Phumfeinz Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Can't believe Finn hasn't been dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Can't believe Finn hasn't been dropped. No, although he himself is good at dropping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Can't believe Finn hasn't been dropped. The end for him was when he played French Cricket 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 The 2005 Ashes was amazing because that genuinely was an amazing Australian team, and England were actually better than them in that series. Like at OT when England made Australia follow on - it was a huge pin to the Australian bubble.... they hadn't been made to follow on for a long long long time. Such a series though. Genuinely one of the best series in any sport ever IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Can't believe Finn hasn't been dropped. He was never going to be left out of the squad but he will be left out of the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Can't believe Finn hasn't been dropped. We've moved away from dumping players after 1 or 2 bad games. Why change a winning team? Finn will come good again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Yes but its a 13 man squad with Bresnan and Onions and there's no doubt that Bresnan will replace Finn at Lords but I agree with Xela theres no need to dump him altogether. He still should remain part of the squad. Maybe get a bit of county cricket in for Middlesex and they can bring him back later in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 It is the best form of the game when you get a test like this but the reality is that this form of the game isn't generally what the public want but the Ashes is different which is why it is the only 5 game test series left. Anyway, I've had a fantastic day at Trent Bridge which is just a splendid ground. On to the next test... god I love the Ashes. Then the public are idiots! Its sad but true though, their is no enthusiasm really except when Aussies come to England or maybe at a stretch India in 2011 but that ended quickly when they showed how shit that India team was minus Dravid. Didnt England play a game in Cardiff vs Sri Lanka and think was only 60 people there for final day and that was an amazing turnaround I don't dispute lack of interest with the populist vote, or the casual viewer, now and again, but test cricket is still alive and well, and will continue to be in my opinion. I'd still say it's the number one form of the game. Also if memory serves, the game you're on about was on a foul day weather wise, and no one expect there was going to be any play, let alone a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Yes but its a 13 man squad with Bresnan and Onions and there's no doubt that Bresnan will replace Finn at Lords but I agree with Xela theres no need to dump him altogether. He still should remain part of the squad. Maybe get a bit of county cricket in for Middlesex and they can bring him back later in the series. Very much agree with this. Dropping Finn makes no sense at all. Yes, he had an off match, but he's still an exceptional bowler. Michael Holding rates him very highly, and he knows a thing or two about bowling, so I'm sure he'll come good again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 15, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 15, 2013 Yes but its a 13 man squad with Bresnan and Onions and there's no doubt that Bresnan will replace Finn at Lords but I agree with Xela theres no need to dump him altogether. He still should remain part of the squad. Maybe get a bit of county cricket in for Middlesex and they can bring him back later in the series. Very much agree with this. Dropping Finn makes no sense at all. Yes, he had an off match, but he's still an exceptional bowler. Michael Holding rates him very highly, and he knows a thing or two about bowling, so I'm sure he'll come good again. Totally agree, dropping Finn would have been a mistake. The strength of this England team or the England set up these days is that there is a number of top performers who on any given day could step up to the plate and deliver when the team needs them. At Trent Bridge it was the likes of Bell and Anderson, elsewhere in this series it will be Swanny, Finn, Cook, KP.... that is what a top team should be about. It is very much what the top Aussie team of a few years ago was about, the mucked in together and one or two of them always stepped up because they were a team. I see that in this England team and I love it, bad day at the office on Sunday for Finn but I'm glad to see him still in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Go back 20 odd years, and umpires would just be getting decisions wrong, and affecting the result of a game with their bad calls/poor judgement. The game should be above bad decisons like that. Except it isn't above (obviously) bad decisions still, Jon. The (original) intention of these aids was to remove the howler and in a lot of cases it will but if a side has no reviews left and a howler occurs then the bad decision still hasn't been removed from the game. With the review system comes a number of problems, including: The questioning of the umpire - it is now an integral part of the game to question the umpire and his competence directly; Reviewing becomes such a 'skill' in itself that we have Atherton exclaiming 'what a brilliant review' (rather than what a brilliant ball to dismiss the batsman which is, I guess, where Risso was going with his comment); A lack of understanding about the technology itself which breeds comments like Hussain's the other day to Holding about where the ball pitched being a matter of 'Hawk-eye fact', i.e. he was suggesting that Hawk-Eye's calculation of where it pitched was incontrovertible fact (rather than saying it was a fact in Hawk-Eye world). On the last one, Holding's response was that it was an