The Cricket Thread 2013

[PaulWinch again]

I think the position now confirms how badly our batsmen did, this game is very nearly gone.

[PaulWinch again]

Australia have scored quicker and played better again. Short of something remarkable happening that's 7 days in a row they've won.

[PaulWinch again]

Bresnan has been far too expensive as well.

[peter w]

At last!

[taylorsworkrate]

Its been a very poor performance from England so far in this match, complimenting a poor showing at Old Trafford. Broad is the only player to have come out of it with any sort of credit.

Watson gone finally, but that partnership is likely to be match defining

[PaulWinch again]

We need to get another quickly.

[PaulWinch again]

To be honest since the first Test Jimmy hasn't really performed well enough.

[PaulWinch again]

Well played Chris Rogers, now get out immediately please.

[paul_e]

what rogers has done is what we needed from Cook yesterday after KP got out, losing Cook quickly after caused the collapse, rogers has, a couple of times, stuck around after they lose a wicket so they can rebuild.

[PaulWinch again]

Broad has been excellent, the rest of the bowling unit haven't backed him up.

[PaulWinch again]

Bresnan is not offering the control he should. This is poor again.

[PaulWinch again]

Probably end of the day, 7 consecutive days for Australia and it was harder to bat today. They've shown how poor our batting was.

[KevinGage]

Opportunities were there with the ball seaming around early on.  5/6 down an hour or so after lunch wouldn't have been out of the question. Different game, then.   

But conservative field placings, missed catches and Anderson and Bresnan not backing up Broad's early progress have done for England, I reckon. The only hope is that the pitch did look pretty flat there in the final session.  But the way England have batted in this series, they'd need to be batting on a road to give themselves any chance of getting a healthy second innings total.  And even then, you wouldn't bank on them. 

[UK Redsox]

I don't really understand the complaints about DRS & Rogers' non dismissal.

The on field Umpire's decision was out caught and therefore by definition not-out LBW. Therefore, even though the review showed that he was not-out caught, he was still not-out LBW as far as the on field decision. Therefore, with the "stumps" element of the LBW review showing umpire's call, Rogers was rightly given not out.

The problem in this case lay with a bodged decision by the on-field umpire to give him out caught in the first place, not with the technology or DRS procedures.

[taylorsworkrate]

I don't really understand the complaints about DRS & Rogers' non dismissal.

The on field Umpire's decision was out caught and therefore by definition not-out LBW. Therefore, even though the review showed that he was not-out caught, he was still not-out LBW as far as the on field decision. Therefore, with the "stumps" element of the LBW review showing umpire's call, Rogers was rightly given not out.

The problem in this case lay with a bodged decision by the on-field umpire to give him out caught in the first place, not with the technology or DRS procedures.

I disagree. After being given out, there should be absolute proof that the overall decision of out was wrong. Batsmen should not be saved on technicalities.