91Èȱ¬

Important note to make at this point, England have arrived at this point in the match without a significant contribution from either KP (for obvious reasons!) or Freddie Flintoff.

My feeling about the series, even before KP withdrew, was a good bowling attack and a week batting lineup versus a weak bowling attack and a strong batting line up. I still don't think the Aussie bowlers have the penetration England have, but I don't feel they are being made to work as hard for there wickets as the England bowlers have been in the series. How long can Bopara command the number 3 spot in the batting line up without scoring runs in this series? I wonder if it would make some sense to put either Key or Denly in at 3? I'd feel more comfortable about Bopara a little lower down the order (4 or 5). Personally I feel that upon his return, KP should go in first wicket down, like it or not.

I worry about the consistent effectiveness of England's bowling in the medium term, without Freddie and with Harmy being the enigma that he is. But Jimmy Anderson is geniunely a world class bowler, and Onions is a decent workhorse. I am begining to think that maybe Broad needs a spell out of the team.

I think Ponting and Australia can be aggrieved about the Bell decision but not the others. Clarke was plumb just a few overs prior, and should have been caught by Flintoff. Johnson's looked absolutely plumb to the naked eye so it was a big surprise when hawk-eye said it was going over. It didn't even look like that from the replay.

Anderson haul puts England on top

Mr Brett,

The above is the title of your latest report. You make mention of Rudi Koertzens decisions, and defend your analysis of these decisions by saying Hawkeye showed that he was wrong.

At best Hawkeye allows the TV viewer some insight in the decision making process of the umpire. Otherwise, as with Tennis, they would be using it now, or at least seriously considering it.

Hawkeye, when used in Tennis is reasonably accurate but still relies on calibration before use. (Exact positioning of cameras etc.) ie It will therefore have a plus or minus error. I have no idea what that possible error is, but it will probably be a reasonably small percentage of the ball diameter.

In Cricket, especially on LBW decisions, there has to be a larger degree of possible error, since not only does the system show the probable flight of the ball before contact, it has then to extrapolate its flight after contact with the pad.

The best possible scenario is when there is no contact with the pad and it goes on to hit the wicket! Bowled!!

If it hits the pad, then Hawkeye will work best when the ball travels some distance before hitting it, thus giving Hawkeye a good chance to more accurately extrapolate its subsequent flight. The corollary is that if the ball hits the pad shortly after pitching, then, whatever the makers of Hawkeye say, its largely guess-work. Albeit, extremely well informed guess-work.

I again dont know what the published accuracy (eg +/- 10%) of Hawkeye is, but when I watch the telly, I sort of think of plus or minus a balls width.

Ie If the representation of the ball hits the edges of the wicket and is given Out or Not Out, I take it with a pinch of salt. If the representation clearly hits middle, or misses by more than a balls width, then someone is lucky (batter or bowler swings & roundabouts etc)!

Dont impugn the reputation of an umpire based on Hawkeye. I thought journalists always mistrusted scientists anyway!

In my last comment (above) I said "I hope I will be proved wrong" and, well, it looks like I have a bit. England were very good today. I thought Jimmy Anderson proved my other theory, about England having only one genuinely inspirational matchwinner left in the team after KP's injury, wrong as well. Watching Anderson bowl on the highlights proves that this guy is a world class wicket taker. Taking wickets against the West Indies and New Zealand is all very well, but as Geoff Boycott always says "This is Australlia, now if you take five for or make hundreds against this team you know you are a quality test cricketer". As a passionate Englishman, it gives me great pleasure to see what a player England have produced here. The swing and movement he is getting on a consitent basis with an old ball, new ball or laqured ball, (Whatever that is?) is quite remarkable! Also, Onions was a revelation today, to start like that two wickets in the first two balls, has that ever happened before? I doubt it.This must have given the whole team a boost, he too bowled very consitently today. Yesterday the players, specifically the England bowlers had been hanging around all day, some may have been nervy or a bit jittery, (Oninions is only in his second test series) waiting to get the test match underway. maybe this had a detrimental effect on their performance last evening? You could say the same about the Australlian openers, but the way Watson played considering it was his test match debut as an opener, it makes you wonder, did he have a coaching session from Ricky Ponting? He is after all one of the greatest batsmen to ever lift a cricket bat, up there with Bradman, after going past Border's record. I must say I agree with Michael Atherton's opinions on some of the abuse he is encountering on this tour is a bit below the belt, the guy is a legend of the game. This test match is so finely poised, with England slight favourites.

Rudi Koertzen has lost it. Too old Rudi. Its not about you. Retire.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm sure Denly will play for England one day, but to pick someone so inexperienced, for what will probably be a pivotal game in the heat of an Ashes battle, is a massive gamble.

If Freddie isn't fit I would bring in Key at 3, who after all has scored a double century in that position, and shunt Bopara down to 6.

Harmison would probably have to come in for Broad, although I wouldn't discount Sidebottom, with Headingley traditionally favouring seam bowling.

Anyone else see something of Shaun Pollock in Onions? He is tall, lithe, easy approach to the crease, and bowls straight. Obviously a little early in his career to be drawing comparisons to such a great player, but his bowling looks uncomplicated and easilly repeatable (something that cant be said for "Mitch").

