[Cricket] England vs Australia Third Ashes Test - Leeds 22nd-26th August 2019

[Triggaaar]

They really do choke though. As said previously there is a stat that points them out as the biggest chokers in test cricket history.

Is that England or Australia?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Is that England or Australia?

Aussies you plonker

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Just found myself watching the highlights again and remembered I had one unanswered question - who exactly was that **** Warner celebrating too after he took his catches? Every time he would turn around and screech/whoop like a teenage girl. If it was aimed at anyone English I hope they got to give it back to him at the end.

 

[Triggaaar]

Aussies you plonker

I thought so, but didn't want to assume, since I was talking about England when you replied that they really choke.

 

[Triggaaar]

Just found myself watching the highlights again and remembered I had one unanswered question - who exactly was that **** Warner celebrating too after he took his catches? Every time he would turn around and screech/whoop like a teenage girl. If it was aimed at anyone English I hope they got to give it back to him at the end.

I've never seen an opening batsman smile so much after being out for a duck. It was weird, like he's putting on a facade.

He's a nasty little cheat.

 

[Stat Brother]

He's a nasty little cheat.

He's Australian.

 

[Triggaaar]

He's Australian.

I'm no fan of Australian cricketers, but they're not all as bad as each other. Warner just seems to be a complete ****.

 

[BensGrandad]

When is the team for the 4th test due to be announced?

 

[Bold Seagull]

When is the team for the 4th test due to be announced?

The squad is normally announced 2 or 3 days before I think. The starting XI from them an hour before the start I believe.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I saw Glenn McGrath was moaning about how 'Australia deserved to win' and 'Stokes won the match on his own' in his BBC column today. Not exactly gracious, is he? I mean, you could argue that he has a point and that IF Australia had done things differently, the outcome would be different, but that's also the case with England...

It's like the one-day final super over debate all over again

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I saw Glenn McGrath was moaning about how 'Australia deserved to win' and 'Stokes won the match on his own' in his BBC column today. Not exactly gracious, is he? I mean, you could argue that he has a point and that IF Australia had done things differently, the outcome would be different, but that's also the case with England...

It's like the one-day final super over debate all over again

By the same rationale, England ‘won’ the first Test, as Smith won that on his own.

 

[Simster]

I saw Glenn McGrath was moaning about how 'Australia deserved to win' and 'Stokes won the match on his own' in his BBC column today. Not exactly gracious, is he? I mean, you could argue that he has a point and that IF Australia had done things differently, the outcome would be different, but that's also the case with England...

It's like the one-day final super over debate all over again

He wasn't "moaning" and I'd say GM is an excellent ambassador for Australian cricket - he seems quite a fair minded and likeable guy.

At the end of the day, Australia lost in that final hour because of fine margins. One difficult chance to deep backward point fell agonisingly short and a couple of sixes did just enough (them's the breaks), they fluffed a run out chance (clearly their fault) and would still have won if the umpire hadn't missed a clear LBW decision (absolutely not their fault, even if they didn't help themselves by wasting a review 20 mins beforehand). I don't think he's moaning at all, they really should have won - he's not questioning the legitimacy of the result.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I saw Glenn McGrath was moaning about how 'Australia deserved to win' and 'Stokes won the match on his own' in his BBC column today. Not exactly gracious, is he? I mean, you could argue that he has a point and that IF Australia had done things differently, the outcome would be different, but that's also the case with England...

It's like the one-day final super over debate all over again

It's a bit disingenuous. Take the South African out of their team, and that is their overall score reduced by over a third. Stokes's 143 in the match is actually less percentage of England's overall score than Labuschagne's was in Australia's.

Of course it is easy to remember chances at the death such as Lyon's missed runout, but England had plenty of as easy missed chances to deny Australia a total as high as they set. Easy dropped catches in particular could have meant a sub 300 score to chase down in the final innings.

Neither side batted particularly well, not well enough to universally say 'we deserved to win', with over 2 days left to play, Australia failed in taking the score required beyond 400 which a 300 2nd innings would have done.

Stokes innings was the difference for England in the end, but Labuschagne's batting was undoubtedly the difference for them, and in terms of luck, wasn't he dropped something like 6 times over both innings!? Very short sighted to only take the last day in context.