accepted fact (though often not so) and this is at the heart of it. The technology as the ultimate arbiter of where the ball lands or doesn't or where it may go on to hit is fine as long as everyone involved accepts that, rather than it being infallible and definitive, it is less inaccurate than people and that it is going to be more consistent. The only way we would really cut out controversy would be to accept that decisions are decisions. I don't mind umpires getting calls wrong (or even the third umpire and the technology getting calls wrong) as long as they are not so obviously wrong as to be painfully shit. As per earlier in the thread, I do think we ought to be very, very circumspect about going down the 'computer say no' route of decision making, though. Yes, that's exactly what I was getting out. The replays and appeals all seem to be part of the game itself now, rather than just clarifying the actual real bits of cricket. It was a brilliant match last week, but I wasn't a fan of the way the game ended. A few minutes watching high tech video replays and listening for sounds. I know cricket mostly lacks the continuity of football, but I prefer the days of umpire thinks it's out, game over, he thinks it's not out, on you go. Just seemed an artificial end to a great game of cricket. But then like I say, I'm not a huge fan so if people who are, like it, then that's fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I think the end poin t has to be to get the correct decision. Cricket is a slow game, and lends itself to all this technology very well. The correct decision was made there. Haddin had snciked it, but the ump didn't see or hear it. Ump would not have given him out. The Aussies may have gone on to get another 14 runs and won the match. I think it used to be that the umps were the ones to ask for 3rd umpire when they weren't sure - but that this undermined them even more becuase there were constant referrals and pressure being applied from the teams to refer decisions constsantly - the umps became conduits for the 3rd ump. At least with the way the review system is now, the umpires still have a large degree of autonomy and authority. It's similar to the tennis, where the players only get a set amount of video reviews for line calls. Like when Broad was 'Out', but the umpire didn't give it (it was blatant). How is that not controversial? Of course it is. it's an incredibly bad call, that probably swayed the game in our favour. Technology would have sent him packing (if the aussies hadn't used their reviews up with a 'silly' appeal). I'm all for technology TBH. There has to be a balance, granted, but technology to assist sporting 'justice' should be encouraged, not feared. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I'm all for technology clearing up sporting decisions, I'm just not a fan of the way the replays etc have become such a big part of the game in cricket. It's like it's part of the spectacle, rather than just getting the decision right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) There has to be a balance, granted, but technology to assist sporting 'justice' should be encouraged, not feared. With the caveats that I put earlier, I thoroughly agree, Jon. I also have a lot of sympathy with Risso's point above (becoming such a big part of the game) and I don't think the review system is quite right, yet. I'm blowed if I can quite come up with a better way of fitting it in myself, though! Edited July 16, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 16, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2013 review systems good in my eyes, Aussies wasted theirs on daft appeals. If they only appealed on cases where they genuinely thought the umpire had made mistake, like England did then they would have had Broad out because they appealed a decision so obviously correct they ballsed up. I'm sure they do it sometimes to put an element of doubt in the umpires mind, well they paid the price for it, the review rules did their job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leebarnett2004 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 i dont watch cricket very often. i only really watch the 20's, world cup and the ashes. 1st test was fantastic and IMO Ian bell is looking really good! cant wait for thursday for the start of the 2nd test. And its my day off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 review systems good in my eyes, Aussies wasted theirs on daft appeals. If they only appealed on cases where they genuinely thought the umpire had made mistake, like England did then they would have had Broad out because they appealed a decision so obviously correct they ballsed up. I'm sure they do it sometimes to put an element of doubt in the umpires mind, well they paid the price for it, the review rules did their job Yes drs has been great for the game. Its brought into effect lbws for spinners as umpires rarely gave one when a batsman lunged his foot forward and it hit him on the pad, now they know decisions will be overturned they give them. So this means batters have to use their bats instead of their pads. That makes it a lot more interesting. Not only that if teams use it correctly it rules out the blaring mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 How many more wickets would Warne and Muri have had with DRS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 18, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 18, 2013 How many more wickets would Warne and Muri have had with DRS? It would go both ways I guess, they've have got some they didn't and they wouldn't have got some of the ones they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 2nd test start in an hour or so. I'm half expecting Finnisterre to be dropped, although the fact that this is being played at his home ground and he has a great record there, could save him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts