creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[bwfcdan94]

Get in. On to Lords.

[BWFC_Insane]

Brilliant game of cricket though and would have been the same if they'd knocked off the last 15.

Australia seem to have come back strong and this is going to be a challenging series.

But still test match cricket is the greatest game in the world in my view.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thank fook. I don't know what the doubt was there. You could clearly hear the 'Knick' as it went past the bat. Heard it in real time.

Post match, Jimmy Anderson said he did not hear a nick - nor apparently did the ump.

[BWFC_Insane]

Thank fook. I don't know what the doubt was there. You could clearly hear the 'Knick' as it went past the bat. Heard it in real time.

Post match, Jimmy Anderson said he did not hear a nick - nor apparently did the ump.

Yeah they may well not have with the noise going on there, but stump cam picked it up clearly.

Wasn't a criticism of the umpires, more the commentators who were making out like it was not out for a while yet they like us could hear the sound clearly as ball went past the bat.

[Bruce Rioja]

So, will there now be a moral outrage that Haddin didn't walk? Bet there isn't.

[Montreal Wanderer]

So, will there now be a moral outrage that Haddin didn't walk? Bet there isn't.

Was there when Clarke didn't walk yesterday? Storm in a teacup if you ask me. The game used to be played by gentlemen and some amateurs, and the umps had no help. In North American football you can challenge a refs ruling - if you are wrong you can run out of challenges but if you are right it doesn't count against your allowable challenges. Is it the same in cricket or do you have a set number per innings and that's it? With the umps having technology on their side there is no need to walk. It was Clarke's fault for having wasted his challenges frivolously.

[BWFC_Insane]

So, will there now be a moral outrage that Haddin didn't walk? Bet there isn't.

Was there when Clarke didn't walk yesterday? Storm in a teacup if you ask me. The game used to be played by gentlemen and some amateurs, and the umps had no help. In North American football you can challenge a refs ruling - if you are wrong you can run out of challenges but if you are right it doesn't count against your allowable challenges. Is it the same in cricket or do you have a set number per innings and that's it? With the umps having technology on their side there is no need to walk. It was Clarke's fault for having wasted his challenges frivolously.

You have 2 in test matches that use DRS and you only lose one if you are wrong.

There is a tactical way to use them that Cook seems to be better at than Clarke so far.

[Bruce Rioja]

With the umps having technology on their side there is no need to walk. It was Clarke's fault for having wasted his challenges frivolously.

Oh I absolutely agree. Didn't stop one or two having a strop though when Broad stayed put.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

So, will there now be a moral outrage that Haddin didn't walk? Bet there isn't.

Was there when Clarke didn't walk yesterday? Storm in a teacup if you ask me. The game used to be played by gentlemen and some amateurs, and the umps had no help. In North American football you can challenge a refs ruling - if you are wrong you can run out of challenges but if you are right it doesn't count against your allowable challenges. Is it the same in cricket or do you have a set number per innings and that's it? With the umps having technology on their side there is no need to walk. It was Clarke's fault for having wasted his challenges frivolously.

You have 2 in test matches that use DRS and you only lose one if you are wrong.

There is a tactical way to use them that Cook seems to be better at than Clarke so far.

To be fair, Clarke acknowledged Cook's use of reviews was far better than his in the match. Be interesting to see if he learns.

Cracking test. Hopefully the remainder will be as good.

[TANGODANCER]

Watched an hour of the highlights. Bucking Frilliant. Great contest and we now know it'll be a tough series. Fantastic cricket all round and wonderful entertainment.

[Bruce Rioja]

Indeed. The 5-0 whitewash merchants are conspicuous by their silence now.

[Dujon]

Two no.11s and two pretty decent batsman made the match (sorry Mr Haddin for my earlier comments). In all other respects England was superior. Agar & Hughes plus Pattinson & Haddin are allowed to strut today - the rest have some thinking to do. James Anderson was wonderful throughout the game, Finn needs a sedative after that performance, but I'm sure he'll be back - perhaps not for Lords. Bell was a rock in the second innings, his century on a slow pitch was well crafted. Did he give any chances? I can't recall one.

Technology: As time goes on I'm becoming somewhat disillusioned with the 'hot-spot' system. It is incredibly sensitive to heat - which of course it's supposed to be. Some of the decisions apparently made on its evidence in this test seemed somewhat circumstantial rather than definite even when combined with the 'snickometer'. From time to time I use a sound dB meter. I can put it on a covered table and watch the display whereupon it will show me all the noise that its sensor picks up. Ambient noise varies considerably but in amongst the forest of those spikes there will be constantly relatively huge peaks even though there is nothing noticeable to my ears. Maybe I'm being a bit 'picky' but that puts the technology into a grey area as far as I'm concerned. Before any one of you jumps on me, I think that both sides in this test match suffered/gained from the deficiencies I perceive.

Anyway, roll on the second test.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Two no.11s and two pretty decent batsman made the match (sorry Mr Haddin for my earlier comments). In all other respects England was superior. Agar & Hughes plus Pattinson & Haddin are allowed to strut today - the rest have some thinking to do. James Anderson was wonderful throughout the game, Finn needs a sedative after that performance, but I'm sure he'll be back - perhaps not for Lords. Bell was a rock in the second innings, his century on a slow pitch was well crafted. Did he give any chances? I can't recall one.

Technology: As time goes on I'm becoming somewhat disillusioned with the 'hot-spot' system. It is incredibly sensitive to heat - which of course it's supposed to be. Some of the decisions apparently made on its evidence in this test seemed somewhat circumstantial rather than definite even when combined with the 'snickometer'. From time to time I use a sound dB meter. I can put it on a covered table and watch the display whereupon it will show me all the noise that its sensor picks up. Ambient noise varies considerably but in amongst the forest of those spikes there will be constantly relatively huge peaks even though there is nothing noticeable to my ears. Maybe I'm being a bit 'picky' but that puts the technology into a grey area as far as I'm concerned. Before any one of you jumps on me, I think that both sides in this test match suffered/gained from the deficiencies I perceive.

