I agree with bowralcommuter. There's a long, long way to go yet.

In the words of the immortal Bard,  "One swallow doesn't make a summer."

I think DRS is fine - it's just the people using it that are the problem.

The worst part of that decision is that anyone watching at home could see clearly that he was not out. Even Shane Warne at the time commented on what a poor decision it was, as the commentary team appeared to agree he was not out while watching the review process.

The odd thing is that I cannot recall seeing as many poor decisions made using DRS in tests played here in Australia, usually they get it right.

I can understand a dodgy decision made by a field umpire. I had to umpire a game once and can vouch for the fact that is takes a lot of specialised talents to do the job in the field, and regrettably I do not have most of them. But the third umpire sees exactly what we see on the screen, and to get it that wrong is just plain weird.

In the words of the immortal Bard,  "One swallow doesn't make a summer."

"One swallow deserves another", spoken by the mortal me.

I'm off to get a drink

"One swallow deserves another", spoken by the mortal me.
I'm off to get a drink

Best idea I've seen all day.

The worst part of that decision is that anyone watching at home could see clearly that he was not out. Even Shane Warne at the time commented on what a poor decision it was, as the commentary team appeared to agree he was not out while watching the review process.

The odd thing is that I cannot recall seeing as many poor decisions made using DRS in tests played here in Australia, usually they get it right.

I can understand a dodgy decision made by a field umpire. I had to umpire a game once and can vouch for the fact that is takes a lot of specialised talents to do the job in the field, and regrettably I do not have most of them. But the third umpire sees exactly what we see on the screen, and to get it that wrong is just plain weird.

Turns out that the third umpire doesn't make the decision for player reviews, only for umpire reviews (run outs, stumpings, hit wicket). In all other cases (either a player review, or other umpire reviews  such as catches and boundaries), the third umpire can be called upon but only to provide information to the on-field umpire at the officiating (bowler's) end.

Once the review has been initiated, the on-field umpire will ask the third umpire a series of yes/no questions to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to overturn the decision in question. Questions such as "Was that LBW?" are to be avoided. Key point is that the third umpire must not withhold any info that is important to the decision, even if not questioned by the on-field umpire.

In making the final decision, the on-field umpire needs to give regard to the third umpire's information, answers to the questions, and the recollection and opinion of the dismissal as it happened.

So last night, the third umpire would have ascertained that there was no hot-spot on the bat, there looked to be a gap between bat and ball, there was a hot-spot of the bat flicking pad, and there was no sound at the time of the ball passing the bat, but there were some sounds that sounded like an edge (bat flicking pad, and something after ball passed bat). This would have been communicated to the on-field umpire. Based on that info, and the recollection/opinion of the dismissal, the on-field umpire obviously thought that there was not sufficient information for him to conclude that his original decision was incorrect. Somehow.

Edit: Lots of article and commentary around the place today bagging Dharmasena (third umpire). I think this is a bit unfair - blame should be on Hill, the on-field umpire. He is the one that makes the decisions and the third umpire cannot overrule them.

Turns out that the third umpire doesn't make the decision for player reviews, only for umpire reviews (run outs, stumpings, hit wicket). In all other cases (either a player review, or other umpire reviews  such as catches and boundaries), the third umpire can be called upon but only to provide information to the on-field umpire at the officiating (bowler's) end.
...
Edit Lots of article and commentary around the place today bagging Dharmasena (third umpire). I think this is a bit unfair - blame should be on Hill, the on-field umpire. He is the one that makes the decisions and the third umpire cannot overrule them.

If that is the case, then time to change the system.

Go the whole hog and take it completely out of the players hands.   Don't worry about the 2 strikes policy.   It won't slow the game that much, provided the umpires are a bit more replay savvy.   Some of those decisions last night took ages - and he still didn't get them right!
Time to have 'snicko' as part of the DRS too.   It was conclusive with the Kawajah dismissal that he didn't hit the ball with the bat, along with every other bit of technology!

Warner fails again. out for 5 runs of 10 balls.

Another wicket. England now 338-8.

9 wickets now. England now 353-9.

Washed out. A shame, because Australia really did turn up to play on day 5. If they had for a few other days so far in the series, it wouldn't be over by the end of the third test. Oh well.

Wonder if the selectors will go (more) stupid with selections now for the dead rubbers, or try and save face by playing the best team and look for a 2-2 finish?

Washed out. A shame, because Australia really did turn up to play on day 5. If they had for a few other days so far in the series, it wouldn't be over by the end of the third test. Oh well.

