Players form backpeddling after good starts arriving in the side, indicates to me that the problem may lie within the executive structure of the squad (captaincy,coaching and management)

Snapshot 2005 Vaughan, Trescothwick, Harmison, Pietersen, Jones x 2, Flintoff and Hoggard all travelling along nicely.

3 years later snapshot today Vaughan OK, Pietersen struggling and Tresco, Harmy, 2 x Jones, Flintoff and Hoggard gone.

Of specific concern is the wicketkeepers who for the most part started with a flourish and inside the England Test team lost form.

Well, if that's what he thought, then it wasn't a bad decision, even if it was a wrong one. Taufel's still a very good umpire. Of course he would be even better if he had the existing technology available to him, but that's another discussion.

As to the inside edge, I guess it's like a murder trial where the defendant confesses to accidentally killing the victim (ie. manslaughter), but he hasn't been charged with manslaughter and he can't be charged with it after he's been aquitted. If Taufel didn't know how the batsman had been out, but suspected that he was somehow- well, the fact that he couldn't be sure how is a cause for reasonable doubt. Again, fair enough.

Pietersen's last two years have been the best of his career: 75% success in making starts (using 15 runs as the measure), and 2238 runs at 49.73.

Pietersen's scored 8 centuries and 5 fifties in that time (from 47 innings)... so he's making a major contribution in 27% of matches and has a sensational conversion rate.

He's also notched up 6 scores in the 40s, 6 in the 30s, 5 in the 20s, 7 in the 10s and just 10 single digit scores...

Scott notes that the guy is vulnerable early in his innings... but that's true of all batsmen. Even Ponting and Lara have been vulnerable early on. No big deal.

Footwork, positioning, picking the flight, drift, dip and pitch of the ball and so on are all tough until one has had a few "sighters"... which is why new ball bowlers should (as Hoggard frequently does) make the batsman play nearly every delivery.Sidebottom has had an appalling game... and has been guilty of bowling way too short. He's actually got a general tendency to bowl too short: something the coaches need to address, and in this game his poor length was matched by uncharacteristic waywardness on line.

At least Sidebottom's shorter balls are usually in the right place, and look as if they are intentional: Anderson just gives the impression that he couldn't land the ball on a very large tea tray, let alone on the spot!

Well, at least one experienced observer disagrees with you on Cook:I don't dispute that Martin got Cook and Bell with great deliveries... though you should perhaps consider cutting Collingwood some slack: Gus Fraser rated the ball that got him the "ball of the day".

13 "major contributions" in 47 innings isn't that great, although the good conversion rate is something in his favour. Really, a batsman of his ability should be making a half-century in just over every 3 innings.

Vaughan has hopefully silenced the doubters with that knock,at least for now anyway.

Is it just me or did Collingwood not look fit when he was batting.he seemed restricted in his movement at the crease,maybe his shoulder injury is bad enough to inhibit his batting too? Having said all that the ball he got out to was a good one but before that he looked jerky.

As for Ambrose and Pietersen they got exactly what they deserved with their dismissals,good to see spinners getting lbw's even if Monty's wasn't given later on.

No doubt this will be a draw with Monty bowling a lot of overs today to keep the pacemen fresh for later in the week,i hope Onions is the man called up for Hoggard.

He doesn't disagree Rachael, he merely states which direction the ball was going in. The ball that got Cook out was being defended off the back foot, which just happened to be going to the leg side. That does not automatically mean it was a 'run scoring' stroke, as you wrongly assumed.

You mean you now retract your previous non-sensical comment that they got out trying to score runs and that they would have not got out had they been 'crease occupying'?

I don't dispute it was a 'nasty' delivery to deal with, spitting off the pitch with turn and bounce, but my point was, that you've missed, is that Collingwood did not have to play it, and in a language you may be more familiar with, it was poor judgement of what to leave and what to play.

How do you work that out? Taufel made an error of judgement in answering the series of questions he'd need to ask himself, for that decision to be given out. Wherever that incorrect decision was made is largely irrelevant, because it was still wrong, so it was a bad decision.

I never disputed that and agree he is, but he still makes mistakes, just like any other umpire.

Whenever a ball pitches in line, doesn't deviate and hits a batsman playing from the crease on the kneeroll of his bent back leg, 99 times out of a 100 that will be given out LBW. He could only have had two doubts -

1) That it wasn't going on to hit the stumps. As I've already stated above, that's highly unlikely in this case, without even referring to hawkeye.

2) He got an inside edge. Normally that would save a batsman from LBW, but in this case would have produced a decision of out caught.

There was no cause for reasonable doubt. The ball pitched inline, the ball hit the back leg in line, the ball was going on to hit the stumps, it's out LBW. If he got an inside edge it was out caught.

I still haven't seen that appeal, but I think if the umpire has doubt for any reason, then he can't give it, even if he thought it could be out. Of course Taufel's capable of making mistakes, and it sounds like he made one there, but he must have had some reason for giving it the way he did.

The Taylor dismissal this morning was a funny one, as it looked out initially, then the replay suggested that it hit his bat first, then the Hotspot suggested that it did in fact hit the pad before the bat, so the original decision would seem to be justified. Taylor looked pretty annoyed, but I think that those kinds of appeals are when open access to technology like Hawkeye and Hotspot is needed.

I would normally agree, but in this instance, I saw no doubt, the commentators saw none, so why did Taufel?

And as I suggested earlier I beleive he decided in his own mind that the batsman got an inside edge and forgot the ball was caught.

I don't agree, because this situation is almost identical to the one we've been talking about although not in the position the ball struck. If there was no inside edge he's out LBW, if there is he's out caught. Whichever way you look at it, he's out. The correct decision was made today, presumably because he reviewed his error from yesterday overnight.

I don't know why he was ever doubted.....

Not only did Colly not look fit but he confirmed that he his currently hopelessly out of form

And for some bizarre reason the selectors have called up Tremlett. Not only does he go "missing" when the going gets tough but he'll never be fit for the match anyway. However its all a moot point as the selectors will pick an unchanged XI for Manchester. To me this is a massive gamble as on a helpful pitch and with a no pressure match situation they just didn't look that threatening. If we seriously want to win the ashes next year then we have to hammer NZ in the next two tests and convincingly beat SA, I just cant see that happening

__________________
Mark.