I’m beginning to see why India don’t use it in there series at home.

Because their batsmen don’t like being given out when they’re out? Are you seriously trying to claim that was not out?

Of course without DRS Trott would still be there now, about to reach his century.

CJ 😉

Appropriate ending all-in-all!!!

I love it. 😆

Now, what time does the tour arrive at the hill?

psychle earlier:

True enough Mr Pies… There was nothing on that review that should have overruled the onfield Umpires decision, the hotspot from the side wasn’t definitive (the pads obscured any edge) DRS doesn’t use Snicko (because it’s unreliable/inaccurate)… I don’t think you can honestly argue that there was anything definitive enough to overrule Dar can you?

Anyhoo, I really am off to bed now, night all, enjoy your celebrations in the English sun 🙂

Fair play THM!

I don’t think you can honestly argue that there was anything definitive enough to overrule Dar can you?

The fact he hit it?

er, there was (non-snicko) audio to back up the visible hotspot – Erasmus wanted to check both before he was prepared to make his decision. ISTM that is plenty enough to overrule. Though your comments on DRS are somewhat discredited by not understanding the reason why snicko isn’t used.

Or are you actually complaining that despite hitting it he only barely hit it, so should have got away with it?

Aussie TV already given up and started playing Friends

#dontlikeitupem

But like AA (on the rugby thread) I am happy to ignore the silliness.

Silliness – are you failing to tolerate views other than your own ?
Thanks for ignoring it – whilst commenting on it and making your view know that anyone questioning your view is “silly” whilst insisting you are not get involved
Very clever – did you have to think for a while to get it nailed or does it come naturally to you?

Think Psychle has a point about it being known as the DRS test
Interesting to look at the scores if you ignore the Aussies last man [ number 10]
Anyway the start of a fantastic series of cricket and some serious Kudos to the Aussies whop were far more competitive than anyone[ I assume including most of them] thought they would be

Should be an immense series cannot wait

A lesson for the bogans on how to use DRS effectively, except they will not learn from this but play the ‘blame game’ instead of a bit of self analysis to learn why they failed and how to improve.

England were not perfect but enough payers delivered a performance to get the result.

It’s a shame the winning margin wasn’t 10 runs though, that’s the extra runs Broad made when he didn’t walk 😆

I think the aussies get the most form this Test tbh- though they do need to learn to use DRS properly
I did not expect them to be that close to england at all and they were unlucky not to win in the end and played very very well

They will surely take a lot from that and know they can beat them with a bit of luck

Been out enjoying the sunshine, lots of grinning Brits, a few gurning Aussies too. 😆

Junkyard – do us all a favour and bitch at other posters somewhere else.

Only been watching the highlights which doesn’t give the best feeling for how a match is going, however it seems that Jimmy Anderson could be the difference in this series.

Junkyard – do us all a favour and bitch at other posters somewhere else.

Its only one and it has not exactly been one sided

That said point taken and I will cease

Awesome match. Shame many Australians don’t seem to be able to recognise that and are moaning about DRS – just had a look at some Aussie papers and they are full of it too. It’s a bit pathetic really – no-one else’s fault that England know how it’s supposed to work.

Think the ‘whinging poms’ tag needs adjusting slightly.

This one from 10 years ago probably just needs a little editing:

It’s also somewhat ironic Australians moaning about the decisions going against them, given that on balance through the whole of the match England almost certainly lost more due to them.

Some spectacular and truly pathetic whining in the comments here. Really quite extraordinary.

http://m.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/i-didnt-think-i-hit-it-clarke-defends-use-of-review-20130714-2pxlj.html

Righty-o, I’m up for the day and just enough time for a quick comment before heading off to work… Firstly, apologies for my outburst last night, I was tired and emotional and epically disappointed in the end… My apologies also go to Umpire Erasmus, for I have learnt something this morning that I wasn’t aware of (indeed, I suspect I may now know more about DRS than most on here, for, in direct disregard for STW protocol and internet arguing in general I have actually gone and looked at the rules/regulations surrounding the Decision Review System, I know, astounding isn’t it?!) Anyhoo, here’s what I have learnt:
ICC Rules of Cricket

