By what measure
Less runs, worse average. Harris ended up below him on average, but before 5th test was above him therefore if you’d dropped Harris for Bancroft, you were dropping him for someone who’d been worse
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By what measure
Too lazy to check, but I think the difference in runs/average is negligible enough that balls faced to take the shine off the ball takes precedence. I think Bancroft had Harris covered on that going off memory.Less runs, worse average. Harris ended up below him on average, but before 5th test was above him therefore if you’d dropped Harris for Bancroft, you were dropping him for someone who’d been worse
Too lazy to check, but I think the difference in runs/average is negligible enough that balls faced to take the shine off the ball takes precedence. I think Bancroft had Harris covered on that going off memory.
He made an error. From memory Lyon made an error. Paine made an error on the stupid earlier review.If we miss out on the final I think more anger would be directed at Wilson’s wrong decision
It's not a real side mate, so you can make Smith captainWade's second century, even if it was in dead time with the match long gone, probably overcomes his inconsistency to grab a spot.
Then do you give the gloves to Bairstow or Butler? For me, Bairstow, goven Engld picked him for that role.
With Smith barred from leaadership, that leaves Stokes as the probable captain. That Denly makes this team is an indictment on Australian openers, and on English selectors picking Roy on white ball form.
Not winning back the urn is s**t, but we'll move on, see if Australian fans still think this was a dead rubber if they miss out on the final by less than a game...
He made an error. From memory Lyon made an error. Paine made an error on the stupid earlier review.
Move on
On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app
I think the frustrating thing about Wilson's error that folk find hard to move on with, is that in the circumstances of the game(2 runs to win), the closeness of the LBW contact and that Eng had a review left, was that to achieve the absolute argument ending correct decision, Wilson needed to give it out and let Eng use their review...if he was wrong, Eng keep their review and Stokes lives on...if he was right, atleast Eng had the chance to refute Wilson's decision.....atleast on review Eng, wouldn't of felt cheated as the decision would of been correct and Stokes was indeed out....unfortunately Aust didn't get that satisfaction, regardless of Paines ineptness the previous over.....hard to move on when Stokes was obviously out, not due to an Eng or Aust player stuffing up.....but the ump, when the ump had every chance to get the defining, "end all arguments" correct decision....
If I recall the umpire in question had already made many incorrect decisions over the course of the series so yet another one wouldn't have made things much worse for him.The problems with this argument is:
1- Umpires are graded on correct/incorrect decisions so you’re basically saying he should deliberately give what in his mind is an incorrect decision, hurt his own future prospects, solely because Australia wasted their reviews?
2- If the ball was clipping the outside of leg stump, Stokes is out and England lose on umpires call, despite the umpire never giving those out due to doubt and therefore Australia win solely because they wasted their reviews?
3- Finally, why should an umpire help out a team that consistently questioned their calls so badly they kept running out of reviews?
If Pat Cummins wasn’t blind and could actually see that ball pitched well outside leg stump, you would have still had a review! Then again, you had reviews at Lords and didn’t use it there when Hawkeye said it was out! Maybe, just maybe it’s the technology that’s flawed and not the umpire!
Agree mostly however from memory, and it could be flawed, several decisions were in fact made on lbws that were only hitting leg stump. Nevertheless I actually agree that the umpire should go with his belief.The problems with this argument is:
1- Umpires are graded on correct/incorrect decisions so you’re basically saying he should deliberately give what in his mind is an incorrect decision, hurt his own future prospects, solely because Australia wasted their reviews?
2- If the ball was clipping the outside of leg stump, Stokes is out and England lose on umpires call, despite the umpire never giving those out due to doubt and therefore Australia win solely because they wasted their reviews?
3- Finally, why should an umpire help out a team that consistently questioned their calls so badly they kept running out of reviews?
If Pat Cummins wasn’t blind and could actually see that ball pitched well outside leg stump, you would have still had a review! Then again, you had reviews at Lords and didn’t use it there when Hawkeye said it was out! Maybe, just maybe it’s the technology that’s flawed and not the umpire!
I hope the trainers of the horses you back say that they’re happy to run 4th!As for the combined side - you just whoever was picking it would go full All-Australian style and pick Wade as the keeper.
This is incredibly pointless thinking.England at 2.25 were amazing value pre-Test.
Take Smith out and we lose 4-0, maybe 5-0. And we all know it.
This is incredibly pointless thinking.
Take out Stokes and we win Headingley and probably Lord's.
See Jason Roy isn’t even getting picked for Surrey now
You're making a lot of assumptions there:
Paine will be gone.
Warner will be gone.
Bowling line up will be in tact.
On the other hand England will be coming to Australia looking for redemption.
The problems with this argument is:
1- Umpires are graded on correct/incorrect decisions so you’re basically saying he should deliberately give what in his mind is an incorrect decision, hurt his own future prospects, solely because Australia wasted their reviews?
2- If the ball was clipping the outside of leg stump, Stokes is out and England lose on umpires call, despite the umpire never giving those out due to doubt and therefore Australia win solely because they wasted their reviews?
3- Finally, why should an umpire help out a team that consistently questioned their calls so badly they kept running out of reviews?
If Pat Cummins wasn’t blind and could actually see that ball pitched well outside leg stump, you would have still had a review! Then again, you had reviews at Lords and didn’t use it there when Hawkeye said it was out! Maybe, just maybe it’s the technology that’s flawed and not the umpire!
1. The umpire was f’ed anyway
2. Many lbw's were called out against Australia that were only clipping leg AND the top of the wickets so that's a f’ed argument. If it's shown to be clipping then it's out as a live ball clipping is going to be out right?
3. its not about umpires helping a team. It's about umpires calling what's out, out.
Review system was brought in because of poor umpiring and ******* Pakistan indian cheat umpires.
He knew that was plumb...he just froze because he knew if he called it he was basically calling it a win for Australia and because he's a useless umpire he froze on the occasion.
Regarding Cummins and reviews overall see point 3.
If umpires did their jobs correctly we wouldn't need reviews so it shouldn't come down to bad reviews.
Any other f’ed arguments you wanna try and make while most Australian supporters are gone from the thread and you think you aren't going to be picked up on them?
Lol, you think what you wrote is a good argument, just more deluded whingeing
The umpire didn’t think it was out, hence his not out decision...
Identical one not given in previous test, Australia with review don’t even bother reviewing yet everyone rips umpire when Hawkeye claims it’s turning square.
Also the post I replied to was suggesting the umpires do Australia a favour because they burnt their review...
Oh and it is nice the once every 4 year posters have all disappeared, cricket board can go back to normal, just a couple left it seems...
And there was what? 20 others he got wrong, maybe more that got overturned.
So again, go to point 3...f’ed umpires.
He got sacked from the series remember so I wouldn't be relying on the umpires decision to help your argument.
Edit: we retain the ashes even with our f’ed batting line-up outside of smith, Wade and lab.
Keep bleating out inconsequencials it's
Funny.
Pass the cheese for your whine.?
He didn’t get sacked, they named the umpires for the five tests before the series and he was only ever doing the first three, a fact pointed out on the first day of the series...
Also lol at claiming Wade wasn’t part of the s**t batting lineup, makes a hundred when the team is piling on the runs, does nothing for next 3 tests then scores a hundred when game is lost and series over, such a gun...
Australia draw the series with the no1 batsman in the world having the series of his life, celebrate it all you like! Probably some minnows to bash up this summer to make everyone look good again