3rd Ashes Test, Headingley, Aug 22-26

[sussexpob]

There is a bit of "assuming" in there , Sussex

But basically I think one can argue about the size of the margin for error without dismissing it out of hand. Still I doubt we will agree on this so do not intend to go on about it at great length . In any case whatever you or indeed any enthusiastic technocrats might wish , I do not expect it to be removed in the foreseeable future

Without swamping you with the calculations, if you take the sort of benchmarks that hawk-eyes accuracy has been tested on, using the old cameras and tennis serves up to 145mph, the system at that point is plotting the actual movement every 2.16 meters, and maintains a 2-3mm accuracy. For a delivery like that of Lyon to Stokes where it pitches (which you can lose anywhere between say 45-55% percent of the original pace to air resistance and impact with the ground) from pitching to impact roughly 2 meters away, with the new fps cameras, that distance reduces to 3.27 cms per recorded plot. A 98.9% decrease in the "guesswork" the system has to make.

So yes, we cant do anything but assume about the actual figure, but if the system is spitting out a 3mm error and becomes 98.9% more efficent, then by even conservative guesses we are talking about a practical reality where the system is about as close to 100% accurate as physically viable. If you were to implement a system where umpires calls were linked to the actual margin of error, you'd limit their usage to the pretty freak occurrences of where the ball hit or missed my a distance of micrometers.

Even if where were to assume accuracy hasnt improved with technological advances, we still have to acknowledge that if a ball is found to be hitting the last 3mm of a stump or bail, then the system is likely to be 99.999% accurate, and that anything above this threshold is presenting plainly wrong decisions in batsmans favour. There is no justification for that.

It would be the equivalent of saying in football "well the ball is proven to have crossed the line 100% certainly, but as it didnt land a meter over the line, no goal"....

[sussexpob]

In real time, the ball hit Stokes right on the front pad/foot. It appears Hawkeye took that as spin and then hitting the back pad.

Maybe Joel Wilson was right after all....

Stokes himself has said this, but I cant work out where this is coming from. Hawkeye's decision clearly shows the ball hitting the front pad when it makes its decision, not the back one.

Either way, I have seen someone show that the ball was clanging into leg stump if you take the path of the ball as gun barrel straight from pitching, which it wasnt anyway.

Its out. I dont understand why anyone is trying to "flat earth" this situation, it is what it is. No conspiracy or mistake....

[yuppie]

I was saving up Kusal Perera's 153* in my memory for the end of the year best-ofs. But it will be difficult to separate from Stokes' innings. Kusal did even more of the scoring, and away from home too. And there was a similar last wicket stand. How to choose?

Being SL's first victory in South Africa, it must carry more weight.

If fair point to break a tie breaker.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The Ashes makes the profile of Stokes' innings greater.

SL's poor recent record makes Kusal's a more impressive feat of heavy lifting (England had two other fifties).

Gentle Ben's epic block germinating into a vast canopy of airborne maximums means his innings has an awesome dynamic.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Stokes was out though!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Though Stokes was out in the same way Kasprowicz wasn't out. Eventually it just becomes a footnote to to the actual and undeniable outcome.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Fourth of September the next Test so GJ has a bit of time before starting off the next thread.

[sussexpob]

But it does put pay to the once in a generation type comments

Some of the reaction has been nauseating to say the least. I have seen comments from respected journalists saying Stokes played the best innings ever, that he is the best living sportsman in the world, that he is some kind of legend for English cricket, that he one of our all time best bats.

He just about gets into the after 1990 England E team batting line up on career average, knocking that well known success John Crawley out on weigh of his last innings. In fact, with Gooch/Stewart/Atherton/Gower/Thorpe/Hussain/Smith/Lamb all still knocking around in the 90s, he doesnt even get into the top 6 of our worst team of all time.

But yeah.... definitely the greatest sportsman in the world.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Greatest England all rounder too.

But then UK journalism has been a part of selling English cricket with dissenting voices marginalised, for most of this decade.

[yuppie]

Maybe the luckiest player ever?

Hes certainly had that this summer

[sussexpob]

Maybe the luckiest player ever?

Hes certainly had that this summer

The luck he has had this summer comes nowhere near the luck he had in India and BD away a few years ago. Someone like Stokes needs luck to make it at test level, just like Buttler and Bairstow, as they will always make technical mistakes.

Who knows, maybe Gentle Ben is going to go full Tendulkar on us, but I doubt it. He's still a below par top 6 bat, who should be at 7.

[Gingerfinch]

The calls for a knighthood are amusing but Cook got one, so Stokes, Root, Jimmy, and Broad may end up getting one by the time they end up retiring!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Anderson stands out among those names.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Stokes was out though!

Should have said arguably!

[backfootpunch]

Anderson stands out among those names.

If cook got one Jimmy should as well