´óÏó´«Ã½

A well deserved century for Cook!

We always keen Cook will finally get a big and important innings and he finally did it! But at the same time all the other batsmen failed and all went out very cheaply

I expect Pakistan to win this test tomorrow,(fully deserve to win)
But if Swann bowls very good tomorrow, Pakistan can collapse and England will have a chance to win and win the series

Seriously poor aptitude from Englands Batsman today.

Cook scrapes an innings together, and then hes let down by the rest of the team. It started last evening with Strauss's lack of application to the situation and then it has carried on through today with the exception of Cook.

The Aussies will be rubbing there hands with glee at facing Pietersen, Collingwood, and the new kid Morgan, as well as the Sherminator as he always wets himself when playing the Aussies

A blessing in disguise for the Aussies?

Cook is still in poor form, this was a very scratchy and lucky hundred. But he is now assured a place in the team for the Ashes.

The test is interestingly placed, Pakistan should win, but it will be a tricky chase.

The umpires don't set the laws of the game. The original recommendation for the umpires to be the 'guardians of light' came from the MCC World Cricket Committee in 2008.

"all matters relating to the fitness of ground, weather and light should be decided solely by the umpires. This would mean that the light would never be offered to the batsmen. The Committee believes that this would result in more play and remove the element of tactical coming off for bad light. Following a successful trial in English county cricket in 2008, which was popular with umpires and players and led to less time being lost to bad light, the Committee urges ICC to adopt this policy as a playing regulation in international cricket."



The ICC did adopt that recommendation and gave the umpires a way to operate and rules to stick to. If the light is 'one darker' according to the light meters and it crosses the line, then it's right to take the teams off. At least with a light meter reading you can use that as a quantifiable reason for taking the teams off rather than the decision being a purely subjective umpiring opinion. Some laws need to have a specific cut-off point, be they involving light meters or drink-drive laws. I somehow don't think you'll get Graeme Swann's lawyer invoking Spinal Tap when talking about being 'three louder' over the drink drive limit! Bad light is annoying but we're not the only country to suffer. Poor light in the subcontinent is often an issue.

What irks me about the complaints over the umpires taking teams from the field is that Beeb journalists and former Pakistan internationals alike don't complain about slow over rates depriving spectators of play.

London at 5 o'clock on a slightly grey day is never dangerous. There was no good reason to come off - common sense on this please.

Ben, I think you aren't giving credit it where it is due, from the reporting on TMs it sounded as if Pakistan bowled superbly.

London at 5 o'clock on a slightly grey day is never dangerous

* for cricket

I wonder if the mistake of Twenty20 'cricket' is having an undesirable effect in how batsmen metally approach the preeminent format of the game!

Still should be dropped. The selectors just picked him until he scored runs, no one has been given as many chances as this vastly over rated player.

It was good to see Cook finally get a score but the problem is when will the next one come? To be honest getting one decent score in every 20 innings played is nothing to really celebrate. It does show though if you put your head down and work hard you can get a decent score on this wicket. The rest of our batsmen should be embarrassed to be honest, but I guess it's just more of the same for most of them. The most annoying thing as a fan is this always seems to happen. We win a couple of matches and it's like the ego's go into overdrive, the players automatically start thinking there better then they actually are, take days off, stop training and workng hard, and show up totally un-prepared for the match. It is just ridiculous that were about to loose this Test match and I don't care who came into Pakistans side it is no excuse. So once again were counting on the bowlers to get 10 wickets for under a 150 runs, yeah thats going to happen.

Well played Alastair Cook a class player who works hard for Essex and England. Odd inns by Trott he needs to learn how to score off a stright ball. Carberry for Troot or Pieterson.

Cook has plyed well abroad and for Essex its not luck he played well today. KP does not look like he does not want to play anymore Trott is not a test no3

A closed shop or keeping the faith?

Since central contracts, England selection has been debated more than ever. Is keeping faith with whoever has been rewarded with a central contract minimising the chances and the morale of the next generation?

We all know how good Strauss, Colly and Cook are but all arguably should have been dropped at some stage (all due to poor form) and we may have seen the emergence of others. However as these players have been identified and paid as the best they are rewarded with chance after chance in Team England. (KP no 100 in 25 innings)

The selectors must have been dreading the idea of Cook getting out cheaply and the risk of a Carberry scoring a century before the Ashes. The complexity lie in, if Cook was rested/dropped due to public opinion and media pressure and his replacement (who they don’t really rate as highly or want) does well, what do they do? I feel the replacement will be under instant pressure to score a hundred as he knows he will not get as many chances as the man he has just replaced. Would any new guy have the run in the team of Colly/Cook without scoring a century? Any replacement would know that the selectors were hoping behind closed doors that they will fail and revert back to plan A.

I feel the best performing county players do deserve the chance to fail. Shah is a good example. Many people did not feel he was better than Colly but after a dreadful continuous bad run felt Shah deserved to replace him. We can mock Shah, Bopara, Bell etc on these boards but if selection remains a closed shop, we may not find the next generation. However based on the record of Cook/Colly/Strauss/KP, have they earned the right to be bullet proof?

How do you strike the balance?

@Ben Dirs

I think you are giving Pakistan's performance, especially the bowling less credit than its due.

If you are using this innings as a marker against how England will fare against Australia this winter, I recommend you look back 6/8 weeks.

Pakistan bowling against Australia (1st test, 1st innings) bowled out for 253, (2nd Test, 2nd innings) bowled out for 88. If Pakistans batting were better in those tests, they would have been able to put more pressure on the Aussie batsmen, giving the pakistani bowling more to play with and a distinct possibility of winning both those tests (if also not for poor catching and freebies by Kamran Akmal).

I suggest, England's collapse was due to brilliant bowling and not poor batting. Sometimes, credit should be rightfully and respectfully given where its due to the opposition.

Collingwood is an awful player, if we can't find any better then we should give up & go home.

Ben Dirs your spot on about our batsmen always seeming to fold like a deck of cards, it's become the normal lately and we always are given the same old tired excuses. To be honest I don't think there was really anything special about their bowling and there definately wasn't anything special or even promising about our batsmen! It's like it's become acceptable within the ECB and England management for the same old batsmen to continually fail. If Cook in the form he's been in could knuckle down and get a century then why couldn't any of the other batsmen at least get a respectable score? Because being part of the "boys club" has it's advantages. Lets look at some facts, there was about 2 weeks between the 2nd and 3rd test, Pakistan had a 2 day warm up match and trained most of that time, England's players did their usual NOTHING!!! and it shows! ego's soarring after a couple of wins and they got together probably on monday afternoon, had a light practice tuesday, and showed up completely not ready weds morning. When will they ever realize that to be the best takes sacrifice, effort, and determination. In the middle of a series you cannot afford to take a week off, especially when most of the batsmen were struggling for form, if you feel that the schedule is to demanding for you then man up and say so and get the $#@@ out of the way and let someone who is prepared to give their all step in.

It is fait accompli; Pakistan will take this one in a breeze. The dramatic collapse after tea is a disgrace.

Everyone, save Cook, should take a serious look in the mirror.

Mr Dirs:

I'd tend to trust the view of an umpire armed with a light meter standing in the middle of the pitch ahead of a view of a bloke presumably not actually there. I nipped off down to the gym when the 9th wicket went down. When I got there, one of the Sky cameras went with the umpires to the middle when they finally called play off for the day. Even with the enhancement that video cameras provide, it was clearly pretty gloomy out there and not fit for batting.

If we were still under the system where batsmen would appeal, do you think England would have started complaining about the light much earlier? Of course they would. Had Pakistan bowled us out quickly, can you see them facing Anderson, Finn, and Broad at 5.15pm today? Not a chance. They'd have been doing the big owl eyes batting expression at the umpires after every ball. The old system with batsmen having more say in light appeals would have seen more overs lost during this summer than we have seen, of that I am sure. Like all new regulations, they will take time to adjust to inconsistencies. It just feels harsh to criticse the umpires for depriving spectators of play when the playing sides themselves do far more to deprive spectators through slow over rates.

I don't disagree on punters feeling shortchanged re. ticket costs if players go off for bad light. The ticket prices are an issue. Players shouldn't play in poor conditions simply because the punter has paid a lot of money. The players don't set the ticket prices. It's time for the ECB to totally review the pricing policy for English cricket as a whole, from tickets for the punters to the bidding system for international games. The decision to allow people onto the Lords pitch earlier this season was one of the best PR decisions by any cricketing body for a long time. The way this summer is ending, with big debates about crowds and prices, it's clear the ECB is right at the other end of the spectrum in the eyes of the public.

