Jump to content

The Ashes 2015


jawillwill

Recommended Posts

Why can't test umpires call no-balls any more ?

This was discussed on the radio, where one reason given was that they are afraid to be shown as wrong by TV replays. However, if the front foot rule is a law of the game, surely it should be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't test umpires call no-balls any more ?

This was discussed on the radio, where one reason given was that they are afraid to be shown as wrong by TV replays. However, if the front foot rule is a law of the game, surely it should be enforced.

 

They don't need to bother. If a wicket is taken the review will catch it. They were saying on Sky that the bowler will continually overstep because the umpires don't pull them up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't need to bother. If a wicket is taken the review will catch it. They were saying on Sky that the bowler will continually overstep because the umpires don't pull them up on it.

It is rubbish.

Was watching when Wood was doing this on skysports, as i said earlier 8 or 9 extra runs from that.

 

Even though some of the Aussie dismissals have been atrocious, Warner, Marsh, Smith - supposed to be number 1 batsman in world, apart from Lords, been shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't need to bother. If a wicket is taken the review will catch it. They were saying on Sky that the bowler will continually overstep because the umpires don't pull them up on it.

 

But a no-ball means that the batting side get an additional run, and the ball should be replayed. This is a Law of cricket, why does it only count when a wicket is claimed ? Apart from anything else, if a bowler is properly called for overstepping, there is less chance he would have sinned when a wicket is taken as he will be compensating in his run up.

One of the things mentioned on the radio was to move the square leg umpire to standing square of the bowling crease, as his need to rule on run outs, stumpings, and decisions on catches carrying to the slip cordon, has been taken away by the use of the 3rd umpire and TV replays. If he was so moved, then he could rule on 'foot faults' and the standing official could concentrate on watching the batsman's end of the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a no-ball means that the batting side get an additional run, and the ball should be replayed. This is a Law of cricket, why does it only count when a wicket is claimed ? Apart from anything else, if a bowler is properly called for overstepping, there is less chance he would have sinned when a wicket is taken as he will be compensating in his run up.

One of the things mentioned on the radio was to move the square leg umpire to standing square of the bowling crease, as his need to rule on run outs, stumpings, and decisions on catches carrying to the slip cordon, has been taken away by the use of the 3rd umpire and TV replays. If he was so moved, then he could rule on 'foot faults' and the standing official could concentrate on watching the batsman's end of the pitch.

 

I agree. Sky tried to do an analysis by looking at the umpire's eyes to see if he was looking down at the bowler's feet as he bowled, but apparently not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were suggesting yesterday on 5 Live that England pick a few fringe players for The Oval. Bugger that - get the strongest xi out, make sure the pitch is a seamers' paradise and hammer them 4-1.

 

I remember a reporter in one of the papers once describing the Australian cricket team as a venomous snake; you dont take your boot off its neck until the sun goes down and its stopped wriggling, or it will jump up and bite you again.

 

Personally would like to see Warner's and Johnson's faces ground into the wicket after all their smug smart-arse trash talk either side of Lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a very surprising team selction by the Aussies.

 

Dropping their allrounder for a batsman (given Watson was already not in the team) only left them with 3 pace bowlers and a spinner on a traditionally pace freindly wicket (since 2008 in the 6 tests at TB, pace has averaged 25.76 with spin going for 62.33) that was a showing to be a green-top.

 

Given they had to win at TB this was a shocking decision that they'd drop a bowling option, and even more so because Stark's fitness was in doubt. The second Marsh was dropped for Marsh England won the Ashes.

 

Personally if I'd been a selector, I'd have selected Siddle for Lyon (the pitch & conditions would have suited Siddle, and Smith could have bowled the odd over of spin if required). This would have given them a decent 4 man pace attack with Marsh as a good 5th pace option.

 

I'd have also brought in Watson for Voges (yes I know Watson is 5h1t but he would have been a very useful part time 6th pace bowler in those conditions and you could guarnatee he'd have got 30 runs before throwing his wicket and a review away, that's over twice as much as top scorer, Extras scored in the first innings).

 

My biggest worry is that England have been made to look good by the shocking performance and team selection of the Aussies.

 

Let's hope for similar conditions at the Oval and similar performances. 4-1 has a nice sound to it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...