TOPIC:

mikeh wrote:

Cardy wrote:

mikeh wrote: Harris is showing the way - good line and length. Watson OK. the other two have bowled far too many four balls and left the Poms off the hook. Bell looks completely at ease and I will be surprised if he doesn't score another century

Yep agree easy 300 plus for the poms..Then we chase .. they we draw

Good wicket - oops the line is a problem.. think he is on it..please

SHIT!!! Clean bowled and not out.. fair call Bairstow survives

Siddle is bowling well.

These are the frustrating little things that Australia do which makes them a very ordinary side. Siddle didn't need to push so close to that line. It made no difference to the outcome and has given a reprieve to a batsman down on form and confidence and he may well make them pay for it. Surely the bowlers should practice getting their foot behind the line.

Exactly! Those few mm`s make zero difference! Who cares about 1mm jeez I hate the front foot no-ball rule its a joke, there should be a buffer zone, or the line should be thicker...something. Why don't they review EVERY ball then? If he had of driven that ball for four then it wouldn't have been a no-ball, its rubbish

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Cardy wrote:

mikeh wrote: Harris is showing the way - good line and length. Watson OK. the other two have bowled far too many four balls and left the Poms off the hook. Bell looks completely at ease and I will be surprised if he doesn't score another century

Yep agree easy 300 plus for the poms..Then we chase .. they we draw

Good wicket - oops the line is a problem.. think he is on it..please

SHIT!!! Clean bowled and not out.. fair call Bairstow survives

Siddle is bowling well.

These are the frustrating little things that Australia do which makes them a very ordinary side. Siddle didn't need to push so close to that line. It made no difference to the outcome and has given a reprieve to a batsman down on form and confidence and he may well make them pay for it. Surely the bowlers should practice getting their foot behind the line.

Exactly! Those few mm`s make zero difference! Who cares about 1mm jeez I hate the front foot no-ball rule its a joke, there should be a buffer zone, or the line should be thicker...something. Why don't they review EVERY ball then? If he had of driven that ball for four then it wouldn't have been a no-ball, its rubbish

They know the rules though Swandog, so they should be making sure that they get their foot well and truly behind the line so the muppets won't call them. Especially an experienced bowler like Siddle. That incident came at a crucial point of the match, they would have been into the lower order if that wicket had stood. As it is now Bairstow is looking more confident, Bell is unshiftable and the Aussies are staring down the barrel of 4 - 300 at stumps tonight and if that happens they will rue that missed opportunity all for the sake of a few mms

anchorman wrote: No excuse for the no ball they know the rules and the consequences.
We let them off the hook again with loose bowling after having them 3/28.Far too many boundary balls.
Missed the last hour,but seems Steve Smith got us back by picking up 3/188 off six overs.We need to roll then early and keep them below 300.
Then we need to bat really well,especially the first five.Need to make a strong platform early with Rogers and Watson.
Would love to see Khawaja get going and make a big score.

Yes he may have taken 3 wickets anchor but f?ck he was expensive...!!!

our batsmen must stand up now. no more relying on the poor tailenders.
we need to respond with a big 1st innings score or we will crumble.

54 runs for a session and lost 6 wickets on a flat track - embarrassing.

Australia have shown today that they are no match for a professional English team. An interesting exercise sometimes is to pick a combined team from both sides and honestly I would only pick 3 Australians in this team, Clarke, Watson and perhaps Harris, the rest would be English. Enough said

shameful batting again. top order has no resiliance at all. poor referrals by watson, and a non referral by rojers.

england 3/31 but will still make us chase a big score.

i dont rate clarke as a leader. australian captains have always known how to make a side a team. we dont get that consistantly with clarke at all i feel. too many distractions when its a captains job to control these things. and it shows with how we have been going for the last 2 years. blatantly.

jardine wrote: shameful batting again. top order has no resiliance at all. poor referrals by watson, and a non referral by rojers.

england 3/31 but will still make us chase a big score.

i dont rate clarke as a leader. australian captains have always known how to make a side a team. we dont get that consistantly with clarke at all i feel. too many distractions when its a captains job to control these things. and it shows with how we have been going for the last 2 years. blatantly.

Is Watsons EGO that big that he referred his LBW decision despite all and sundry thing it was "plumb", by him taking that option it in my opinion, took away rogers decision to review his. Its not about "just you" Watson

I wonder who thought of this referral system in the first place? It seems to me to be adding more controversy to the game of cricket? What's the point in having an umpire standing out in the middle all day? I think we should simply give the referral system the flick and follow the umpire.

Interesting that Lehmann made a point of saying that Rogers was responsible for the botched Watson referral. So a guy who is in his 3rd test is telling Watson who has been a regular for a number of years what to do? Pull us another one Darren