Is the umpires' decision "final" or ...?

You trust the view of the umpires because they've got a light meter? That's a bit like saying you trust the view of the linesman in the England v Germany World Cup game because he had a flag in his hand.
-------------------
Silly statement Ben which undermines any just opinion you might have.

A flag is just for signalling, a meter is for measuring. Had the linesman had something for measuring fact he would have got the decision right. At least think these things through before responding will you.

England's fundamental problem in their batting performances is that there never seems to be a good innings built on the collective contributions of the top 7. It is just all a bit lop sided, although I haven't seen a collapse like this for a long time. Usually, our big innings are made up from big scores from two, maybe three players. When we get to Australia we need the top 6 or 7 to comfortably be making half centuries, with the odd player getting a ton, rather than most players struggling for twenties and thirties with the odd one scoring big. Today it was Cook. We all know he has the ability, but it was bringing his talent, his preparation and the will and concentration all together for once.

And Cook's innings was a shining example to all our other batters. Strauss being tentative just doesn't work. The improvements in his game have been because he's confident and positive. The same style suits Pietersen and Morgan. Today neither should have tried to adapt to the game but play their own game in a positive fashion. Infact, the game was screaming out for someone to try and get on top of the bowling, but it was all tentative defensive rubbish and before we knew it we had lost 6 wickets all too similarly.

I think batting will be easier in Australia, but we need to take a supremely confident mentality with us, like our bowling mentality is (usually).

We've actually got a pretty strong batting line up, we need everyone on their game though, and to contribute individually. What was Trott thinking? Pietersen just has to be hisself, cocky. Morgan should try and be our flare player, Collingwood should be hisself and knuckle down and dig in, he never has the need to give away his wicket. Our batsmen all have their different qualities, they just need to be prepared well and concentrate on working to their strengths. Today was a bad day for all of this. They didn't look prepared and just homogenised into one awful style which allowed the good bowling to just dominate.

Having said all of this I wouldn't write England off, but it's looking unlikely now. I'd put the batting in this test down as a lesson, and England can go to Lords full of confidence knowing that they've got the tools to do Pakistan again, who have shown time and again this summer that they are far from solid and consistent.

There is still a chance of an England win, remember this is a Pakistan team that has been knocked over twice for less than 100 this series, (ok without yousuf) but england need to draw on that and use it when they bowl.

Ben I have to agree with #22 Hackerjack, yours was a poor analogy. If the linesman was using a portable Hawkeye that would be a different matter.

So what should be done with the light meter reading? Should the reading at which the light is offered to the batsmen be lowered? Is it perceived by Rameez Raja and Jonathan Agnew that the level on the light meter at which the batsmen currently can come off at is too high?

Maybe I am misinterpreting your point but I cannot see how anyone can argue that an absolute measurement of the light using the light meter is the wrong system compared to the opinion of the umpires after an appeal by the batting team?

I don't know exactly how the sensors on the light meters work but do the light meters accurately reflect the contribution to the light by the floodlights when they are on?

So we have had "Cook for the chop?" and "Cook saves his bacon"

What's next "Cook hams it up?", or if he prepares to bend the knee a bit more in an attempt to improve his batting, will we see "Ready, Steady, Cook"

Perhaps the issue isn't the umpires' light meters or the level at which light is offered? Rather it may be the ticket prices that are charged which are focusing the attention a bit more when decisions like this are taken?

Ged Sweeney / Hackerjack et al,

Certainly the umpires followed the rules by taking the players off when the light meter showed the lower reading that crossed the threshold.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid action in the larger scheme of things.

Surely you can see some absurdity in the fact that the players were brought off for dangerous conditions (which is what bad light is about) when it wasn't dangerous - just because the light meters told them to?

A blind trust in technology and a refusal to use common sense in the face of 20 000 people? Surely these rules are crazy?

However, the Oval suits are no doubt rubbing their hands at the decision as the loss of 17 overs will probably ensure another full day of play and gate reciepts by no means guaranteed otherwise.

#28 Hookers_Armpit - if the light was good and the light meter reading was saying that the batsmen can be offered the light then I agree the level at which the light can be offered must be adjusted. I just don't think you should change the rules in the middle of a game.