Wonder if the selectors will go (more) stupid with selections now for the dead rubbers, or try and save face by playing the best team and look for a 2-2 finish?

Seeing as the next Ashes test is not far away, it might be a good idea to use the two dead rubbers as good practice.

Well I want to see Jackson Bird play, he seems to be a bowler that would benefit from English conditions. I'd keep the batting the same, England keep most of their side the same, hence they have a good side. 8 players in their side are cemented really:

1.Cook
2.
3.Trott
4.Pietersen
5.Bell
6.
7.Prior
8.Broad
9.Swann
10.
11.Anderson

Now look at our side:
1.
2.
3.
4.Clarke (or no.5, depending on his confidence)
5.
6.
7.Haddin
8.Siddle
9.
10.
11.

We only have 3 players that are consistently in the side. I'd include Harris but he could break down any day really. We have no spinner that regularly or even semi regularly that threatens batsmen. Our fast men are good but Starc and Pattinson still show some inconsistency, but since they are young we can show some patience so that's not so much a worry. Khawaja is in the side for now but could get dropped any test. Smith, Watson and Rogers will stay till the end of the ashes but no certainty after that.

Well I want to see Jackson Bird play, he seems to be a bowler that would benefit from English conditions. I'd keep the batting the same, England keep most of their side the same, hence they have a good side. 8 players in their side are cemented really:

1.Cook
2.
3.Trott
4.Pietersen
5.Bell
6.
7.Prior
8.Broad
9.Swann
10.
11.Anderson

J Root scored 180 odd in a match winning innings at Lords.  You are a tough marker!

1.
2.
3.
4.Clarke (or no.5, depending on his confidence)
5.
6.
7.Haddin
8.Siddle
9.
10.
11.

We only have 3 players that are consistently in the side. I'd include Harris but he could break down any day really. We have no spinner that regularly or even semi regularly that threatens batsmen. Our fast men are good but Starc and Pattinson still show some inconsistency, but since they are young we can show some patience so that's not so much a worry. Khawaja is in the side for now but could get dropped any test. Smith, Watson and Rogers will stay till the end of the ashes but no certainty after that.

I agree with your thesis, but I think the reason we don't have stability is even when players do perform in a role, they are generally quickly shunted around to plug a different hole elsewhere.

Hughes is the victim this time: did alright at #6 in the 1st test (and the other games), gets promoted to #4, one bad game (and he was hardly Robinson Crusoe there) two low scores and he's out.

What's scary is the possibility/probability of Clarke's retirement/execution (it's only going to take one bad series - or perhaps even not bad, just not stellar, with the bat) and the prospect of Mitchel Starc assuming the captaincy.

That said, even though 2-0 is probably a fair reflection of the two sides, the result could just as easily have been 2-1 to Australia.

As for our spinners, Lyon is our best spinner - pure and simple.  The fact he isn't good enough to pressure the world's best players in good to reasonable batting conditions - nor roll sides on his own on day 5 pitches - doesn't change that.  The choice should be Lyon or another quick.  The big reason to consider a change - presumably back to agar - is England only have 1 lefty.  Swann (and the Indian offie before him) have had lots of success against our left handed back foot batters and we can't seriously expect that to change.  

What we *needed* was to have picked Stephen O'Keefe for the Indian tour, but I think they *knew* he wasn't going to do his homework .

Personally, I think our best chance of winning back the Ashes this Aussie summer is to continue the "result wicket" policy.  Prepare  juicy pitches, pick 3 quicks plus Jackson Bird, win the toss and bowl first.  So long as we can win in Perth (bit of a lottery), we'll win 3-1.

Long term (by 2015) I think our batting order needs to include 3 of the 4: Cowan, Hughes, Kwaja and Warner.  None of them have a test or first class record too justify a place, but I think we need to invest the time to develop them as test crickets.  One of those 4 *should* be our next captain.  The trouble is there isn't enough space in the team for all of them at once.  None of them have really been given long enough to develop into test crickets and then cement a place, we keep rotating through them whether or not they are successful which is preventing further development.

Smith is another player clearly with enough talent to play test cricket (and is improving), but he is a long way from the finished article.  He's benefited from being a right hander playing against attacks picked to knock over our mostly left handed batting line up.

The question is how do we get 3 of those 5 players to mature into successful mainstays of our test team when there isn't room for all of them to develop in the side at once?

The only thoughts I've had on that is to leave out Warner.  As a test opener I think we can say that experiment has failed.  It's a shame because he's shown he's at his best (IMHO) in Hobart conditions (more like the rest of the world: slower, lower and seaming a bit).  And he clearly hasn't accepted the responsibility of opening the innings for Australia and found a way to be more consistent ... or more effective when he does fire.  

So, I'd make him captain of the ODI and T20 teams, and give him some serious responsibility for a few years for him to learn how to cope and hopefully flourish with it.  He needs some serious work on his game to play in the middle order - something I doubt he even realises yet.

Cowan needs to permanently captain the A side, and that team needs to find some tougher opposition: full national sides preferably (NZ, SL, Pak, WI - just not SA Eng & India) rather than just practice matches or against other (effectively) junior national teams.

Next Ashes game starts in 2 hours. Hopefully Australia win the toss.

Buggar!

I notice interest in this thread has died away with the Aussie performances.

And I made a sarcastic comment about continually changing the team to ensure everyone in the squad gets a game.  I forgot about James Faulkner.  He gets a game now, to ensure we have just 3 specialist batters and 3 all rounders in the the top 6 (that'll fix our batting problems).  

And the 4 seamers in the last game obviously weren't enough, so we've picked 5.

Are we still there?   I thought we had packed up and come home with our tail between our legs.

Go the Girls.   At least they can win a game!

Can the selectors have any less of an idea of how to build a successful team?

I forgot about James Faulkner.  He gets a game now, to ensure we have just 3 specialist batters and 3 all rounders in the top 6 (that'll fix our batting problems).

The term "all rounder" is very loosely used.  It used to mean a player who could get into a side for his batting or bowling alone, but happened to be good at both. If we follow this idea, Australia has had seven genuine all rounders - George Giffen, Jack Gregory, Monty Noble, Warwick Armstrong, Keith Miller, Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson. Smith is a moderate batsman who can roll his arm over, Faulkner is a useful bowler who can hit occasionally, and Watson is a waste of good oxygen because he will not learn, and is not a good team player. Now he's at number 3; the home of Ponting, Boon, Ian Chappell, Harvey Hassett et al, and he's not even close to their class.

Australian cricket is suffering because of players rushing to make money in 20/20 everywhere, and the lack of the best players consistently playing Shield cricket. The Sheffield Shield was, for many years, regarded as the toughest domestic competition in the world. Up and coming players were pitted against the country's best, which gave us a continuing supply of players who had learnt the hard way. Now, as former selector John Benaud said recently, we have third class players playing first class cricket. Meantime, Cricket Australia sits on its collective hands and does nothing.

The biggest problem with Australian cricket is at the club level, I play grade cricket in Canberra, and the price of player registration for the season is a staggering $550.00 dollars.
Now you might say "how does that make our national team weaker?" And I would simply answer, young, talented cricketers, just coming out of the junior competition are not able to afford the best part of a whole weeks wage just for a season? I know that the financial burden is enormous when compared to other sports.
and the lack of talented cricketers playing grade, lead to less competition for the higher grades, rep teams and then state teams and ultimately the National team.

The biggest problem with Australian cricket is at the club level, I play grade cricket in Canberra, and the price of player registration for the season is a staggering $550.00 dollars.
Now you might say "how does that make our national team weaker?" And I would simply answer, young, talented cricketers, just coming out of the junior competition are not able to afford the best part of a whole weeks wage just for a season? I know that the financial burden is enormous when compared to other sports.
and the lack of talented cricketers playing grade, lead to less competition for the higher grades, rep teams and then state teams and ultimately the National team.

The term "all rounder" is very loosely used.  It used to mean a player who could get into a side for his batting or bowling alone, but happened to be good at both.  

Today I think it means picking a batter because he can bowl a bit (ie Steve Smith) rather than scores enough runs to justify selection.  And similarly picking bowlers who can't get anyone out on the basis they *might* get handy runs down the order.

The biggest problem with Australian cricket is at the club level, I play grade cricket in Canberra, and the price of player registration for the season is a staggering $550.00 dollars.

Now you might say "how does that make our national team weaker?" And I would simply answer, young, talented cricketers, just coming out of the junior competition are not able to afford the best part of a whole weeks wage just for a season? I know that the financial burden is enormous when compared to other sports.

and the lack of talented cricketers playing grade, lead to less competition for the higher grades, rep teams and then state teams and ultimately the National team.

That is a horrifying amount of money for a season's registration. I'm glad it wasn't like that for the many years that I played!
Your point is very well made; the so-called grass roots level is where all cricketers start, and the good ones graduate via District and State level to Test cricket. We can't afford to lose talented young cricketers because the cost of playing is too high. . . I don't particularly want to see them all chucking the bats away and buying surfboards.

Well done to Shane Watson. Fantastic innings of 176 runs.