 

[Bold Seagull]

By the same rationale, England ‘won’ the first Test, as Smith won that on his own.

Quite.

 

[Triggaaar]

I saw Glenn McGrath was moaning about how 'Australia deserved to win' and 'Stokes won the match on his own' in his BBC column today. Not exactly gracious, is he?

He's a ****ing tw@.

 

[Jim in the West]

He wasn't "moaning" and I'd say GM is an excellent ambassador for Australian cricket - he seems quite a fair minded and likeable guy.

At the end of the day, Australia lost in that final hour because of fine margins. One difficult chance to deep backward point fell agonisingly short and a couple of sixes did just enough (them's the breaks), they fluffed a run out chance (clearly their fault) and would still have won if the umpire hadn't missed a clear LBW decision (absolutely not their fault, even if they didn't help themselves by wasting a review 20 mins beforehand). I don't think he's moaning at all, they really should have won - he's not questioning the legitimacy of the result.

It's debatable whether that LBW was clear. Ball tracker showed it hitting the stumps, but Stokes himself said it didn't spin, and the Sydney Morning Herald did some sort of analysis, and reckoned Joel Wilson could easily have got it right. Not that it matters, of course!

 

[Greg Bobkin]

He wasn't "moaning" and I'd say GM is an excellent ambassador for Australian cricket - he seems quite a fair minded and likeable guy.

At the end of the day, Australia lost in that final hour because of fine margins. One difficult chance to deep backward point fell agonisingly short and a couple of sixes did just enough (them's the breaks), they fluffed a run out chance (clearly their fault) and would still have won if the umpire hadn't missed a clear LBW decision (absolutely not their fault, even if they didn't help themselves by wasting a review 20 mins beforehand). I don't think he's moaning at all, they really should have won - he's not questioning the legitimacy of the result.

Maybe not moaning then, but in saying that Australia deserved to win is a bit disrespectful to England – well, Stokes and, to a degree, Leach. Take out the ifs and maybes, the former played an unbelievable innings and was focused and clever enough to get the runs required. The latter played his own role to almost perfection so deserves some credit to. What I'm saying is, purely on the evidence of the last day – and that last session, England equally deserved to win as much as Australia. You could argue that Australia didn't deserve to win BECAUSE of the mistakes they made. GM admits himself that 'if you use the review system properly then it can win you a game, and if you use it badly it can lose you one'...

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's debatable whether that LBW was clear. Ball tracker showed it hitting the stumps, but Stokes himself said it didn't spin, and the Sydney Morning Herald did some sort of analysis, and reckoned Joel Wilson could easily have got it right. Not that it matters, of course!

The developers of ball tracking admit that when the impact is very close to the bounce, especially with a spinner, the technology finds it very difficult to predict. If you take ball tracking out of it, and just draw a straight line between the pitch of the ball and the impact point on the pad, then the ball likely misses or clips leg at best for an umpire's call. Ball tracking predicts a ball widths worth of turn between bounce and impact on the stumps. It's the technology at it's most fallible. We'd have no complaint had he been given, but without tracking, you can see why perhaps Wilson adjudged it to have been going down leg for him.

[video]https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2019/cricket-drs/DRS02_1.mp4[/video]

 

[Triggaaar]

It's debatable whether that LBW was clear.

Agreed. Ponting wasn't sure when he watched it live. I've seen the replay several times, and it's really tough to see at full speed, as it seems to clip the front pad just after pitching, still a long way from the stumps.

the Sydney Morning Herald did some sort of analysis, and reckoned Joel Wilson could easily have got it right.

That's interesting, as it would suggest that ball tracking doesn't work.

 

[Triggaaar]

The developers of ball tracking admit that when the impact is very close to the bounce, especially with a spinner, the technology finds it very difficult to predict. If you take ball tracking out of it, and just draw a straight line between the pitch of the ball and the impact point on the pad, then the ball likely misses or clips leg at best for an umpire's call.

For that delivery the ball tracking just seems weird - it just decides that the ball would suddenly change direction at the moment it hit the pad. The line it gives just doesn't look realistic.