The Second One Day International v Australia

Morning all.

As you might have guessed, TLG and I have been busy, and in my case in particular, lacking a bit of oomph to continually update the blog. This doesn’t last, you all know that, but we will be back soon.

Today is the second ODI, and comments can be added below. At time of writing there’s rain about so the start is delayed. The first ODI showed, in my view, that there’s still a bit of an issue chasing targets, which we have a couple of years to fix in advance of the Champions Trophy being played here in 2017.

Congratulations to Surrey on their promotion, clinched with a Gareth Batty hat-trick. I saw the pretty insipid first day’s play with Benny Bowden and it was lovely to meet him and chew the fat. He has told me who needs to be number two in my Test Centuries review. Surrey looked listless on Tuesday, and Ansari took four on the day. Chesney Hughes impressed me with his play.

As for today, we’ll hear the talking points. Are Roy and Hales an opening partnership? Are we wasting Moeen Ali? Is Jos Buttler mentally shot? Are we fed up with talking points? Is it becoming boring playing Australia? Have you read Alec Swann’s review of Death of a Gentleman? Do I need to seek help as I sort of agreed with Michael Henderson’s piece in the Cricketer?

Oh well. Enjoy whatever the day brings….

(quick note from TLG to apologise for my absence recently. This is my busy time of the year unfortunately, and I’ve been away most of the last few weeks. October is even worse. But I do have a couple of “different” posts to write. One I’ll do today and activate tomorrow. Because guess what, I’m away again. Arrrrgggh.)


123 thoughts on “The Second One Day International v Australia

  1. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 9:36 am

    Has Swann really reviewed DOAG? Is there a link?

    I’m looking forward to the depth of analysis shown here:

    Or shown here:


    • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 10:22 am

      So he’s just as stupid as his brother then?

      He sounds a bit like Competitive Dad out of the fast show…… “That’s 23 of the Queens runs”

      Because sport is all about winning! F*** the contest.

      The cricketer magazine…….for people who like their cricket dumbed down.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 10:29 am

        Yes, that Tweet is sickening. ‘My’ team won so **** everything else.

        He’s the archetype of the ECB’s new model fan. Giles Clarke should have him cloned.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 10:37 am

        I suppose we have to cut him some slack Simon.

        At least he didn’t walk out on his team mates half way through an Ashes tour and then winge on about loyalty and trust.

        I mean you have to be some piece of work to do that!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Arron Wright Sep 5, 2015 / 10:42 am

      Well I googled “Alec Swann Death of a Gentleman” on my phone and the first link was Dmitri’s post.

      So it seems unlikely there’s a link!


    • OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 10:57 am

      No it is an ‘article’ in the loosest ‘Loaded’ sense of the word. Two pages, some quotes, no discussion, no analysis, just the pile of manure that the Wisden Cricketer has slowly become over the past two years.

      I have been meaning to cancel my subscription and this review may well be the proverbial straw.


      • LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 11:49 am

        Alec Swann (not Graham) conducts an interview with Sam Collins, in which there are no questions, but a series of statements by Collins. That’s over two pages.

        Then there’s a film review by the same person that on first read seemed incredibly half-hearted.

        The Henderson article is about the one-eyed nature of the crowds at the Ashes. That people who attend games now see themselves as participants, rather than watchers. The thing is, I agree with the text of the article, just sure I don’t agree with the motivation for it. He’s bemoaning a bye-gone age, I’m bemoaing ignoring just what you are cheering for.


    • LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 12:15 pm

      At what point can my teeth stop itching during that “promo”?


  2. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 9:40 am

    Tom Moody talking plenty of sense this morning.


  3. thebogfather Sep 5, 2015 / 9:42 am

    Morning LCL,
    Hope you’re batteries are recharging for posting some more wonderful scribbles, and that BT take note of you too.

    Yes, I don’t think you’re the only one struggling to be enthused by another series of Aus ODI’s…

    Any chance of posting the Swann/Henderson articles – I’ve no intention of buying the comic.

    Seems drizzle is about so an hour delay to the game already…

    I hope to get the BAR book review done this coming week, just re-reading it at mo’

    Keep a smile for a while, then mark out your long run…

    Cheers, Bog


  4. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 10:06 am

    With luck they’ll prove me wrong – but I feel like choosing to bowl first ignores the way the pitch at Southampton died under lights…


  5. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 10:06 am

    England won toss and bowl. Smith said he’d have bowled. Australia unchanged; England have Plunkett in for Wood.

    Play due to start at 11.30 with 49 overs a side.


    • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 10:15 am

      I’m a Plunkett fan – but I think a left arm bowler might have been a better choice in terms of the overall effectiveness of the attack.


  6. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 10:43 am

    Finn surprised Warner there.


    • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 4:16 pm

      Warner will be out for 4-6 weeks, so won’t make it for the series in Bangladesh. So, that means two new openers for the Aussies going there, assuming Watson does not get back into the side to open.


