England 170/2 at tea. 170/2!
Given we’re batting last, though, I’d want to see at least a hundred run lead, although part of me would take just not being 200 all out.
Agreed, but 200 all out from here would be a far more serious disappointment than Australia getting 162 from their last 2 wickets, and that was bad enough.
Also agreed on the scoring rate. Indeed, the slower we score, the better - in fantasy land, we post 600-odd but take 3 days to do it, making the final day pitch their problem rather than ours.
201/4, Australia finding a bit of swing with a replacement ball.
Lordy, Lordy, we are watching some Test cricket!
The “broken arm” comment was totally wrong and should never have been said. One correction- Smith never used sandpaper on the ball- his was an offence by omission rather than commission. I do agree that any English cricketer would cop heaps and I don’t necessarily agree with that either (unless it was Douglas Jardine).
As for not walking, I wouldn’t expect a batsman to walk- Gilchrist seems to be the only one I can recall in somewhat recent years.
Bottom line is the viewing public pay to get in and can yell what they want within reason. The barracking seems pretty pointless as it is having seemingly no effect.
Maybe we can do a trade off- we’ll stop including any Marsh’s in the Australian side and you stop sending out the Barmy Army. Though that is hardly a fair exchange. How about if we include one of the Marsh’s?
Cumbrian, just for the record I can never get my head around the whole ball tampering affair. It was unnecessary, totally against the spirit of the game and something I could never condone. In the rear vision mirror the Steve Waugh led teams were driven to winning but never had to resort to underhand tactics. They also had some extremely good players- something Australia lacks at the moment.
There are so many cameras around the grounds these days that anything so simple is bound to be discovered so it was a really stupid and clumsy approach, but the point is that it should never have been entertained in the first place- or more precisely, never should have occurred to anyone to even attempt it.
If you lose a series that is okay- it happens to all teams. To cheat is not okay.
Aha, here is that collapse we were all waiting for. Still, at least it’s come with 300 on the board rather than our customary 30. We are going to need to bowl even better to get anything out of this one, you feel.
Provided it’s Rod, I’m fine with that.
If Anderson was fully fit and roaring, I would be much less worried. Currently 44 ahead with 2 wickets left, with Anderson not certain to bat. At the start of the day I was hoping to get up to a hundred lead, and we may well still get there - both Woakes and Broad can bat handily.
Moeen continues to disappoint with the bat. I’ve said it here before, but I really expect more from him. But his bowling makes him worth his place. Unlike Johnny Bairstow.
And since I haven’t said it yet, well playing Burns!
Iron Gloves- hell no!
Quick query- should Smith get to score a century would he be the first Australian right handed batsman after Steve Waugh?
Lead now 100.
England seems to be pinning it’s hopes on a ball change.
Broad only has one more spell in him today. Not sure why Woakes has not had more of the ball.
Denny looks a reasonable part-timer and seems much more potent than Moeen.
??? What?
Steve Waugh scored his last century in 2003.
Centuries by RH batsmen since then include
Love,
Ponting
Martyn
Hodge
Gillespie
Clarke
Symonds
Haddin
Watson
Smith
Voges
Burns
Handscombe
Maxwell
And if you are talking century in both innings then Ponting has three since Waugh
Lead now 200
Target now to bat out the day, that’s a further 45 overs.
Can’t see any option to make a declaration today.
HE’S OUT!
Honestly, this whole series is going to be about the different ways in which England fail to get Smith out.
I was talking of centuries in both innings in an Ashes series. I had forgotten Hadyn (left hander of course). Thank you for your input.
Three quick points- the media seems to be making a lot of Denly wasting a review. In the end it made no difference at all so I have no idea why it is being hammered- apart from having something to report.
Siddle was unlucky not to have a wicket he bowled very well (I wouldn’t have had him in the side which undoubtedly helped his performance).
Finally, re Jimmy Anderson I see runners aren’t allowed any longer. Can anyone assist in why this change was made and the reasoning? I hadn’t heard of it.
Contrast what he did with Pattinson’s LBW in the first innings. Patto got fired with a delivery which would barely have hit a 3rd leg stump, but he wore it and walked because Smith potentially needed a review more. The fact it turned out that the Poms couldn’t hit Smith on the pads in the next 40 overs and 150 runs is immaterial.
Witness the number of LBW reviews Root made successfully because he know he’d edged it onto his pads. Denly new full well he’d hit it, and that the catch was taken cleanly. He was hoping for a “no ball call”. That’s Watto level of self absorption.
You gotta love the guys who put in 100%.
Disallowed in 2011 based on umpires referees determining if an injury had occurred, and even what constitutes and injury.
The convention was the injury had to to be suffered on the field, during the match. If the injury was preexisting then no runner was allowed when batting.
Players had been claiming a runner when suffering cramp or other instances of unfitness rather than physical injury. Arjuna Ranatunga whom the Aussies vehemently hated would call for a runner anytime he batted for more that 30 minutes. Hence the Healy sledge: “You don’t get a runner for being overweight, unfit fat c**t!”
Same old Aussies - always winning.
Can someone who followed more of the last two days than I did explain how the Aussie bowlers were suddenly able to get so much more from the pitch than England? Apart from Lyon of course, clearly we don’t have a spinner in his class. If Ali isn’t dropped for the next Test the selectors should be fired. Likewise Bairstow, sorry to say it seems I was wrong about him (no surprises there, of course).