One spell doesn't make a bowler, but his action looks easy on his body . If he can consistently hit good areas, with his deceptive pace, and occasional steepling bounce, he could be that very rare thing. An english bowler who doesnt break down after 2 series.

DanBennett - While I agree that Ponting is a fine player, I just can't believe that people can compare him to Bradman.

Sir Don averaged a mere 43 runs more per innings than him, in an era of uncovered pitches, where batting was much more difficult.

Ponting is undoubtedly one of the best batters of the modern era, but quite frankly he is not fit to lace Sir Don's boots.

Rubbershares. Comparing players of different eras is a difficult thing to do. I mean, everyone marvels at David Boon drinking a new team record of beers several years ago and then there is shock and appall at Hughes being out the night before a game he was not picked for!

Ah, the Denly crowd are vocal as ever. Let him ply some ODI cricket before we drop him into the Test arena. Still not convinced about him. Oliver, if you do get some time, can you find out the back story as to why Denly's nickname (as listed on his Cricinfo profile) is 'No Pants'?

I hope the weather doesn't spoil this as it looks like another cracking match. Strauss has been an absolute rock for this team, never mind Fred or KP. I hope Ravi and Broady come to the party soon. They are fab young players and we need them to kick on for the future of the team.
Jimmy Anderson is an absolute superstar. Love him to bits!

Bopara has been disappointing both with the bat (not least because he looks so good while he is in) and in the field where he has dropped catches and has mis-fielded too often for my liking. But please can we not keeping touting Key as a replacement, he has demonstrated that his batting is of the "rabbit trapped in headlights" variety too often to be taken seriously at this level. For the future either KP or Bopara will need to grow up and bat at 3 with more mental discipline with the other going in with more freedom at 4.

No 4 SWFWillibobs
A well made point.

Peoples implicit trust in the technology of hawkeye is ridiculous. It can and is often very wrong.

A clear example being this years Wimbledon (with a more accurate set up than cricket you say) where a Federer shot was referred - the replay clearly showed chalk dust flying up yet hawkeye called the ball out and the point was lost.

Throw in all the other issues - such as 'flattening of distance' for referred catches and you start to feel that undermining the umpire with technology is a very dubious path indeed. Not to mention boring having to wait around...

Can somebody please explain why we only have such a select few umpires in the first place??? It's like a secret elite club...

Great day of cricket for England. However, Broad is becoming a worry. Not seen him bowl well in a while, not contributing a great deal with the bat either making increasingly more vulnerable to being replaced by Harmison.

Shane Warne said before the series that England's batting would depend on KP and Strauss - thankfully Strauss is playing superbly, masking other failings at the top of the order.

Also, Watson is not an opener which was proved by getting out first ball to a straight delivery (not an unplayable swinging ball). Yes i realise that the ball that doesn't swing is perhaps more dangerous than the one that does in swinging conditions, but not first ball of the morning. Shows how badly we bowled to him on thursday evening.

I live in Australia and am so pleased that the smile is being wipes off some journalists faces over here.
"Australia will win this test", "In the last test, England was lucky" and "Its the umpires fault....", is the headlines I have been reading
Get over it, if the Aussie cricketers were not acting like "prima donna's" they would be doing better.
I have to go now as I have to get my crisps and drinkies ready for a night of great cricket and I cant wait to read the headlines tomorrow over here ....

Have you ever wondered how reverse swing works? I have a son who has a Phd in computational fluid dynamics and who is a research fellow at Berlin University. He knows very little about cricket (amazing for someone born and reaised in England) but during a recent home visit I tossed him an old cricket ball, still shiny on one side and asked him to tell me how reverse swing works. After an hour or so he explained it to me in simple terms (essential) as follows: -
A golf ball is never smooth and always has dimples on it. That is because a smooth ball creates lamelar flow behind the ball as it flies through the air which in turn creates drag. The dimples create turbulent flow behind the ball which creates much less drag so the ball flies faster and further.
An old cricket ball which is rough on one side and shiny on the other creates lamelar flow behind the shiny side and turbulent flow behind the rough side, so the shiny side creates more drag than the rough side. Hence the rough side travels faster than the smooth side thus creating reverse swing.
Knowing how it happens in theory doesnt help a bowler to do it in practice, as the Aussie fast bowlers know!!!!!!

Interesting piece. I think its especially important to note that until we have the next session of play, it would be foolish to count australia out of this test. Ironically, if they perform as well as England did with the ball the following day, then they could conceivably end up with a first innings lead. As for the selection issues I think Bopara was a bit unlucky. I still think he flays too much with his bat and plays at some stuff he could quite easily leave. If he is going to bat at three then id have him play an unorthodox role, and let him play his natural run scoring game. I get the impression that he is trying to do something that he is not really comfortable in doing. bell would be a betetr option at 3 in my opinion. As for Broad, i think if he does not put in a contribution with the ball in the second innings he should be dropped. I agree with Athers that it seems as though he cant work out whether he wants to be a line and length bowler or a fast bowler. He has gone for speed it seems thus far, but this has come at the expense of his accuracy. Against high quality batters like Ponting, Clarke and katich, he will always struggle to be economical or take wickets.