Anyway, roll on the second test.

Fair enough Dujon but without all this technology Broad was called not out and Clarke was called out - so nothing would have changed. The difference that technology makes is that we know (99% certain) whether the umpire was right or wrong. Technology would have allowed the Aussies to get the correct call on Broad (which the ump missed) but they had wasted their opportunities to take advantage of it - that too is interesting. I found this test fascinating, in part because of the technology and the rules regarding challenges -it was also a cliffhanger with Aussie 10th wicket stands! At Lords one suspects the Aussies will only challenge if they really believe they have a case.

[BWFC_Insane]

Two no.11s and two pretty decent batsman made the match (sorry Mr Haddin for my earlier comments). In all other respects England was superior. Agar & Hughes plus Pattinson & Haddin are allowed to strut today - the rest have some thinking to do. James Anderson was wonderful throughout the game, Finn needs a sedative after that performance, but I'm sure he'll be back - perhaps not for Lords. Bell was a rock in the second innings, his century on a slow pitch was well crafted. Did he give any chances? I can't recall one.

Technology: As time goes on I'm becoming somewhat disillusioned with the 'hot-spot' system. It is incredibly sensitive to heat - which of course it's supposed to be. Some of the decisions apparently made on its evidence in this test seemed somewhat circumstantial rather than definite even when combined with the 'snickometer'. From time to time I use a sound dB meter. I can put it on a covered table and watch the display whereupon it will show me all the noise that its sensor picks up. Ambient noise varies considerably but in amongst the forest of those spikes there will be constantly relatively huge peaks even though there is nothing noticeable to my ears. Maybe I'm being a bit 'picky' but that puts the technology into a grey area as far as I'm concerned. Before any one of you jumps on me, I think that both sides in this test match suffered/gained from the deficiencies I perceive.

Anyway, roll on the second test.

The third umpire can't use the snickometer though. It's only for the TV guys and the viewing public. No decisions are based on it.

The third umpire has access to:-

The front foot of the bowler replay.
The replay of the decision in normal time.
The slow-mo of the ball passing the bat.
Audio from the mics next to the stumps.
Hot spot.

The final wicket decision process was:-
1 Not a no ball.
2 Normal video, could hear a noise as ball passed bat.
3 Slow-mo definitely picked up a noise as ball passed bat and showed bat did not hit the pad and ball did not hit the pads or the thigh guard or anything that would account for the noise. Therefore seemed likely the ball had hit the bat.
4 Hotspot showed a mark on the bat as ball went past, indicating it had hit.

Now in that case it was clear cut. I'd be interested to know what happens in a situation where a batsman is given not out by the onfield umpire, and the review gets as far as 3 but shows nowt on hot-spot. It would be the third umpire's discretion I imagine. But that would be more difficult I suspect.

[bwfcdan94]

Indeed. The 5-0 whitewash merchants are conspicuous by their silence now.

I would not back against that. It was more that England batted poorly and Agar played a great innings then anything else, still think it is possible for us to win 5-0.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Indeed. The 5-0 whitewash merchants are conspicuous by their silence now.

I would not back against that. It was more that England batted poorly and Agar played a great innings then anything else, still think it is possible for us to win 5-0.

I'll put money on Australia winning 5-0.

[Bruce Rioja]

Indeed. The 5-0 whitewash merchants are conspicuous by their silence now.

I would not back against that. It was more that England batted poorly and Agar played a great innings then anything else, still think it is possible for us to win 5-0.

Of course it's possible, just not probable, I think.

[TANGODANCER]

Fair enough Dujon but without all this technology Broad was called not out and Clarke was called out - so nothing would have changed. The difference that technology makes is that we know (99% certain) whether the umpire was right or wrong. Technology would have allowed the Aussies to get the correct call on Broad (which the ump missed) but they had wasted their opportunities to take advantage of it - that too is interesting. I found this test fascinating, in part because of the technology and the rules regarding challenges -it was also a cliffhanger with Aussie 10th wicket stands! At Lords one suspects the Aussies will only challenge if they really believe they have a case.

Technology actually showed that the Oz effectively gained 90 runs they wouldn't have had if Ager had been given out stumped first innings (which he well appeared to be). Hairline stuff went both ways, but that one decision changed the whole game. Broad was a goner in reality and stayed, but Trott suffered a wrong call and had to walk. It's what makes it such a fascinating game.

[Worthy4England]

What a totally absorbing 5 days of cricket. I unfortunately had to drive to work on Sunday so could only listen on TMS. Finn sounded like he had a "give yer head a shake, Son" last few hours (not that he set the world alight first innings.)

I got to the hotel, just in time to see the "snick" on the telly - volume was down, so I couldn't hear it, and with my dicky eyesight couldn't see any hotspot either - thought we were getting a "Broady" in reverse.

Can't wait for the 2nd Test.

I've been a little unsure (as I was in the Rugby) why folks would tip us to whitewash a team one place down in the test rankings than us. Yes, man for man, apart from Clarke probably, we have a better team, and we could win 5-0, but they're certainly no mugs and will undoubtedly raise their game against the old enemy.

[bobo the clown]

... I see Anderson, now on 317 test wickets, and currently the 3rd highest English test wicket taker, is now only 8 behind 2nd placed Bob Willis (325) though some way yet to catch Botham's 383.

Given that Botham batted too and was, an 'all rounder' you do begin to realise what an act he was.