It’s been fixed now, but for a while today the Wikipedia entry for the Ashes said:
Oh - something else whilst I read through the stuff I have missed on the thread. Many thanks for best wishes from those on the thread. Confirmed that the last place I could have got a job within the company isn’t going to keep me on, so this week, I should get final confirmation of redundancy. On to the next thing, I guess. At least I paid for my Ashes tickets to The Oval test some months ago…
Yeah, I didn’t see Perera’s innings, but every account said it was fantastic, and just the numbers show that it’s at least as good as the one by Stokes.
I agree that England got a bit lucky. As an Aussie fan, I’m far more upset by the bad use of reviews than by Lyon’s mis-field on the run-out chance. Anyone can make a fielding error like that, but on the LBW review, it was clear to anyone with a pair of eyes that Cummins’ ball pitched way outside leg stump. It must have been clear to the bowler, and to the wicket-keeper (and captain) Tim Paine. I was swearing at the screen when they called for the review. Admittedly, with so few runs left to get, they might have thought that they wouldn’t get another chance to review anyway, but it was still a terrible decision. And wouldn’t you know it, only a few minutes later they desperately needed it when Wilson turned down the next leg-before appeal.
Still, the Aussies had some luck too. The rain delay after the second wicket on Day 1 probably helped them out, and the English fielders gave Labuschagne what seemed like nine lives. I agree with all your points about England’s red-ball woes, but this Australian team isn’t exactly setting the world on fire either. If England had managed to score even 120 in their first innings, and/or held onto a catch when Labuschagne gave them a chance, they wouldn’t have needed Stokes’ historic heroics to win the match.
Best of luck with your job search, Cumbrian. Have fun at The Oval test. I hope that the Aussies have managed to sew up the Ashes by then.
Stokes … bloody hell
(and sorry to hear that Cumbrian and all the best in your job search)
So I’ve been on a french beach for most of the day. Flakey wifi and intermittent updates. My boules and frisbee is not all it is cracked up to be but I did create a minature oxbow lake and caught shrimps and a hermit crab.
Don’t suppose I missed much in the cricket did I?
Nope nothing much really.
In hindsight there were some markers there. Alot of focus on Englands 67, but it didn’t give Australia a massive lead. They needed to bat better in the second innings and didn’t. At England 3 down and the wicket starting to play better- well, a win was a long way off but possible. At 7 down requiring 100 not so good but Australia let England off the hook with a dropped catch, a missed run out and screwing up the reviews.
Series on!
Cicero do you think Paine is a long term leadership option?
To be fair to umpire Wilson (not that my lack of expertise is much consolation), on first look at the lbw he didn’t give, I thought it wasn’t doing enough and would have missed leg. In fact it was a big turner, but given it hit the pad fairly low, that wasn’t obvious until the replay/ball tracker. I hope it teaches all captains an important lesson about reviews (that they really ought to have learned by now, anyway).
With that and other matters, England were certainly the luckier side overall. TPTB must be absolutely delighted with how it sets up the rest of the series, though. It’s really too close to call in the series now. Will England be able to ride the crest of this wave and put together a good enough performance to take it, or will it galvanise Australia into crushing us?
If only we had a Boycott/Gooch/Atherton/Stewart/Trescothick/Strauss/Cook (anyone care to add to that list?) to open the batting - or even a Warner (yes, we’re that desperate) we might be a half decent side. I saw Vaughan on the highlights helpfully suggesting Roy moves to 4 without offering a name to replace him. Because there isn’t anyone.
I think the most amazing aspect of Stokes’ innings was that, before he scored his third run he was playing the fifth slowest innings in Test history for batsmen facing over 60 deliveries.
I thought in the World Cup match with Australia he had been in the process of single handledly winning that game, until he got that amazing Starc yorker. Same MO, came in at 3 for 20 odd, dawdled along and then started to really let go. Not much resistance when he left but I think had he hung around England would have got the runs there too.
He would have won the game against Sri Lanka with one decent partner. The last 4 got 6 between them. Stokes got 24 off the last 10 balls he faced.
So what he had planned was no secret it was just impossible to stop.
Tactically he seems fine and I have read that he has been very good in pulling the team together after the shambles of RSA. However he has blundered with the reviews and it must be difficult for a wicket keeper to know about an LBW appeal.
However, the problem would be as to who to replace him. Smith and Warner are out, the bowlers retation policy would rule them out (except Lyon) and with the likelihood of Khuwaja being dropped for Smith you really have only Wade or Lyon. I think Paine is pretty safe- and he also will have Smith back to assist with the harder tasks (if he wishes).
Yeah, I don’t really blame Wilson for not giving him out on the initial appeal. I thought, seeing it live and full speed, that there was a chance it was out, but I suspected it was missing. When I saw the slow motion replay with ball tracker, I was surprised at how easily it was hitting the stumps. I wasn’t annoyed with the umpire; I was annoyed with the Aussies for wasting their review.
Apparently, with multiple further viewings and feedback from Stokes the consensus is that it did hit the front the pad which straightened the flight and Hawkeye didn’t seem to take that into account. That suggests that the true track would have taken it more down leg. Looking at it myself for the first time that certainly seems plausible to me, after hearing the commentary I was expecting it to be no-brainer plumb but my initial thought was that it clipped the front pad.
I’m afraid I can’t be as forgiving. He is an elite level umpire and getting paid as such, and has had the benefit of seeing how the ball is going .It is not the first error he has made.
Also I can’t quite get the logic. The ball hits the front pad and straightens but Hawkeye doesn’t take that into account. I don’t buy it - there is sufficient length between where the ball pitches and where it strikes for Hawkeye to gey a fix.
However the bottom line is that Stokes won the game. Australia had their chances.
If the ball did hit the front pad and diverted it onto a stump-trajectory and the umpire based his decision accordingly (on the first point of contact), then it was probably a very good decision.
perhaps, perhaps not. It certainly isn’t foolproof and it isn’t used to plot deflection off the bat so I don’t know if it is able to differentiate between movement off the surface, through the air and off a pad.
Stokes says it hit his front pad, I’m not sure what he has to gain by saying so. Hawkeye plotted the contact point in relation to the back pad. Either Stokes is lying or mistaken or Hawkeye got it slightly wrong. I don’t know. To my eye it certainly looks like it clipped the front pad.
Novelty Bobble, I’ll take your word. You have more reasons to watch it over and over than I have 
In other news NZ pulled out a win against Sri Lanka, despite losing 145 overs to rain. Latham and Watling both got centuries, and they managed to bowl Sri Lanka out for 122 in less than a day.
Yes, one of the commentators on the sporting channel was mentioning how it was expected to be a draw and then the Kiwi’s just pilled out a great bowling performance to win it for them.
AK 84, said expert was asked bluntly if he thought Paine was in trouble as a captain, and the guy said he is probably safe for the next two Tests.
I was watching that Test and remember the damn Sidchrome advertisement robbing us of watching the ball live.
Looks to me as though Hawkeye calculates the path after contact with the front pad, but it does look like the tracker path deflects. I’m going with Hawkeye getting it wrong and a good (actually superb) decision by Wilson.