I'll not say that Rudi wasn't wrong in each of the 3 decisions named, but it does forget ones which were given not out when Australia were batting. These things happen, and people tend to carp on about the decisions which are given, then add the ones which weren't given when that side are batting. Umpires are human, and whilst there is still no referral system we should accept that.

rain again!!! what a rubbish summer. Does anybody find the current tms boring? Im afraid to say that ive found the commentary boring this season,for the first time since 1961.Theres over excitement "oh hes out caught!!!!" "no sorry my mistake hes dropped it"Tuffers tries hard to entertain , but hes so unfunny, not the dry wit of the bearded wonder or jonners or sir frederick.Its a pity, maybe im getting older,but we need some characters back in the commentary box ,not the pc lot we have now.But lets hope we get some sun and set this series off and running and some decent cricket.

It is NOT raining, whatever tms say!

James Anderson and Graham Onions turned in fantastic displays to put England in a fantastic position by the end of the 2nd day of the 3rd Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston.
Onions picked up 4 wicket, including 2 from the 1st 2 balls of the 2nd days play, while Anderson who has been in tremendous form throughout the series picked up a 5 wicket haul.


Australia had resumed day 2 in a decent position on 126-1 and would have been aiming for a 1st innings total somewhere of around 400 to put some pressure on England, but the brilliance of Onions and Anderson saw, the tourists bowled out for 263.



The two sides met at Edgbaston 4 years ago and on that occasion England managed to win an epic encounter by 2 runs, the home side went on to win the series 2-1 and regained the Ashes for the 1st time in 16 years.

I'm as enthusiastic an English cricket fan as any but surely I can't be the only one to be thoroughly sick and tired about the TMS team banging endlessly on about the last Ashes match but one. Anyone want to talk about the one we lost last time?

Willibobs: (number 4)

You make a good point!

Recently, a quartet of us (umpires) rode in a cab to the venue of an ICC-assigned match.

One of the topics we discussed on the way was, Hawkeye. The consensus arrived at can be summarised in your comments above, verbatim.

Thus, I would not be one to cast aspersion on (or impugn) an umpire. Occasionally, there can be a split-second lapse in concentration, where the mind might have just wandered a wee bit. Coupled with all the other action and distractions going on at the same time, and then suddenly there's a vociferous appeal for a catch at the wicket or for LBW.

Under these circumstances, if the ump is not 100% sure, the answer must be "Not Out", no matter how unfair it might seem to the bowling side. I'm not implying that Rudy's mind wandered in this case. It is just a possibility. And it can happen to all umpires, even the very best!

Soo much time lost already from this huge Test match occasion.

Still raining ... are we going to get any play today?

Somebody save this match.

To hell with it: reschedule Tuesday to make up for all the lost time.

Sorry, but am I the only one that actually thinks Australia has a (very)small edge or that the match is finely balanced?

As ever, the assumption that England are in the lead/dominant/on top is based on the first innings of the first team in. I've lost count of the times, when reporters have crowed about how great a team is after either bowling the opposition out "cheaply" or posting a high score, only for the opposition to dominate the next innings and make England's performance look mediocre at best.

To get a better picture, we really have to look at both first innings (i.e. once England has actually had a go at posting a score...). To say that English swing bowling has put England on top, "making some good players look relative novices" etc. is rather partisan when we are at 116-2 in our innings (vs. 126-2), with the fall of wickets at 2 & 60 vs. 85 & 126, respectively. This is all somewhat naive.

England, sadly, are prone to mid-order collapses, so who's to say that the Australian's don't "cut a swathe" through out batting in equal measure?

Let's not count our chickens yet, heh, Mr Brett?

Next time, remember (1) to be a little more objective and that (2) cricket is a game of 4 innings/quarters (vis-à-vis 2 halves), as the Australians so very nearly showed us at Lords...

Nice to hear the deafening silence from all the 'experts' on here who were writing Graham Onions off as being 'out of his depth' at international level. Maybe you ought to start looking at the mechanics of what is going on, rather than what the results tell you. Bowling wicket-to-wicket, movement off the seam, the odd delivery of 90mph plus, and at times some devastating swing both ways.... and a great attitude. Not too dissimilar to Dale Steyn, if you think about it. This guy has got the lot, and the more settled in the side he becomes, the more devastating he will be. He ought to be being groomed as a new-ball bowler.

Am I the only one to think that some of the discussion going on here about who has the 'edge' in the game (etc) is all pretty meaningless given that the result of this game is almost inevitable?

I'm sure this has been debated many times before - but I'm with CollisKing - why _not_ play on Tuesday? I am at a loss to understand why cricket is almost unique among major sports in not building contingency arrangements into the schedule to give disrupted games a chance of reaching a result.

I _am_ looking forward to Headingly Oliver - but that kind of makes my point really. Most of us have more or less written this game of already, so the next couple of days play are 'interest only'. Clearly it is too late to do anything about this series - but isn't there at least some space for a discussion about this for future test series? If they can do it for ODIs, then there is some precedent to take as a starting point.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.