3.3 The process of consultation
a) On receipt of an eligible and timely request for a Player Review, the on-field
umpire will make the sign of a television with his hands in the normal way.
b) He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the decision
that has been made and that the player has requested a Player Review.
c) The third umpire must then work alone, independent of outside help or comment,
other than when consulting the on-field umpire.
d) A two-way consultation process should begin to investigate whether there is
anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the onfield umpire should change his decision.
e) This consultation should be on points of fact, where possible phrased in a manner
leading to yes or no answers. Questions requiring a single answer based on a
series of judgements, such as “do you think that was LBW?” are to be avoided.
f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the
decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the
on-field umpire’s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third
umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of
consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal
shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out.
g) The third umpire should initially check whether the delivery is fair under Law 24.5
(‘fair delivery – the feet’) and under Clause 42.4.2(a) (‘full toss passing above
waist height’), where appropriate advising the on-field umpire accordingly. See
also paragraph 3.10 below.
h) If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to answer with a high
degree of confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he
should report that the replays are ‘inconclusive’. The third umpire should not give
answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities.

So, my previous understanding of the system was that the Third Umpire made a decision to uphold or overturn the on-field Umpires original decision. If I’m reading the above, this isn’t the case. The on-field umpire still makes the final decision, but with the benefit of being able to ask yes/no questions of the off-field umpire. Would that be correct?

I also believed that for the Third Umpire to overturn a decision there had to be 100% definitive proof that the on-field umpire had it wrong, which also appears not to be the case…

No time to discuss further, I have to run to work, but would be interested to chat more about this later on, looking forward to seeing what you guys talk about in my absence 😉

Fairplay to you psychle, your disappointment and frustration with DRS and the result is understandable.

The way I see the referral system working is as your conclusion suggests. From what I can see its there as a second set of eyes to allow the umpire on the field to make the right decision. Cook has used it sparingly and to great effect. Clarke seems to be behind the game with it, using it to try and overturn pretty clear decisions. As hotspot and snicko are both viewed you need to be very sure of yourself to query a call. Or desperate.

On a broader note I wonder if that was Australia’s chance. With the exception of Anderson and Bell I thought most of the England team had a pretty average game. I can’t see that happening too often in the next four games. Finn is a major concern for us and I think he’ll be lucky to make the Lords test, even though its his home ground. For the Aussies I thought Siddle looked very good in patches, Agar bowled ok and Starc wasn’t bad with the new ball. Your top six look vulnerable though and if Anderson stays fit, Broad remembers to pitch it up and Swann gets favourable pitches its England’s series. Lots of ifs there, only takes Anderson to pull a muscle.

only takes Anderson to pull a muscle.

Perhaps, but as you allude to, the others had a fairly average game. If they step up (and don’t forget we have bresnan, monty and onions fit, [and what happened to tremlett btw?]) I don’t think our bowling is too fragile

Batting concerns me a little beyond our current lineup though

On a broader note I wonder if that was Australia’s chance

10-0 still on then?

Yes itis still on but that was a good show by the Aussies

I still think they should take a lot of heart form the performance rather than feel like they have stolen defeat from the jaws of victory.
A bit of “luck” and they would have won it

they do need to get better with DRS

Obviously England would miss Anderson but I still would imagine they are the better team even without him [ but it would be much closer]

Wow. What a game.

Now the dust has settled on DRS let’s drop that discussion and focus on the good stuff.

Huge credit to England for coming out on top. Despite generally playing the better cricket as a team, there were a few times when they were really under the pump, and big match players with big match temparaments came through. Bell and Anderson in particular. I can remember times when they’d have folded up.

Huge credit also to Aus for making a fabulous fist of it. Sure, you can’t expect to rely on the lower order to make the bulk of your runs as they did in this game, but fantastic fighting spirit. Credit to Clarke for his post match interview, he admits his DRS needs work, and on a different day if he’d had the capability to overturn Broad’s call that might have made the difference.