  7. OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 10:58 am

    I also agreed with Henderson’s article which left me questioning my sanity, glad to hear you agreed Dmitri, it is either age or as with stopped clock he is right twice a day.


    • Rooto Sep 5, 2015 / 11:11 am

      More like a stuck calendar?


    • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 11:37 am

      So what does Henderson say? Do his views on beards feature at all?


      • OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 11:50 am

        Basically that at certain venues there is a certain ‘boorish’ (my words not his) section of cricket fans that just support their team rather than go to enjoy good cricket, so opposition 4’s are not clapped, and good play is not appreciated if it isn’t your team.
        Having been at Edgbaston this year and enjoyed the atmosphere, I do tend to agree that there does seem to be less appreciation of the other team than was present 10 years ago.

        Having said that, I am reaching my mid 40’s so I am probably becoming (ha, ‘becoming’) a trenchant old buffer that thinks things were better in my day (oh the 70’s when you could break your leg on a swing, sit in a car without seatbelts, and wander off with someone famous and no one would bat an eyelid).


      • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 12:16 pm

        I have no problem with supporters cheering on their team and giving the opposition a bit of stick, but what has happened is cricket fans have become one eyed football fans . They even parrot the same words……

        “Get behind the team, wear the shirt, back the captain, support the manager.” How convienient for team ECB. Any kind of real anyalsis is removed, which of course is the whole point. Just keep buying the product.

        Consume the product. That is your only function. The money , and how the sport is run is nothing for your pretty little head to worry about. We will take care of all that, and you can be sure we have your best interests at heart.

        As Dmitri says, Henderson doesn’t seem to understand that by supporting the “current owners” of the game, he is supporting the very people who are pushing the enviroment he so deplores. Those burgers and fries won’t sell themselves Mr Henderson. Have you bought a nice Waitrose team England shirt with Cook written on the back? You could always wear it in the kitchen and pretend you are a chef.

        Liked by 2 people

      • paulewart Sep 5, 2015 / 6:08 pm

        I wouldn’t assume that Mark. He’s just creating a false narrative isn’t he? I’m sure he knows exactly what the ECB is up to, indeed he has supported it, but he’s a snob so feels the need to lament the present. It’s a classic double-bluff all about getting supporters to hate supporters thus deflecting attention away from the real villains of the piece. We used to call it divide and rule….


  8. pktroll (@pktroll) Sep 5, 2015 / 11:37 am

    Not been too impressed by England’s bowling so far. I think Australia would have lost a couple more wickets if England had got their lengths right. If the Aussies don’t lose too many more wickets in the next few overs a big score is definitely on.


    • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 11:43 am

      In some sense, England did not pick a bowling attack, but a containing attack that bats all the way down to #10. It is a common problem in ODI sides these days. Too many bits and pieces players – you pick 3 allrounders, and hope that between them they can bowl 20-90-1, and make up for it with the bat.

      Liked by 1 person

      • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 12:22 pm

        Think you’re dead on there, D’Arthez.
        I’d add that the pitch needs to be a lot harder/bouncier before it makes real sense to pick Finn & Plunkett together for an ODI. Definitely should have had a left-arm bowler in.
        Sky commentators looking to Rashid to take wickets, but in the process rather ignoring the lack of threat from everyone else.


      • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 12:40 pm

        Yeah, not much wicket taking threat. See off the first ten or so overs (Plunkett was first change and came on in the 11th over. No one is going to argue that Woakes is the second best seamer in List-A cricket in England). And then hope that Rashid takes 3 or 4 wickets in his spell. Not exactly a strategy that will have much success in the long term.

        Oh, and Moeen only came on in the 29th over, so he is effectively picked as a batsman who bowls a bit. Which is one option, but why does he have to bat after Buttler then (aside from the form issues Buttler has)?


    • LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 11:53 am

      I’m sitting here thinking “this should have been played in late June- early July as the starter for the main event.

      I’m bored with the Aussies. Go home and let’s play someone else.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 12:32 pm

        I agree, and yet these are the newly crowned World Champions. Only the ECB could make a series against the WC into a case of ……..who cares?

        This should have been played in mid summer as you said. Perhaps as part of a tri series against New Zealand.

        Like you I’m bored with Australia now, and India. Big 3 overload.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Ian Sep 5, 2015 / 12:10 pm

    My feeling with this is seen this game before somewhere

    Liked by 1 person

    • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 12:23 pm

      I wish the bloke who used to write the satirical Tim Bresnan diary blog was around to make fun of that one…


      • Rooto Sep 5, 2015 / 2:39 pm

        cricket dying
        140 years
        making decisions that are for the good of the game
        rejection of the Olympics
        Test cricket needs to remain competitive
        market will win
        India is cricket’s biggest asset
        I love both
        Test cricket may die
        Chris Gayle
        making a film
        millions love cricket

        That’s the impression you get from Sam, if you only read the bits the sub-editors picked out in bold. Not the same, is it?


