesterday) making way. That way Roy gets another chance to save Ed Smith's face and if he comes off at OT... even if it is just a couple of Bell fifties, then it will be claimed to have been a masterstroke by the England hierarchy. Who would come in? Who knows

[Durhamfootman]

Is it possible that the Aussies play an extra seamer and drop one of Head or Wade for OT? (I'm assuming that Khawaja will make way for Labuschagne when Super Smudger comes back)

I know it isn't the Aussie way to have 4 seamers as long as they have a good spinner to hold up one end, but England, for the first time, tired the 3 seamers out in that second innings and Paine ran out of options..... what if they do it again?


maybe the idea of lightning striking twice, albeit in a different place, seems unlikely enough to warrant Australia making such a radical move.... but I am sure they would like to play Starc, they just don't seem to trust him to keep things tight enough to get England to throw their wickets away aimlessly, so maybe the 4th seamer is an option

It would be a bold move though