Overall – I think too many English batters got a start and didn’t cash in. needs to be addressed by showing the application Bell did, and I think they all will. Australia’s batting ‘concerns’ me; I don’t think Broad or Swann bowled as well as they can, and Finn was a disappointment. I think the Aus top order is going to find it harder in the next few weeks than they did here, and if the English bowlers step up, we could yet really expose limitations. But we can’t let Jimmy carry too much burden, I know Cookie had to bowl him to near exhaustion yesterday but he needs wrapping in cotton wool now, because without Jimmy as our go-to, the attack loses a chunk of its menace.

Roll on Thursday……

People who don’t like cricket are wrong, say experts

do I think we will achieve back to back whitewashes?

no, we aren’t that good and the aussies aren’t that bad.

I do think we should win both series but it only takes a couple of injuries to throw the result back into the mix.

Credit to both teams for an enthralling test match, although most of the enthrallingness should be credited to the umpires who made it interesting.

The real big decision in the match was the stumping, if that was given totally different game and Trott and Broads decisions irrelevant.

I think the Aus top order is going to find it harder in the next few weeks than they did here

Christ cobber. 117-9 and 211-8 and you think they’ll get worse 😆 I bloody hope you’re right 🙂

Yes, I think they will. (Not get worse, but they will struggle even more). As I said, I think broad and swann were barely average compared to the very high standards they can reach, and we carried Finn. The Aussie top order can play better and I suspect they’ll need to just to stand still, if England’s bowling unit really starts to fire on 4 cylinders rather than 2.5* as they did here.

* scores / 10; Jimmy 9.5, broad 6, swann 7, Finn 3, makes 2.5 average

scores / 10; Jimmy 9.5

That’s pretty harsh IMHO. What exactly does he have to do for you to rate him 10?

Don’t get me wrong, two 5-forms and a winning performance is pretty good. But he didnt get many runs 😉 And if you get 10 for that, how do you score performance like Devon Malcolm’s 9-57, or Botham at headingley……

scores / 10; Jimmy 9.5, broad 6, swann 7, Finn 3, makes 2.5 average

Maths failure on average and by a massive amount 6.375 is the actual average

Understanding fail. Its a 4-cylinder attack, but two half fired and one not at all. If all fired to full potential you get 40; They got 25 which on this system means the attack fired on 2.5 cylinders as an average.

Pah, get your maths right in the explanation. If “two half fired and one not at all” they’d only be firing on two cylinders, but you actually rated two of them as 2/3 firing and the other as 1/3 firing.

😉

And if you get 10 for that, how do you score performance like Devon Malcolm’s 9-57, or Botham at headingley……

11 (though if we’re talking bowling performance then Botham wasn’t even 8, and Willis might just scrape 10).

Understanding fail. Its a 4-cylinder attack, but two half fired and one not at all. If all fired to full potential you get 40; They got 25 which on this system means the attack fired on 2.5 cylinders as an average

So that is what is meant by average…..mathematicians have been doing it so wrong for so long 😉

If it’s a four-cylinder attack, firing on 2.5 cylinders is still at 62.5% capacity.

Maths is actually one thing (of all the grey areas argued on STW) that is black and white.

Yes, but this isn’t maths, it’s a ridiculous system invented to allow me to analogise a team bowling performance to a car engine. In a way that I even confused myself. And god knows what I’ll do if we pick an all rounder at some point, do you get 5 cylinder engines? Or 4 cylinders with a fifth for use in emergencies.

Bottom line, Jimmy was nearly perfect but two of the others were average and Finn was poor. If all four bowled well, the Aussies are up shit creek from what I’ve seen so far.
And Botham 81 – he scored 50 and 149*, and took 6-95 and 1-14 (7 overs, 3 pressure building maidens), and you only give him 11? What do you need to get a 12?

So who plays next test?

Do they stick with Finn – home ground, quicker pitch but he had a poor game.

Onions – good at lefties, swing the new ball, keeps things tidy, can’t bat.

Bresnan – reverse the old ball, best batter of all the seamers, should be able to keep it tight?