The Ashes 2006/07: The Perth Test Thread - Day Three.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

When a batsman leaves the ball and are trapped in front you are always going to be judge harshly.

Strauss wasn't trapped in front. The ball hit above the roll and, at the WACA, that means the ball is more than likely going over the stumps. At the very least, the umpire should have given the batsman the benefit of the doubt.

In one of Australia's recent innings, the umpire gave a dead ball as the ball hit the batsman's pads and ran into the field and the umpire adjudged that the batsman hadn't played the ball.

What then is the difference between that and a leg-bye?
Andre, London

The batsman in this case was not offering a shot. Therefore the ball was called dead and no extras were scored. However, had the batsman been playing a shot, any runs would have counted as leg byes.

Strauss wasn't offering a shot. Why wasn't the ball called dead? Is it only called dead if the batsmen try and take runs?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by south beds mikey

Fletcher just being interviewed on Sky and STILL wont admit any selection mistakes!! This really is arrogance of the highest order

If Stewart is right that the dire bowling of Panesar caused a rethink within 24 hours of the start of the first Test... and if Panesar has been brought in because he's had several weeks of intensive net sessions and warm up play to get his act together... then he's no reason to back down from the belief that this was the first Test match of the series for which it was worth risking Panesar.

This conviction that Giles was preferred because of his batting flies in the face of everything we hear: they wanted Panesar and with Harmison looking rusty, Flintoff looking rusty and Panear looking rusty that opton appears to have just struck them as a gamble too far (and an un-necessry one given the series situation and availability of a dependable alternative).

ps. Given that not even Panesar advocates like Boycott believe Panesar in top form would have made any difference at the Gabba and Adelaide... why the big fuss?

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Mike

Strauss wasn't offering a shot. Why wasn't the ball called dead? Is it only called dead if the batsmen try and take runs?

In short Mike, yes. The 'dead ball' scenario only applies to a leg bye. It is designed to stop a batsman using his legs to score extra runs via leg byes e.g. the batsman kicks the ball away and runs through for a single.

As a result, a leg bye can ONLY be scored if the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball. This is obviously a matter of judgement for an umpire to make. I have seen several instances in test cricket of the umpire calling dead ball after a batsman tried to take a run in similar circumstances to the Strauss dismissal.

Regardless of this, you do not have to be playing a shot to be Lbw. In fact, you are much more likely to be given Lbw if you are not playing a shot as if the ball hits the pad outside off stump, you can ONLY be given out if you are not playing a shot.

Hope that helps!

[south beds mikey]

Sorry rachael. Are you still even now suggesting Giles should have played in front of Panesar!!!!!!

Exactly what more proof of the idiocy of this argument do you need?

Fletcher got it wrong and so I'm afraid did you. BADLY WRONG

[Aussie-Yank]

Originally Posted by Mike

Strauss wasn't trapped in front. The ball hit above the roll and, at the WACA, that means the ball is more than likely going over the stumps. At the very least, the umpire should have given the batsman the benefit of the doubt.

Ummm, if the ball was going over the top of the stumps, it means he was trapped in front of the wickets. So he was trapped in front. The height issue is based on the observation of the umpire without the aid of replays. The batsman does not offer a shot and he is hit in front of the wickets - umpire gives it out probably more times than not. I have seen the same thing with KP, Steve Waugh, Viv Richards all where trapped in front and given out - but when looking at the replay the ball probably was going over.

Originally Posted by Mike

Strauss wasn't offering a shot. Why wasn't the ball called dead? Is it only called dead if the batsmen try and take runs?

The ball is only dead after it hits the pad and no shot was offered.

[Rachael]

If Panesar needed an extra 2-3 weeks to be ready then that's what he needed: it's completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.. and it's worth noting that even at the start of this match Panesar was not bowling with the authority he showed in his previous 10 outings.

Bottom line... if Boycott and co accept that Panesar would have made no difference in the first two Tests... why should we be criticising Fletcher and co?

ps. I'm a long-standing critic of Fletcher, dating back to well before (and right through) the 2005 Ashes... but let's stick with long term criticisms that can be substantiated and drop these knee-jerk reactions!

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

The ball is only dead after it hits the pad and no shot was offered.

That's right. Strauss offered no shot. Therefore, the ball should be called dead. It's unfair to give a batsman out off a dead ball. It seems odd that a situation exists where the umpire can call a ball dead after hitting the pads of a batsman who isn't offering a shot and, yet, in the case of Strauss, he is given out LBW. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Dead ball is also signalled if the batsmen complete an attempt to run leg byes when in the umpire's opinion the batsman made no attempt to either hit the ball with his bat or evade it. This nullifies the leg byes.

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

In short Mike, yes....!

If you read my post above, it would explain why this is the case, Mike

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

And as for Stewart - I never liked him as a batsman - didn't ever seem to perform when we really needed him - but at least there was a chance he'd perform. Stewart at seven would make this England team a lot stronger. That's a pretty sad inditement of Geraint Jones, unfortunately.

Well Andy when he opened with Atherton, they were top drawer openers, I always thought it a mistake to drop his down the order, but lets give his credit, he pulled England out of the mire time and time again, also I can't see either Read or Jones averaging half the 40 that Stewart did.
The sad fact is that Read is probably the best keeper in England, but like Jones - he can't bat, so he should be in for his better keeping - I think Jones has shown just how poor he is.

Originally Posted by Mike 123397

Flintoff has gone very negative now with his field placings- Very negative tactics. Please bring back Vaughan. This is not good cricket.

Flintoff most of this series has been setting fields for poor bowling, also Hoggard got an edge, but he did not make that much of the swing - also Hoggard should asked for fielder, if he wanted an extra slip, he would IMO have got one.
If the bowling is poor, I would try and dry the runs up, I would not place an attacking field for the batsmen to plunder runs.

Originally Posted by Mike

Please bring back Vaughan. This is not good cricket.

What could he have done? - I suppose England could have done with another player who makes no runs, not beibg sarcastic - being ralistic.
He could not have captained this team any better IMO.

The cricket is bad - because England have sent over a poor squad of players, the batsmen are as poor as it gets, no captain can be blamed for players making poor shots.

Also Australia being 10 classes above England - has nade for poor cricket, to blame it all on England is giving Australia no credit.

Also on Vaughan as a captain - it was his letting the game drift against the West Indies in the ICC final two years ago that probably lost the Trophy for England, the seamers were struggling to get the Windies lower order out, he never gave Giles one over.

[Seamer]

Is it just me or has Ponting made a strategic error by declaring today?
He has now given England a sniff of victory on what is now a very, very good batting wicket. Has he batted out until lunch tomorrow, it would have given England no chance and recent history shows that England fare badly when they play for a draw. But England play very well when on the attack and if one or two of their players start going for it - you never know.
I think Ponting might have underestimated an England team that has no choice but to attack and go for the win. 550 is a lot of runs but the wicket is good and England have some pretty good batsmen - i'll give England 20% to win.