  10. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 12:36 pm

    Maxwell on 0 – a slip might have helped Plunkett out there…


  11. LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 12:45 pm

    This letter amused me in this month’s Comic.

    Nothing good to say, say nothing”

    I applaud the editorial in August’s edition. There are far too many people having a nasty go at Alastair Cook on Twitter or Facebook or other social media.

    It makes me think of the late Kingsley Amis when he was asked about higher education expanding. Trenchantly, he said: “More means worse.”

    That sentiment applies to social media giving people a say who have nothing useful to comment. A generation ago we would have been spared their thoughts. Easy access to publishing is not all it’s cracked up to be.”

    I vaguely recall a film trailer many, many years ago when a father had come across his teenage son’s dirty video. When he tells the son off it goes something like “I’ve watched this filth seven times now and it is definitely not suitable for someone your age.”

    No-one makes you follow Twitter. No-one makes you read blogs. No-one makes you get upset with Facebook. You can’t accidentally be barraged by this stuff.

    And while you’re at it, writer, put that ever so learned Kingsley Amis nonsense to Giles Clarke, re international cricket. You summed THAT up beautifully.


    • OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 1:42 pm

      That letter is one of the myriad of reasons why I will cancel my subscription.

      Thanks for pointing out the review, I missed it, being blown away by the depth of the Sam Collins article.


    • paulewart Sep 5, 2015 / 6:11 pm

      You know you’ve lost someone when they quote Kingsley Amis……


  12. Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 1:01 pm

    Who? Who? Who are these people who have a go at Cook on twitter?

    Anyway, good to see your typical ECB/ Cook follower is a fan of Fahrenheit 451


  13. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 1:26 pm

    Does anyone need three guesses which star of the press pack loved this so much he had to re-Tweet it?

    Why can’t knowledge stay in the hands of a privileged elite where it belongs?

    Liked by 1 person

    • LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 1:32 pm

      Missed who, and can’t find my number 1 guess re-tweeting it……


    • OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 1:45 pm

      He is a parody surely? I feel like asking him whether after this reading this summary of his output if he feels like carrying on.


      • LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 1:50 pm

        There’s a tweet above that one which he is mocking…

        The Neuroscience of Leadership, I think…

        Instead of him laughing at it, I actually thought he might have written it.


      • OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 1:58 pm

        I couldn’t help it, I had to retweet the link and call out FICJAM


      • OscarDaBosca Sep 5, 2015 / 4:06 pm

        He is now following me on Twitter!! I am not sure why


    • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 2:33 pm

      It’s amazing that these knowledgable elites who have access to this special information are able to hold down jobs in which every day they are proved to be morons.

      On the other other hand maybe it’s not surprising….

      Time for my Upton Sinclair quote…..

      “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • paulewart Sep 5, 2015 / 6:14 pm

      Ah Eliot, that loveable old anti-Semite…..His critiques of culture and poetry are frankly bizarre; beyond arcane.


    • paulewart Sep 5, 2015 / 7:45 pm

      He’ll be advocating eugenics to keep the mob at bay next…….


  14. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 1:59 pm

    England need 310.
    One the one hand, they have the players to get off to a flier and make the target with room to spare.
    However, I’m not expecting that. I think the Aussies will bowl a bit better.


  15. Sherwick Sep 5, 2015 / 2:37 pm

    Surrey promoted to Div 1. Be funny if KP plays for them next year and scores plenty of runs..

    Liked by 1 person

  16. d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 4:02 pm

    Taylor gone for 43. That is the second time he has been dismissed in the forties. Let’s see if there will be a collapse or if Morgan and Stokes can stabilize the innings.


    • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 4:07 pm

      Unless Stokes has something special in his locker, you can stick a fork in this game, it’s done.


    • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 4:07 pm

      It seemed to me Taylor was feeling under pressure to keep the scoreboard moving.


  17. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 4:21 pm

    Stokes unlucky I think, more of an instinctive motion than an intentional offence.


    • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 4:31 pm

      The rules before they were changed were pretty lenient. Now it does not even have to be likely for the ball to actually hit the stumps. Even though this method of dismissal is rare, half of all the dismissals for obstructing the field of play have come in the last 2.5 years.

      It is unlucky, but that is how the rules are and are interpreted (Laxman getting stumped of a leave of a Chanderpaul-bowled medium pace delivery was quite unlucky too).


      • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 4:37 pm

        Seem to me that on a close reading of the rules (which includes the whole body, not just hands) then it’s an obvious strategy to start throwing it at the batsman and appealing. 50% of the time you should get a wicket.


    • Tybalt Sep 6, 2015 / 12:12 pm

      My instincts when running aren’t to try to catch or deflect the ball. That’s out, all day every day.


  18. d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 4:21 pm

    After Mankading 2014, we have Obstruction 2015. Will make a great read …


    • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 4:28 pm

      “An uncomfortable moment”. Nick Knight is paid for that sort of insight?