Another doom and gloom piece from the dire Ben Dirs.
Cook showed that finally his work in the nets can transfer to the middle. It may only be the first step in his return to form but, nevertheless a giant one.

Ged
As I understand it the players were not involved in the decision.

Apparently when floodlights are involved they are not asked.

Also as I understand it, the light meters are not allowed to take into account light provided by the floodlights. The meter reading leading to taking the players off was adjusted to be the light level without floodlights.

It all seems too complicated and farcical really. Especially when it wasn't dangerous to play even without floodlights.

The ICC really does get itself into some absurd muddles when handling technology and fiddling with rules.

Hi Hookers - I suppose this begs the question "Why bother with the floodlights?"

I agree with your comments about the ICC, IMHO they make some of the old f*rt sporting committees in the UK look positively athletic and decisive

Personally I'm of the opinion that englands batting is poor and has been all series. England don't fire unless strauss gets runs. I thought all of englands problems yesterday stemmed from trott slowing the run rate right down. We've already whitnessed what happened to pakistan when your only in the middle to occupy the crease, your all out for sub 100...

I sat in the crowd at the Oval yesterday aghast when, as the game reached its most exciting point, the players walked off! Which other sport would treat fee paying punters with such a high level of contempt? We all sat there for a half hour or more hoping that common sense would prevail but sadly it didn't and we all trundled off home wondering why we follow this silly game.
In my earpiece I heard TMS discussing the point and to my astonishment, in response to a suggestion that play could proceed with a different coloured ball, Tuffers disagreed saying that cricket should be played with a red ball! That's alright for him - he gets to see lots of live international cricket. The rest of us have to negotiate a day off work and this (in my case) is my only day of the year, so for the players to walk off because the light has changed from natural to artificial is absurd.
We live in England! it is nearly always cloudy and rains a lot so when we have an Oval full of people, some umpires, two teams in whites and floodlights on full blast, the course of action to anyone with half a brain cell seems obvious to me.

Just too many top order batsmen struggling for form, that you can easily see the Aussies into the middle order in no time. Easily resulting in it being done and dusted before we get a win on the board. That's with being presented with what looks like the weakest Aussie side in a while. You just cannot afford the luxury of Cook, Strauss and KP in their current form. One has to go if we are to stand any chance, two if we could find the right batsmen for such an important series, but that may be a step too far. Mentally KP is the weakest and that will be one aspect that the Aussies will not have lost, it would be doing him a favour not to send him out there in his current form.

Just return average powers to those 3 problem batsmen and we have what looks like one of our strongest teams for a long time. What we cannot afford to do is continue with the current weaknesses in the team. Either they play themselves into form immediately or we find someone who can do a better job.

Ref blog header;
No, Cook has not, repeat NOT saved his bacon. Certainly not in my view.
One "jammy" innings of 100+ in relation to his recent test innings has to be taken in context.
Do we wait another 10+ dreadful scores until his next decent knock?
No. He may be a nice guy etc..etc.., but he is not on form at the moment, and therefore a liability for the ashes.
It has been mentioned before by many posters here and on 606, send him back to the counties a la Trotty et al, and let him actually earn his place by putting in a string of good scores (and not necessarily centuries, I hasten to add). Carburry and a couple of others deserve selection more than Cook based on recent innings.
However, whatever I say, and whatever others may agree, he will be on the plane for the Ashes, and IMO he will be a liability and may very well loose England of said Ashes series.
Would love to be proved wrong, but somehow ...errrr ....emmmmm....Nah!

8. At 1:05pm on 21 Aug 2010, Ben Dirs - ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport wrote:
remarkabledermiebutt - But he has though - they're not going to drop him after a hundred.
----------------------------------------

I know. Sad innit??

