Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sending an offender down under? Ashes 2017-18

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by longeared View Post

    Don't think this series has been TMS's finest hour, though admittedly they've not been helped by Aggers only doing part of the series and their pundits being raided by BT.
    They haven’t lost anyone to BT though, have they? It’s just that they are doubling up for both broadcasters and TMS has always had their people do that, though normally for foreign outlets.

    I complained about both BT and TMS’s obsession with the “Barmy Army” earlier in the series and it is quite depressing to see them try to ingratiate themselves with such a bunch of boorish wankers.

    Comment


      I've only listened to the TMS podcast this series. It misses the dynamic Agnew and Boycott used to have. At least they have Ed Smith on there, and his input is vital in lessening the time spent listening to that increasingly tedious narcissist Michael Vaughan.

      Whenever I see Vaughan as part of a discussion panel, the only interest when he starts talking is watching other pundits' reactions. Ricky Ponting's tends to be the best. When he and Vaughan are two of of the four standing round a table in the outfield on Channel 9(?) coverage and Vaughan starts talking, Ponting has a quick roll of the eyes, puts his mike down and just tunes him out.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
        They haven’t lost anyone to BT though, have they? It’s just that they are doubling up for both broadcasters and TMS has always had their people do that, though normally for foreign outlets.
        Yes, Blowers in the 70s would do TMS and Australian telly. There was a reciprocal arrangement in UK Ashes series where someone like Alan McGilvray would do stints on TMS alongside his main Australian media gig.

        Best wishes to Mrs Emma Agnew, whose Twitter feed is great.

        Comment


          TMS haven't lost anyone to BT as such but it's still badly impacting on their broadcasts - the BBC are very much the junior partner in the time available for the pundits. You can go through huge swathes of a day's play without hearing Vaughan or Boycott in particular - regardless of what you think of them, it means there's a considerable imbalance to the time allocated to each voice. In the Brisbane Test Tuffers was on so much it almost felt like the others were popping in occasionally just to give him a rest.

          Comment


            Ah, that’s an interesting point and explains why TMS has felt a little flat this series. Ed Smith is my favourite commentator and Simon Mann’s good but you (and James) are right that there is a lack of balance and dynamic and they’re missing Agnew and Blofeld as well as needing more Boycott. Is Vic Marks even out there with them this series?

            Comment


              The only one I don’t like on TMS is Tufnell, who seems like a decent bloke, but isn’t even attempting to analyse the play most of the time.

              I could listen to Simon Mann all day - exceptional broadcaster.

              I think Vaughan is actually much better on the TMS podcast than during the day, when he tries to do banter rather than talk about what’s happening.

              Comment


                I've not heard much, if any, of TMS this series. The occasional podcast but, as has been said, it's not the same without Agnew and Boycott doing it. Boycott didn't do it over the summer either. He did something called FaceBoycs live. With no Agnew to rein him in, it was not a pretty sight. Vic Marks I think I've heard occasionally when they do the TMS journalists' panel, on lunch of the last day of each test and I read his weekly columns in the Observer.

                Comment


                  Regarding talking about the Barmy Army - is that such a problem? There’s a specific, pretty big group of supporters who use that specific name, so describing them as such seems reasonable. Are they just given too much respect?

                  Comment


                    Way too much respect in my opinion. If you've ever had the misfortune to read one of their "jokey" songsheets - which in itself to me shows how seriously the BA takes itself - you'll know what I mean.

                    Comment


                      It sounds as though Starc is not going to be risked and might not be needed anyway because Bird can take wickets on a Sydney pitch, plus of course Australia's massive spin superiority. 4-0 unless Australia have to bat first on a devilish, seaming wicket.

                      Comment


                        Crane replaces the injured Woakes, who might have been useful on a grassy wicket. Big workload for three seamers if Crane and Ali get clobbered.

                        Starc back for Bird. No 2nd spinner.

                        Comment


                          98-3. Top 3 gone.

                          Comment


                            Root fails to turn 50 into 100. Again.

                            Comment


                              Oops, YJB goes, day evens up.

                              Comment


                                Chin music tomorrow morning to a new batsman, followed by a debutant then the tail.

                                Comment


                                  Insane decision not to send in a nightwatchman, I wonder who made it.

                                  Comment


                                    I'm not a massive fan of nightwatchmen in general. And though this decision was a mistake it shouldn't detract from a) the excellence of Australia's new ball bowlers, and b) Root's frailty in playing such a loose shot when well set. Again.

                                    Anyway, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this series will finish 4-0. Well done Australia.

                                    Comment


                                      Australia would need to collapse twice to lose it. Warner and Smith would have to fail twice.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
                                        Insane decision not to send in a nightwatchman, I wonder who made it.
                                        Bairstow himself apparently. Mason Crane was padded up and ready to go. 3 down and it was advantage England, now the long England tail is only a wicket away. Advantage Australia.

                                        Comment


                                          Yeah, Swann on BT immediately afterwards and later reports confirm that England’s policy is that the batsman due in next decides if a nightwatchman is deployed or not. It seems a foolhardy policy, is it common?

                                          Swann also said it smacked of misplaced bravado from Bairstow (in trying to prove he was brave enough to face the Australian attack in hugely difficult circumstances) when there was very little upside he could achieve in less than three overs.

                                          It reminded me a little of someone like John Terry striding up in a penalty shootout, a wilful display of “balls” over brain.

                                          Comment


                                            I've never been a fan of nightwatchmen. A decent batter should trust himself to be able to play out a few overs.

                                            Comment


                                              There was a study done on the benefits of using a nightwatchman a while back. It found that teams that employed the tactic failed more than twice as much as they succeeded. There is disruption to the batting order, pushing the recognised batsmen further down the order, and also the chance of the bowling side to attack the inferior batsman first thing in the morning.

                                              http://www.sportstats.com.au/nightwatchman.html

                                              Comment


                                                That's extremely interesting VT. It reminds me, in an odd way, of one of my fave stats things by Andy Zaltzman, where he established that the nervous 90s do not exist as such –*batsmen are less likely to get out in the 90s than at almost any other stage in their innings, except when they're just starting. However, batmen are very likely to get out between 100-110. So those nerves seem to have an effect, just not where you might expect.

                                                So, James Vince played another dashing little innings before getting out once again to a rash shot in his 20s. It is now obvious that the selectors have to act – namely, keep picking him repeatedly until the law of averages finally dictates he is due a big score.

                                                Comment


                                                  The one justification might be where the conditions are significantly worse than they'd be the following morning. That applied in the Day/Night Test but not here. Bairstow got a fantastic delivery but could just as easily have received it coming in after Crane, but with the added problem then being that the line-up goes straight from Ali at 8 to Curran at 9, a big drop. Ali gets stranded just when he was finding some form (in theory), or Malan gets stranded as the last 4 fall for 10 runs.

                                                  Comment


                                                    I agree with all the above. I really, really dislike Nightwatchmen. Firstly, if Bairstow is out to a great delivery (or crappy shot), then there's every chance that Jimmy Anderson will be, too. And then you're left with the question of sending a (ridiculous) second nightwatchman in. Even if the nightwatchman survives the night, he's almost certainly getting out in the first five overs of the morning, giving the bowling team much needed morning confidence plus another bit of scoreboard pressure. And, of course, it means that a middle order batsman has less chance of actually making a score as he's trying to shepherd the strike with a weak tail. You don't want any of your competent batsmen coming in at 8.

                                                    Satchmo is correct. It only makes any sense if conditions really are going to be dramatically different in the morning.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X