      Clearly out in my view. What the booing is about or what Morgan is complaining about I don’t know. The decision has been given by a combination of three umpires and why Smith seems to be expected to withdraw the appeal escapes me. Still, the incident will be used as a distraction about everything else England haven’t done well in these two matches.

      Buttler LBW as well – he’s really lost it against round-the-wicket off-spin.


      • metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 4:40 pm

        Yep. England clearly can’t sustain the required RPO against this level of bowling. That’s the real problem on the batting side.

        (I’d probably argue as well that they aren’t selecting enough variety in the bowling to keep the score down a bit…_


      • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 4:40 pm

        Guardian OBO full of one-eyed self-pitying bs unsurprisingly.


      • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 4:48 pm

        I seem to remember Newman trying to make an international incident out of the Mankading of Butler last year.

        Tomorrow will be fun in the papers.


  19. hatmallet Sep 5, 2015 / 4:31 pm

    Looks to me that his main movement is to turn and dive back into his crease, whilst his left arm has naturally moved around as he twisted but also up, probably defensively.

    The slow motion replays aren’t very helpful – doesn’t reflect the quick reaction.

    I’d say there is definitely enough doubt to leave that as a “not out” decision. But as an England fan I’m biased.


    • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 4:50 pm

      In these cases slow motion replays are not helpful.

      But as I noted above, the rules have become far less stringent with regards to obstruction (for the fielding side). Intentions count for naught (see Laxman example above – he was not attempting a run, and was batting in the crease). You can’t umpire on the basis of intention – every bowler who beats the bat would be awarded an lbw then.


      • hatmallet Sep 5, 2015 / 4:57 pm

        Laws say there has to be “wilful” intent though. So it does become subjective, and whether you think it’s out or not, I don’t think anyone can argue either way that it is a clear “out” or a clear “not out”.

        And poorly handled previous instances shouldn’t become a precedent.


  20. Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 4:42 pm

    The munchkin press pack will demand the return of Cook to ODIs in…………

    “England without Cook are like Trafalgar without Nelson. Alamein without Monty…….”

    Insert your on moronic tabloid wartime comparison here…….

    Liked by 1 person

  21. metatone Sep 5, 2015 / 4:47 pm

    Ali out – game over I’d say.
    Not convinced bowling first was the right choice, I don’t think batting got any easier and chasing has it’s own pressure.
    Mind you, Australia are just better in this form of the game.
    Better bowling line up, puts more pressure on the batsmen.
    They’ve batted more positively as well, generally.


    • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 5:03 pm

      I think batting first was the right choice – it was damp and the ball seamed quite a bit but the bowling just wasn’t good enough. Finn looked like he was wading through treacle and Woakes was economical but not threatening which isn’t good enough in helpful bowling conditions.

      This bowling attack isn’t going to win the WC (or come particularly close) which was why I said about Broad not being pensioned out of ODIs on the previous thread.


      • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 5:10 pm

        Exactly. West Indies have the same problem, that they often only pick 2 specialist bowlers, and a bunch of allrounders. It is probably no coincidence that they have the worst record of all Full Member nations of successfully chasing scores of 300+.


  22. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 4:58 pm

    Very odd atmosphere after the obstruction.

    Atherton and Botham were on commentary afterwards and seemed to avoid discussing the only thing everyone was thinking about for some time (unless they got all their discussion in when my viewing was briefly interrupted).

    Eventually Atherton said he wouldn’t have withdrawn the appeal and would have left it to the umpires.


    • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 5:05 pm

      Exactly. I am sure I won’t have to remind you of Sidebottom barging into Grant Elliot in an ODI in 2008. The umpires asked Collingwood to withdraw the appeal. He did not. Regrets afterward count for naught.

      It is the umpire’s job to make a decision. We can’t complain when they do.


      • hatmallet Sep 5, 2015 / 5:08 pm

        Likewise I have no problem with Smith asking. It’s up to the umpires. They’ve made a questionable choice – difficult to say it is definitely right or definitely wrong, so questionable it is (though I’m leaning more towards wrong).


      • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 5:34 pm

        The crowd who’ve just been chanting “cheat, cheat, cheat” weren’t referring to the umpires.


      • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 5:38 pm

        Morgan and Smith had a discussion at the fall of the last wicket. They were clearly disagreeing about the obstruction but it wasn’t as heated as Cook with Mathews after the Mankading. Morgan had just played a gutsy lone-hand, had been hit a nasty blow on the head and shook hands with all the Australian players afterwards.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 5:47 pm

    Post-match discussion on Sky – Gower, Botham and Holding all disagree with the third umpire’s decision and blame him for using only slow-mo replay.

    Gower making some defense of Steve Smith – Holding and especially Botham not (Botham claimed he wouldn’t even have thought about appealing).


    • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 5:51 pm

      Post-match presentation delayed because England are having a team meeting in the dressing room. Whether it’s about the defeat or the Stokes’ dismissal, who knows?

      “There’s all day tomorrow to discuss whatever it is” says Gower who clearly has an appointment somewhere else in London on a Saturday evening.


      • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 6:00 pm

        Morgan’s comments when the presentation finally got going indicated the team meeting was about the performance.

        He also said that the Stokes’ dismissal would not have happened if England were in the field and when asked if that meant he would have withdrawn the appeal replied “yep”. Smith said he was “a little disappointed” by that.


    • man in a barrel Sep 6, 2015 / 1:55 pm

      I find it deeply ironic when Michael Holding talks about the spirit of cricket and fair play. It’s almost as if another person with the same name was bowling at DB Close at Old Trafford 1976 and wilfully trying to kill him.

      I also find it ironic that so many of the people taking offence at this dismissal would probably have applauded Simon Jones throwing the ball straight at Matthew Hayden in that ODI in 2005.


  24. Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 5:55 pm

    If the ball does not swing round corners our bowling attack looks toothless. ODI or Tests.

    Good luck finding lots of quality bowlers in the private school system ECB.

    Liked by 1 person

    • pktroll (@pktroll) Sep 5, 2015 / 7:30 pm

      They didn’t bowl well enough in the first dozen overs when there was help in the pitch though. England should have had them 40 odd for 3 after about a dozen overs. They did not get their lengths right and allowed Australia a comfortable enough start which they weren’t able to get back There was also help with the new ball at the Oval in the test match, but again they got their lengths wrong. Either too short or too full today, too short in the Oval test.

      Unfortunately that narrative will be forgotten after the Stokes incident.


      • SimonH Sep 6, 2015 / 8:38 am

        Selecting Woakes is the same mistake England made with Kabir Ali and Dernbach in my view.

        We hear what a good death bowler he is. How he has three slower balls. How he can bowl yorkers at will.

        All that’s as maybe but a death bowler also has to be threatening enough with his conventional bowling at the start of the innings. If early wickets don’t fall, good teams will make up the runs later on with wickets in hand.

        The lack of emphasis on taking early wickets has also been evident in the field placings as well. As soon as the rules stopped forcing attacking field settings England have stopped setting them.


      • metatone Sep 6, 2015 / 11:45 am

        I noticed the field settings as well. Plunkett got an edge with Maxwell on 0.
        You can’t extrapolate precisely, but that kind of thing adds up.


      • metatone Sep 6, 2015 / 11:47 am

        I’m not convinced by Woakes, but I’m more concerned at the lack of thinking about the attack as a whole. Why on a Lords pitch select Finn and Plunkett & leave two left-handers on the bench?

        (Likewise, if Broad is back, then I think you have to look at choosing between him and Woakes, rather than both.)


  25. ArushaTZ Sep 5, 2015 / 6:21 pm

    I personally can’t stand all the bloody moralising about stuff like this. The Australians appealed, ie. asked the umpires if it was out, which they are perfectly entitled to do given that the ball was heading towards the stumps. The umpires referred it to the TV umpire, he decided it was out. It’s not the players job to decide which laws apply and which don’t. I think the behaviour of the crowd was utterly pathetic and childish. Any ire (I don’t think there should be any because it was a 50/50 call) should have been directed at the umpires not the players. I would have done exactly what Smith did, if I’d been in his shoes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 6:38 pm

      I hate the moralising as well. We’ve done similar (Inzy 2005) but it’s always someone else not playing the game. It’s sport.

      But it gets the wheels turning, doesn’t it?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 6:43 pm

        Funny, England didn’t have any problem with the concept of the Umpires decsion is final when Broad edged it to first slip against Aus in 2014 and didn’t walk.

        Liked by 2 people

      • northernlight71 Sep 5, 2015 / 7:32 pm

        Collingwood allowing Elliott to be run out after colliding with Sidebottom? Bad decision. He says so himself now.
        Broad standing his ground? Questionable, if understandable on the part of the batsman. And repeated by many batsmen before and since.
        Cook and Angelo Matthews last year? Disgraceful behaviour, unbecoming of an England captain and making me ashamed to be associated with England.

        Relevance of any of these to my feelings about today? Nil.

        I personally would feel rather uncomfortable getting a wicket this way, “within the rules” does not make something correct. That’s why cricket used to be different to other sports.

        Perhaps I should stick to watching the pathetic gurning of the children performing on the pitches of Premier League football clubs after all. It’s much the same really.


      • paulewart Sep 5, 2015 / 7:47 pm

        And if anyone believes Morgan they’re a fool. He’s a competitor to his bootstraps. I’ve seen him stand his ground on many an occasion.


      • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 8:19 pm

        Collingwood saying that now is just that. The umpires were asked to make a decision, and technically Elliott was out, so they had no choice in giving him out. They could only make a call on whether or not a batsman was out, not whether the appeal was ludicrous considering what transpired. They asked him to reconsider the decision, which under the rules at the time was the only thing they could have done, and he refused. Therefore, Collingwood gave the umpires no choice but to give Elliot out. The umpiring decision was good, from a technical point of view. During the game, Collingwood was more than happy to get the wicket that way.