Please Ben we all know Cook wouldn't of been dropped even if he'd ducked out of the 2nd innings. After all he is Strauss's best mate and the poster boy for the ECB. I find it very interesting that Pakistan have made batting look so easy on this wicket but our batsmen acted like the ball was seaming, swinging, reversing, and spinning on almost every delivery. A good point was made about whenever Strauss goes cheaply it sets the tone and seems to give the other batsmen the excuse to not work hard for runs but act like it is an impossible wicket to score on for 45 minutes or so and then edge your way back to the dressing room. Even funnier will be after the Pakistanis win this match in say at most 2hours Strauss will be giving us all the same old tired excuses and then the lads will all take a holiday till the day before the next test instead of actually working on their shortcomings. I could see giving the bowlers a break after all they did a decent job but the batsmen should be made to actually work on improving their form because sitting at home for another week isn't going to help. If you talk to any player in County Cricket they tell you when out of form the best thing is practice, you talk to the International players and they want rest.

Why can't the incompetent dinosaurs at the ICC once and for all find a 21st century solution for the whole 'bad light' issue? This has to be one (of so many) of the most frustrating aspects of watching cricket, especially in England. The management of the whole thing is a complete PR disaster. Try explaining to someone who has paid a significant amount of money to ultimately be entertained, that there is no play because the light is considered 'dangerous' (do me a favour), when floodlights are on and a spinner bowling!!!! And Agnew and his chums continuely wring their hands about dwindling attendances at test cricket......

I watched in Cape Town last winter at just how much more of an enjoyable experience the SA authorities made it....banks of grass areas where spectators could sit, perfectly safe and how welcome I was made to feel by the staff. Compare this to the 'attitude' reserved for you by some ageing jobsworth encountered at a home test last year who looks at you like you should be falling to his feet and thanking him for letting you into the ground...

£60 per year for twelve-months superb coverage on Sky or the same and more for watching a days play live.....the former please...

#41 Jabsco - things must be bad for the cricket authorities when they come off badly in a comparison to Sky :-)

I even did them additional value for money credit with '£60' per year as opposed to 'month'...what do you dislike about their coverage? The commercial breaks do my head in but that apart, I find it excellent, especially Nasser Hussain who is one of the most insightful and wise sports commentators around.

Why say Cook has to go back to county he never left. Cook Bopara and James Foster play for Essex whenever they can even if they have to ask Englands permission. Cook is very loyal to county cricket. Not a lesson he has learnt from Collingwood or pieterson but mention they are playing badly and need to go back to county to get some runs and the suggestion is rubbished.. Why this should be beats me.

Not convinced; not in the slightest. Cook's failure to produce this kind of intensity consistently has cost England on numerous occasions. AND we still have no reserve opener blooded for the tour.

I can't believe after two batting collapses the selectors are going to go with the same eleven AGAIN and have Tim Bresnan as the 12th man??? What the hell is going on what can Bresnan bring to the team that Shahzad wouldn't I mean he took 1-58 while Shahzad takes 7-132 in the championship the other day. The away and then home tests against Bangladesh were a golden oppurtunity to blood some new batsmen and bring some competion in for places but as usual we blow that and now we have to stick with the same old failures. I now expect us to surrender the ashes with the same meekness shown last time in Australia.

#46 Nimmo27 - as someone who lives in Geelong, about an hour from Melbourne, and has tickets booked for Day 3 of the Boxing Day test at the G, I am praying that a whitewash is not on the cards. I may have got a bit over enthusiastic at work last year when we won the Ashes.....

#35 Ben - I don't believe you have answered one of my questions which effectively was "Which is better at judging the light, a light meter or two pairs of subjective eyes?"

Here in Oz there have not been too many pictures of the game on free to air TV but I have no doubt that you are correct when you say that the light was good enough to play.

However, if the umpires have been given a figure at which the light is deemed unsuitable, for you to suggest (as I believe you are) that they should arbitrarily decide that figure is wrong is something I am not comfortable with. The ICC should use the experience to look at the light meter levels but, as I said previously I am not comfortable with the rules being changed in the middle of a game.

Ultimately I think this is more about the cost of a ticket rather than what the light meter said, and maybe the ECB could think about that, but I won't hold my breath.

@Jabsco79 £60 for a year of Sky? I'd love to know where you're getting your Sky from because last time I checked it was £18 a month for just the entertainment pack, and don't claim that your £60 is just the price for Sky Sports because you HAVE to have an entertainment pack in order to get sports. Which is exactly what I object to. If I could just buy Sky Sports I'd be very happy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

thankes

With his magic three figure knock, the dashing Cook has sent clear and loud signals to the England headhunters. Best wishes to the centurion in his craft.


Dr. Cajetan Coelho