The Ashes

1…2324262829

Comments

  • SlackerSlacker
    How many more runs did Smith get?
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    We start pitching up rather than just the short stuff and Woakes gets Murphy lbw. 288-9, Australia lead by 5.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Slacker he got another 28 and those were in a 50 plus partnership with Cummins who then went on to have a 49 run partnership with Murphy. Obviously the first wouldn’t have happened and possibly the second.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    edited July 2023
    Superb catch by Stokes on the boundary, Australia all out for 295, they lead by 12.
  • SlackerSlacker
    Brilliant by Stokes but surely Bairstow should’ve run and caught that?🤷🏻‍♂️

    Good day’s cricket and it’s set up nicely,
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Ian Ward on Sky did a review on the stumping looking from the side angle that showed that the bail was off both stumps with the ball in Bairstow's hands before Smith was home.
    Umpiring error number # ?
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    Ian Ward on Sky did a review on the stumping looking from the side angle that showed that the bail was off both stumps with the ball in Bairstow's hands before Smith was home.
    Umpiring error number # ?

    I wasn't convinced tbh, I felt the stump that was the first one back was the one nearest Bairstow not the middle stump, it looked like the next stump back (once Smith had made his ground) was nearer the camera that the first one that was back, suggesting that the second one that moved was actually the middle stump which was still in contact with the bail until Smith was home.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    I thought it was not out. It was so close and not clear enough to give the batter out.
  • SlackerSlacker
    It really was so so tight that I would’ve given Smith the benefit of the doubt.
    Hardly Bairstow’s fault, I can’t see what else he could’ve done in that split second.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    Ian Ward on Sky did a review on the stumping looking from the side angle that showed that the bail was off both stumps with the ball in Bairstow's hands before Smith was home.
    Umpiring error number # ?

    Erm, the third umpire didn't have that view so how was he supposed to give him out?

    Umpiring error number #-1 ?
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    edited July 2023
    Slacker said:

    It really was so so tight that I would’ve given Smith the benefit of the doubt.

    Slightly off track, but it still grates with me that Smith and Warner are allowed to play international cricket after Sandpapergate. A year's ban (I think it was) never felt right at the time, and still doesn't now.

  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    IronHerb said:


    Erm, the third umpire didn't have that view so how was he supposed to give him out?

    Umpiring error number #-1 ?

    Begs the question why doesn't he have that view. If there's a camera covering that angle, why shouldn't he have access to it.

    Over to you herb.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    IronHerb said:


    Erm, the third umpire didn't have that view so how was he supposed to give him out?

    Umpiring error number #-1 ?

    Begs the question why doesn't he have that view. If there's a camera covering that angle, why shouldn't he have access to it.

    Over to you herb.
    In all fairness, it took Sky/Ian Ward a good 45 mins to put that piece together. I know we moan about how slow VAR can take in football to reach certain decisions, but I can't see anyone being happy about umpires taking 45 mins to rule on a run out, can you?

  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    edited July 2023
    Slacker he could have made sure he didn’t break the wicket before he had the ball. Basic keeping and the keeper among the pundits said he should have been in front of the wicket and swept the ball in as he caught it. He had a few seconds to get into position but doesn’t think like a keeper because he isn’t one.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    IronHerb said:


    Erm, the third umpire didn't have that view so how was he supposed to give him out?

    Umpiring error number #-1 ?

    Begs the question why doesn't he have that view. If there's a camera covering that angle, why shouldn't he have access to it.

    Over to you herb.
    But why blame the umpire? That's one for the ICC.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    A good first hour this morning. Given Moeen won't be coming in at 3, and that it's been suggested Stokes would come in next, I wonder, given the start, if Root will come in next; he's certainly been in earlier at 4 than he would be if he comes in now at 3. Or, conceivably, we send in whoever out of Stokes and Root who will maintain a left/right handed combination.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    edited July 2023
    Duckett goes after an Aussie review, 79-1. A big edge again missed by the umpire.

    Stokes in at 3.
  • SlackerSlacker
    thornburyiron said:

    Slacker he could have made sure he didn’t break the wicket before he had the ball. Basic keeping and the keeper among the pundits said he should have been in front of the wicket and swept the ball in as he caught it. He had a few seconds to get into position but doesn’t think like a keeper because he isn’t one.

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree then.

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    buffybegood said:

    Duckett goes after an Aussie review, 79-1. A big edge again missed by the umpire.

    Stokes in at 3.

    Well, 1st slip and bowler didn't think he hit it.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    A very good session for England, 130 runs at a touch over 5 runs per over for the loss on just one wicket, and we lead by 118.
  • SlackerSlacker
    Great morning session.🎉
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Stokes a touch fortunate, nearly caught on the boundary in the first over after lunch. It woulda taken some magic akin to the catch Stokes himself took yesterday evening, although, in fairness to Starc, his was an even more difficult chance.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Crawley goes for 73, 140-2.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Stokes goes to a poor shot, 213-3, lead of 201.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Brook gone for only 7, 222-4. Double Nelson strikes.
  • alderzalderz


    @Slacker have you been texting in to the BBC?
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    265-4 at tea, a lead of 253.
  • ValiantIronValiantIron
    What do we set? I've seen the weather forecast (again), so I reckon 350 in about an hours time, and that may not give us enough playing time over the next two days!
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    I reckon 400ish and declare an hour into tomorrow. Unlikely Ali will bowl so a little on the conservative side.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    IronHerb said:

    I reckon 400ish and declare an hour into tomorrow. Unlikely Ali will bowl so a little on the conservative side.

    Obviously dependant on losing wickets, but we could easily be close to 400 this evening.
Sign In or Register to comment.