        Talk AFTER the game is just that. When it has not one iota of relevance on the outcome of the game, as it has already been played. Ask Thierry Henry and the Irish. You can admit to cheating after the game, and the result will still stand. Cricket is not too dissimilar from football in that respect: cynicism rules, and any attempt to gain an unfair advantage is applauded. Why? Even if you get a decision in your favour in just 1 of 50 cases, that is still a “free wicket” you have gained for 50 unmerited appeals.

        Was it not Somerset who had the novel idea of declaring at 1/0 in a limited overs game against Worcestershire in 1979 in a misguided attempt to qualify for a later stage of the B&H Cup? In competitive sports, everyone will be looking for ways to get the best out of any situation, take advantage of rules as they are etc. The English do it just as much as any other nation. Just because it does not sit well with notions some people have of Englishness does not make it any less true. As a disadvantaged party, Morgan will find it easier to say that he would not have allowed the appeal to stand (similar to New Zealand after the Elliott incident). That by no means means that Morgan would not have appealed in the desperate hope to get a wicket.

        And that is even not stating the obvious point, that this was by no means cheating by the Australians. Just as Sri Lanka did not cheat with the Mankading incident. Even if they wanted to, the Australians could never give Stokes out. Only the umpires could. And they did give Stokes out, on the basis of the Laws of the game and the playing conditions. Now, who signed off on those? You would think the ECB is involved in that, somewhere …


      • northernlight71 Sep 5, 2015 / 8:56 pm

        I’m giving my opinion, not Collingwood’s or Morgan’s or the umpire’s. I’m using my reaction to those other incidents as context, not as justification.

        I think Steve Smith will regret letting this incident overshadow his team’s performance today. I suspect if the same thing happens in a few years time, he’d behave differently. I don’t think he, or the Australian’s cheated. I think the umpires were – as is becoming common – weak in referring the decision, I think the third umpire was wrong in his reaction to the slow-motion replay and the whole thing makes me wish cricket sometimes wasn’t so good at making itself look like a bunch of amateurs flailing about in a sack.



      • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 9:24 pm

        It was not meant as a criticism of you. My response was meant to illustrate how complex the problem is, and how difficult it is to ensure that “fair” decisions are reached all the time. There is no clearcut solution, because as long as humans are involved subjectivity will play a huge part. The only solution would be a fully automated decision making system, that is open source, and wholly independent of broadcasters (DRS depends on broadcasters – was there not a decision to England’s disadvantage, because of some mistake from Sky in the 2013 Ashes?). We are still far removed from that. And we’ll probably never get there.

        Third umpires make a lot of howlers, even with DRS. Paul Reiffel had a few shockers (SA-WI Test series, SL-Pak). A Pakistani batsman was given out on review, when Reiffel could not even bother following protocol. These mistakes happen. And that is when there are clearly established protocols, to arrive at a decision that can be held as objectively correct. There is no “but he did not intend to hit it” grey area with regards to edges and lbws. You either hit the ball, or you did not. With situations such as obstructing the field, that naturally is not the case. Any decision, or lack thereof, will be controversial. Simply because the rules are vague and ambiguous.

        Some of the rules are notoriously vague, and are amended by the Playing Conditions: eg. the rules for fielders moving are different in international cricket, compared to domestic cricket. For a layman those mutations of the rules are hard to keep up with.

        Notice how the reactions are to marginal DRS decisions – good decisions when 1% of the ball is hitting the stumps, when you’re bowling, an absolute howler when the same ball is bowled at you. A decision is binary by nature, and you can’t expect to have both the “good decisions” and not receive the “bad” decisions.

        But if people feel the rule makes no sense, or that “willful” is too vague and too wide open for interpretation, then the solution would be to change the rules. But even then there would be complaints. One of the key things about competitive sports is that players will always try to find ways to get an advantage.

        A rule that makes no sense to me is to ask the standing umpires about their “call” on low catches. Which is fine if they are really close to the action, but ludicrous when they are 50 or 60 yards away. Yet those calls go a long way in determining whether a batsman is out or not. Personally, if umpires make mistakes about whether a ball pitched in line (we have seen a few of those in the Ashes), I’d be hesitant to trust their vision with regards to low catches on the other side of the field.

        Either way, it might have been a controversial decision, but not a bad decision. The umpires have more autonomy now to make calls on obstruction, than they had in 2008, when the Sidebottom-Elliot incident took place.


      • d'Arthez Sep 5, 2015 / 9:26 pm

        Sorry, it was a Sri Lanka batsman who was given not out, when he should have been given out. Not the other way around.


  26. LordCanisLupus Sep 5, 2015 / 6:23 pm

    Leaving the controversy aside (and Aggers is on the warpath on Twitter) I was spending some time reading the comic, when I came across Brother of Tim Lovejoy (Alec) and his marks out of 10 for the Oval Test.

