Extra time for tonight then.
broad vs harris should be interesting
That will teach me not to turn the radio off after depressing listening this afternoon. Missed the last 5 wickets.
Just been out.
WTF 😯
ho ho ho 🙂
all over tonight
8)
Ding Ning Ning Ning Ning Ning Ning
nice bruise after that 🙂
doh!
bowled him 🙂
well played that man 10 in the match
A large lady is clearing her throat
better than relying on catches
One more....
nah it has been a very poor series form England
And yet they look like they're about to go 3-0 up. Funny series. 🙂
ooohhhh
yes!!!!!!!!!!!
You beauty!
That will do pig that will do
104-9 in a session !
Get in!
Only the weather preventing the whitewash 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Who would have thunk it, even at lunchtime today! Stuart Broad, awesome.
As somebody said somewhat earlier, Australia won't win a match, and will only get a draw if the weather intervenes 🙂
Stuart Broad's spell this evening, 9 overs, 1 maiden, 22 runs, 5 wickets. This is why we put up with his rubbish days.
What's that skippy?
The sound of 23million whingers grizzling into their insipid beer.
😀
What the very ****ity ****?!?!?
I'm almost pissed off at that. When I let my head get the better of me and I trudged off to bed last light at 2am, they'd only lost one wicket and looked nailed on. Now I wake up and it seems they lost the other nine in a space of about ten minutes just aster I went to bed.
How on earth am I supposed to gloat if I didn't even bloody see it?
Grrrrrr
And another question: does anyone have a link to the highlights? Because as sure as hell they won't show [i]that[/i] on TV here!
just think of all those who stayed up to watch that though and have a gloat anyway
Great, thanks grum.
Good to see Watto's a traditionalist regarding his preferred method of dismissal - LBW and wasting a review 🙂
Having just watched the press conference with Clarke I'm finding it hard to dislike him in the same way as ponting and Waugh who were odious characters with little to admire apart from the foot on the throat way they played their cricket.
He seems like a decent chap with a hard job to do, I guess it's his amiability that makes him so disliked by the bogans because he isn't one.
I'ved missed Blowers saying "and in comes Starkers......" recently.
If more of Englands batsmen scored the runs they should be getting, this would have been a dull series.
Even the Sydney Morning Herald's commenters seem subdued this morning!
Good to see Watto's a traditionalist regarding his preferred method of dismissal - LBW and wasting a review
Normality is restored - I'd missed him doing that. Believe it or not he's not reviewed an LBW decision since the first innings at Lord's (he was also out LBW in the second there, but for some unknown reason didn't review). To be fair it's not like anybody afterwards could have made use of one (that's one advantage of him batting at 6).
To be fair it's not like anybody afterwards could have made use of one (that's one advantage of him batting at 6).
I dunno. Haddin's lbw was very lucky/unlucky, depending on your point of view
Unlucky in the sense that it pitched in line, hit in line and would have hit the stumps unlucky? Or unlucky in the sense that umpire hill actually called it right for once so it stayed on the field. I have to say watching it live (on TV, but 'as it happened', not on slomo replays) my immediate impulse was out.
When the changes to drs are made, those will all be out either way. I predict lower scoring games, but hopefully more close finishes as well.
Or unlucky in the sense that umpire hill actually called it right for once so it stayed on the field.
This, mostly. And given how close it was to missing the stumps, he was pretty unlucky to be given out, regardless of the umpire, and especially with the safety-net effect DRS seems to be giving umpires to be conservative. However, at least as far as Hawkeye was concerned, it was indeed clipping, and it was the correct decision. Before DRS, I suspect he would be considered unlucky to have been judged LBW to that particular ball, especially by an umpire who's had such an inconsistent series.
Think Hadin shows the problem with DRS. Apparently it is is designed to get the right decision but the decision it reaches is both out and not out at the same time and then passes the decision back to the umpire. WTF is the point of that? The same delivery can be in or out and it then reverts to the umpire.
The ball can just clip and be out and 49.9999% can hit and you can still be not out.
I am really struggling to see how this improves the game or decisions tbh and they need to make a rule that does not include what the on field ump said
Think Hadin [ and examples like that] are a classic case of benefit of the doubt to the batter.
Which as I understand it is going to be the change to drs in the autumn - no longer dependant on the on field umpire's call, it will just go with the facts - hitting = out. Like I say - lower scores, but less confusion.
Benefit of the doubt has never been a rule, just a convention. If they change drs as I think they plan, there will be no doubt*, therefore no benefit to be given or received.
* Opens new can of worms marked 'accuracy of predictive ball tracking'
Opens new can of worms marked 'accuracy of predictive ball tracking'
You do indeed, especially for cases where the batsman got a long way forward, or was out to some weirdly spinning thing. I'm sure accuracy has improved greatly since its inception, but Hawkeye famously crashed when tracking a recreation of Warne's "ball of the century" when they were trying it out once, I remain to be convinced that it can ever be millimetre accurate predicting the bath of the ball.
Also of note is that the Aussies seem to use some cheap knock-off of Hawkeye, which the commentators reckoned wasn't as accurate as Hawkeye in the last Ashes series down here
Which is why I'd change the laws to go with Hawkeye's prediction but add in a safety margin. Not 50%, a ball is 7cm in dial approx and if Hawkeye isn't accurate to that extent we shouldn't be using it. But maybe something like 20% or even 10% (I don't know the accuracy that hawkeve can predict to but believe there should be some margin). Out is such a final decision for a batter, you have to be certain. A not out might hurt the bowling side but 15 seconds later you get another chance to try again.
I remain to be convinced that it can ever be millimetre accurate predicting the bath of the ball.
I agree but surely they can do some test work out what the error rate is and thengive this as the "benefit of the doubt"
say it is 10 % error then 15 % of the ball must be hitting for example
Benefit of the doubt has never been a rule, just a convention.
It means certain they were out so if they were uncertain they said not out - it was part of the game for run outs as well.
Just clipping a stump with hawk eye would seem to me to a perfect case of not certain given it has a margin of error.
I do agree there will be lower scoring games and the Dons batting average looks safe for a little while longer 😉
I dunno. Haddin's lbw was very lucky/unlucky, depending on your point of view
Though ignoring the other discussion, he got to review that anyway as there was still one left after Watson's obligatory waste - and as discussed his review was another "waste" anyway. I have to say that to the naked eye that looked very out - as did Watson's. The irony is that [s]whinging convicts[/s] people are only complaining about them being close calls where the batsman should have got the benefit of the doubt having seen the Hawkeye predictions.
I remain to be convinced that it can ever be millimetre accurate predicting the bath of the ball.
My understanding (having worked with people who worked on a similar system) is that when properly calibrated it can get pretty close to that. It is after all simply relying on the known laws of physics to extrapolate the known path of the ball after pitching. In general the only balls which deviate significantly from that after passing the pad/bat are ones involving late reverse outswing, which don't ever result in LBW decisions. I can't recall a Hawkeye "umpire's call" where the amount of ball hitting was less than what I'd expect the margin of error to be, Haddin's certainly wasn't. I do agree therefore that "umpire's call" should be removed and if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping it is out.
Out is such a final decision for a batter, you have to be certain. A not out might hurt the bowling side but 15 seconds later you get another chance to try again.
Except you might not get another such chance for a long time - see Rogers' "LBW" on 20 odd in the first innings.
