It's The Ashes (again)

[SuperBob2002]

Harry Brook is a wonderful bowler!

[AnelkasBeard]

Desperately unlucky from Bairstow, but would a genuine wicket keeper have taken that cleanly and not knocked the bails of before catching the ball?

Yes.

There is no controversy in that decision for me, he's broken the stumps too early.

Watch again. The side on view shows that the middle stump is knocked back with no bail on it. The umpire was arguing that the middle groove of the ball hadn't been removed from the stump before Smith mdae his ground, but it clearly had when you consider the side on view.

That is out to me.

[SuperBob2002]

So who was exulting the virtues of "classic, boring test cricket"? 7 down, still 98 behind. They've scored about 120 runs all day.

This is exactly why we play with "bazball" tactics. If we batted "properly" we'd be all out for around 150 anyway in double the overs.

So you're just ignoring excellent bowling and very tough batting conditions? 

This is why Test cricket is fascinating and intriguing. Australia going at 2 runs an over wasn't boring. Unless you're a moron. 

They played correctly and tried to see off very good bowling by not risking their wicket. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for us, Broad and Co have bowled on another level since lunch.

If you want to see consistent boundary hitting go and watch the Hundred. (Not you personally, the idiots moaning at Aussies playing 'boring' cricket).

I would argue, Australia dug themselves a hole by not attacking the bowlers. We all know their objective is to win the series and that is fair enough but if you refuse to attack at all, you will buckle under pressure.

Sometimes in cricket you have to respect the conditions and the bowling and bat sensibly. Did Australia take it too far? Maybe. I'd argue they didn't in the morning session and went into lunch in a strong position after seeing off solid bowling. Actually, more than solid bowling (let's be positive about England, as apparently I'm entrenched in my views!).

We've just been brilliant post lunch. You just have to give credit to the bowling attack.

---

How come you're not allowed to sing and have fun in London based cricket venues?

Lord's was soulless and the Oval is very quiet.

[Ted Maul]

Desperately unlucky from Bairstow, but would a genuine wicket keeper have taken that cleanly and not knocked the bails of before catching the ball?

Yes.

There is no controversy in that decision for me, he's broken the stumps too early.

Watch again. The side on view shows that the middle stump is knocked back with no bail on it. The umpire was arguing that the middle groove of the ball hadn't been removed from the stump before Smith mdae his ground, but it clearly had when you consider the side on view.

That is out to me.

Because YJB has clonked it with is glove whilst waiting to receive the ball.

[AnelkasBeard]

Desperately unlucky from Bairstow, but would a genuine wicket keeper have taken that cleanly and not knocked the bails of before catching the ball?

Yes.

There is no controversy in that decision for me, he's broken the stumps too early.

Watch again. The side on view shows that the middle stump is knocked back with no bail on it. The umpire was arguing that the middle groove of the ball hadn't been removed from the stump before Smith mdae his ground, but it clearly had when you consider the side on view.

That is out to me.

Because YJB has clonked it with is glove whilst waiting to receive the ball.

Yes, I realise that. The umpire was talking about the middle part of the bail still being in, as to why Smith wasn't out, even after Bairstow disturbed the stumps without the ball.

The middle part of the bail wasn't still in. From side on, you can clearly see the stump and bail aren't in contact when Smith was outside of his ground. I'm just going off the umpire's intepretation, but think he got it wrong that the middle part of the bail was still in.

[SuperBob2002]

The correct decision was made in the end. But there really should be a rule whereby if a decision is taking X amount of time then you can't give a wicket as it's clearly not obvious and clear. I feel the same about VAR.

Such decisions should only be given when it's clear and beyond all doubt. If you're taking a long time and having to view all sorts of angles, at varying speeds, then there's an element of doubt and therefore you can't say one way or t'other.

[AnelkasBeard]

Ian Ward on Sky has just outlined exactly my point about the bails being out...

[rsbaggy2]

Ian Ward on Sky has just outlined exactly my point about the bails being out...

He also said it took 50 minutes to come to a conclusion. So any gain made in time by bazball will be taken up by a review. You can't have your cake and consume it they say.

[AnelkasBeard]

Ian Ward on Sky has just outlined exactly my point about the bails being out...

He also said it took 50 minutes to come to a conclusion. So any gain made in time by bazball will be taken up by a review. You can't have your cake and consume it they say.

He said it took 50 minutes, one of my friends said exactly the same within minutes, whilst the review was still ongoing.

[rsbaggy2]

Ian Ward on Sky has just outlined exactly my point about the bails being out...

He also said it took 50 minutes to come to a conclusion. So any gain made in time by bazball will be taken up by a review. You can't have your cake and consume it they say.

He said it took 50 minutes, one of my friends said exactly the same within minutes, whilst the review was still ongoing.

Magnificent. He should apply to umpire .. and we can do away with reviews when he is officiating.