    In Alec World, scoring 143 to set up a victory is worth the same as a totally irrelevant 85 in defeat. An 85 to start off a test after the disasters of the previous two opening salvoes is worth one less than a totally irrelevant 85 in defeat.

    Look, it’s minor, it’s peevish, but it’s just another example of how objectivity goes out of the window.

    OK. I feel better for that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 6:40 pm

      I repeat my quote from above……

      “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

      alternatively he could just be very stupid.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rohan Sep 5, 2015 / 6:57 pm

        Well his brother certainly has form with player ratings and now Alec has followed suit, perhaps they are both innumerate?

        Liked by 1 person

  27. Rohan Sep 5, 2015 / 6:55 pm

    Cover up! Make a big deal out of the Stokes dismissal, which had some debatable merits, but is not all there is to talk about and hide the fact that that’s 2 poor performances in a row/some poor decision making.

    Botham says he wouldn’t even have thought of appealing, really, he expects us to believe that. A man of his calibre, will to win and competitive nature, wouldn’t have asked the question. Even if he later regretted it………possibly being disingenuous.

    What has happened to the team that played all those ODIs against NZ? Oh don’t worry, just wait for all those social media types and FICJAM to tell us that we are building for 2019, that this is a young team, that this team is inexperienced, that we need not worry, they will be inconsistent etc. etc.

    I agree with many on here,ms end Aus home, been here long enough. I am much more looking forward to the UAE and SA, ROLL ON THE TOURS!


    • SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 7:22 pm

      They certainly will roll on – the first warm-up match in UAE is exactly a month from today. 38 days to the First Test.


    • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 7:39 pm

      In fairness to England, Aus are the new world champions, and they won it because their bowling attack is good at restricting teams to manageable totals.

      It’s all very talking about a new positive style of cricket but it’s not so easy against teams that have good bowling attacks that can keep it tight. They should keep playing they way the have been though because most teams are not as good as the Aussies. It’s a long curve from where they were of 25 years of laptop cricket theory.

      They do need to find some good ODI bowlers mind.


      • Rohan Sep 5, 2015 / 8:04 pm

        Fair point Mark, I was never disputing the quality of the Aus bowling line up, it is very good. We do bat long, however, and we have some very good batsmen. It is just slightly worrying that some of our batsman, such as Buttler, seem a little lost, whereas only 2 months ago they were racking up 300+ again and again……….


      • Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 9:48 pm

        Rohan I was not in any way criticising you.

        I was just pointing out that Englamd talk about “positive new cricket” which is fine, but it ain’t easy against good bowling.

        They should not change this new approach because they need to get away from the old system that has failed for the last 20 years. Butler is completely out form at the moment, and that weakens the batting line up. 300 odd is still a very get able score these days mind. It’s not like Aus made 420.

        The ODI team is a work in progress as far as I am concerned. It’s going to take years of learning a new way of playing to get any good at it.


    • d'Arthez Sep 6, 2015 / 7:17 am

      A reason why 300 is gettable these days, is that teams don’t pick strong bowling attacks. They pick containing attacks. If the wicket-taking threat is reduced, that of course means more chances for the batsmen to score more runs.

      England basically played three specialist bowlers (Plunkett / Wood, Finn, Rashid), and a bunch of allrounders (Moeen, Stokes, Woakes). Plunkett was first change in the second ODI. Against such a bowling attack it is much easier to chase, than if you picked one or two frontline bowlers in place of one of the allrounders. Sure Stokes may give you a few runs more with the bat than a frontline bowler (even though that is questionable – overs are limited, and only one man can be at the striker’s end). But chances are he’ll concede the gains with the ball.

      This strategy can work, provided, the frontline bowlers actually take wickets. The seamers (Finn, Plunkett) simply have not been doing that. Woakes, Plunkett / Wood and Finn return figures of 51-1-304-3, that is not going to win you too many matches. As a result there is a lot of pressure on Rashid to claw things back. Rashid has returns of 17-0-103-5, and accounts for half of all the wickets England bowlers have taken.

      The fielding rules relaxation will mean that it is much harder than before (eg. New Zealand series) to successfully chase 300+ targets. Still quite doable, but not as easy as before.

      Australia do the same (Starc, Nile-Coulter, Cummins), complemented by 3 all rounders (Watson, Maxwell, Marsh). In both games a part-timer / allrounder had to provide the breakthrough (Watson in game 1, Marsh in game 2). In both innings, once Taylor was gone, the chase floundered. The differences are not so big as the results indicate, but to be fair to the Australians, it was a good toss to win in game 2.


  28. paulewart Sep 5, 2015 / 7:49 pm

    There’s no shame in losing to Australia, they just need to stop making a song and dance about alleged injustices and the spirit of the game. Pish and nonsense.


  29. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 7:52 pm

    England under the directorship of Andrew Strauss in their second ODI against Australia were heavily d…….

    Look! Over there! A spirit of cricket talking point. Nasty colonials don’t know how to behave. Look…..loooooooooook……..

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Rohan Sep 5, 2015 / 8:06 pm

    Just watching the highlights. Am I being over sensitive? Don’t like the booing of Starc……….

    Liked by 1 person

  31. SimonH Sep 5, 2015 / 8:51 pm

    All the MSM I ‘ve heard or read so far think it was not out (although Lawrence Booth is fairer than most).

    Dave Tickner and Nick Sharland think it was out.

    QEFD (as T.S. Eliot might have said).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Arron Wright Sep 6, 2015 / 7:53 am

      And kpateldf24’s first post at the Guardian is so revolting, one-eyed and typical it made my decision for me. Thanks k!

      Liked by 1 person

      • SimonH Sep 6, 2015 / 11:07 am

        When GreekIslandPissed is telling you you’re not well and need help you should know something’s wrong.


    • Arron Wright Sep 6, 2015 / 12:00 pm

      Further down, someone else claims Brave Sir Alastair would have recalled the batsman, while calling Australians “morally feral”. Classic.


  32. Mark Sep 5, 2015 / 9:57 pm

    Well the English press have hated Clarke for years for some reason. Now they have a ready made excuse to hate Smith for the next 300 years.

    We always need a dragon to slay in this country. A new enemy that has to be beaten. Something we can all rally round. It’s pathetic, but quite predictable. I love the way the English media alternate between a quaint ……..”play up, play the game” public school ethos of respecting the umpires decision, Vs. their loathing and distrust of Johnny foreigner.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Ian Sep 5, 2015 / 11:45 pm

    Right I have been out for a few beers so I could have got this very wrong. On return from a said few beers I watched the ECB video of Eoin Morgan being interviewed. It asks Morgan what he thought of Stokes dismissal. He says from his view that he thought it was harsh. Video shows him not even looking Bottom left you can see Morgan not even looking


  34. Arron Wright Sep 6, 2015 / 8:14 am

    The Comic is in capable hands, pt 94:

    Simon Hughes tweets to say that Law 37 needs amending for instances where the batsman is protecting himself from injury.

    And far too many respondents are too ill-informed or trusting of “authority” to point out the obvious.


    • Tybalt Sep 6, 2015 / 12:27 pm

      I hope that enough did point it out. How the level of expertise of cricketers and cricket lovers can be so high (compared to those of devotees of football or American sports, that I also see all the time) and that of “experts” can be so abysmally low is one of those eternal puzzlers of cricket.


  35. man in a barrel Sep 6, 2015 / 10:29 am

    Really odd. In both matches, England were ahead of the game halfway through their innings and crumbled after Taylor got out. You would expect Stokes, Buttler and Ali to get some runs between them. Hales and Roy seem to get out in identical ways every match. All very strange.


  36. SimonH Sep 6, 2015 / 11:41 am

    It’s only a matter of time before the “young, inexperienced side……work in progress…..” meme starts up again.

    One or two facts about this:
    1) The average age of the two sides is 26. Australia’s is 26.8 to England’s 26.2. Shane Watson accounts for most of that difference and he didn’t even take the field.
    2) The youngest player (Cummins) and the most inexperienced player (Burns) were both Australian.
    3) The Australian team are more experienced in ODIs (average of 52 each to England’s 41). This is a result of England’s selection policy – it isn’t as if England couldn’t do anything about this.

    Yet again I’m struck by how the opposition team has a much better spread of ages. Australia’s team ranged from 21-34, England from 24-30 (and without Plunkett that would be 24-28). The laptop that says that players peak in their late 20s is still running the show.

    The idea that England shouldn’t pick anyone who won’t play in WC 2019 is such rubbish. Is any other team doing this? Why was Watto playing? Maybe Australia want to win now as well as at some future point? I can’t help feeling this policy has something to do with ‘him’, something to do with selecting pliable players who’ll do as they’re told and something to do with a marketing strategy that likes words like ‘young’, ‘bold’ and ‘new era’.


    • metatone Sep 6, 2015 / 11:54 am

      England right now would look a lot better with KP in. The middle order is wobbling and some experience and talent would likely make a big difference. Of course, including another batsman would mean looking at the balance of the side again – but I think that’s probably necessary anyway.

      On the bowling side, I’ve been banging on about workload, so I can’t really complain that the bowlers are inexperienced.


  37. man in a barrel Sep 6, 2015 / 12:37 pm

    Ashley Giles’s tweat about “that” incident is hilarious:

    Ashley Giles


    That moment not good for what has been a hard fought summer of cricket. Had time to think about it and should have withdrawn his appeal.

    Does anyone agree that it has been a hard-fought summer of cricket?


    • d'Arthez Sep 6, 2015 / 3:20 pm

      Well, the Sri Lanka – Pakistan series was good, and it happened in the English summer …

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Arron Wright Sep 6, 2015 / 2:08 pm

    The golden age of BTL continues.

    “Averages are completely pointless in assessing batsmen – unless they’re Bradman”

    softlysoftly, on the Guardian’s Watson thread.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s