They need to develop a protocol to cover the use of DRS that everyone understands and implements. For example, it seems to be accepted that Hotspot doesn't always pick up faint edges, but its much less likely that it will show a hotspot when there hasn't been an edge. So, allow the 3rd umpire to overrule an LBW decision if hotspot shows the batsmen hit it, or to give a caught behind. But if there's no hotspot stick with the umpire's decision. That could still result in wrong decision such as Khawaja's. But it would reduce the incidence of the bigger crime, when the 3rd official wrongly overrules a correct decision by the umpire, or overrules a decision which is 50/50.

They need to keep using the technology in order to give the manufacturers an incentive to improve it. If they could only get Snicko to work quicker,many of the controversial decisions in this series would have been avoided.

I wish the commentators would stop referring to it as a flat pitch. It's nowhere near as flat as our powder puff bowling made it look.

Umpire's Call is ruining DRS.

The presumption that the onfield umpire was right, even when there is no evidence to support that decision (e.g. Khawaja) is a nonsense.

If there is evidence that a player is out (and I extend that to lbw calls as well - just clipping the stumps is still out) then give them out, whether the original call was a howler or marginal.

Likewise, if there is no evidence to support the original on-field decision, overturn it. Stop being precious about upsetting the standing umpire.

The problem with getting rid of the Umpire's Call, is that basically then all they will be doing is counting the 6 balls an over and giving any wides - they already go upstairs for a no ball to check even when all three stumps have been smashed over, and I don't think that is what the ICC wants, they still want to have the human element in the game to control the decisions.

But if you have technology and are going to use it, they need to simplify how it's used and how they get to decisions - sticking with or overturning.

The only way any decision should be over turned is if there is clear evidence to the contrary given by the on-field umpire. Like KP for instance, given out caught behind, yet hotspot shows no mark on the bat, whether there was a noise or not - so should have been changed and given not out, as that is what the technology they use shows. If they had Snicko, then it might have been different, but they don't

Same with lbw's, given not out on the field and if hawkeye says it's hitting - clipping or smashing all 3 over - then that is out, and should be overturned!

Whats the point in having the use of technology if you go against what the evidence is showing the 3rd umpire??

Where the ball pitched and where it struck the pad is not open to any question - it's a matter of historical fact which hawkeye shows you. But after striking the pad, it's a best guess only. There's a margin of error which has to be accounted for. It strikes me that the margin is far too large at present - half the ball hitting any part of the stump or any of the ball hitting at least half a stump would probably do - but that's why it's there.

It's still guess work though if the on field umpire gives it out or not out - he has no way of categorically knowing if the ball is going to hit or not - it's just his opinion. And in my opinion, if the technology shows that the ball is just clipping or knocking off stump out the ground, that has to be more accurate than the on field umpire who gets a split second to see it and decide, so therefore should be used.

Hawkeye founder saying in the papers today that the issue is that the officials have taken tools to enhance a TV broadcast and, without adaptation, are using it as a means of officiating and therein lie the issues. i couldn't agree more.

Crank clatter whirrr sputter spark cough *ping*......

The Randomatic Aussie Select-o-meter eventually spits out the two words Jackson and Bird.

Should be a decent game here on a decent pitch weather permitting. Very surprised England are unchanged, Broad I think is very lucky to keep his place.

England lose Root cheaply again, still not convinces he's a test opener at this point. His century apart he's not looked comfortable against the new ball, and he should have caught behind early on at Lords.

Undroppable golden child.

England getting a panning in the Cricinfo comments about slow scoring.

Have I strolled into a parallel universe where all the pressure is on them to move the game forward and save the series?

Root looked pretty comfortable by all account before he feathered one. I wouldn't want to see England go back to the revolving door selection system we had in the 80s and 90s.

Sluggish pitch, sluggish outfield. So difficult to get it away and you don't get value for your shots when you do. It's fine.

Root looked fine. Root is fine. Root will play 120+ Tests, score over 10,000 runs at an average of over 50. He'll be just fine.

Trott makes a good 49 and then gets out. Too many English batsman have failed to cash in when they've gotten a good start. The Aussies to be fair to them have worked Trott out a little bit in this series I think.

I think if everyone accepts the limitations of the technology (eg Hotspot can be relied on when it shows an edge but can't be relied on when it doesn't) then the objective of increasing the number of correct decisions will be achieved.

The decision to give Trott out at Trent Bridge completely undermined the process and threw it into confusion. If they'd stuck to the principle of only overruling blatantly wrong decisions most people would have accepted the limitations of the technology. But that one decision caused mayhem.

I can feel a text book England batting collapse coming here...

F---ing hell. It's Nathan f---ing Lyon, not Shane f---ing Warne. ffs

I'd fancy Jamie Lyon to pick up a couple of wickets against the England top order at the moment.

Parsley the Lion


[size=85There's one for the teenagers[/size

I don't think I can recall 2 worse sides contesting the Ashes than these present sides - Yes, during the 90's, we had a few poor sides, but you could rely on the Aussies to keep the standard of the cricket fairly high - These 2 sides are both extremely mediocre and, as a result, the cricket is poor.

England are in desperate need of overhaul before they head off down under, but, unfortunately, they don't seemingly have time to do it....Bairstow is rubbish and is plainly not Test standard - He makes Eoin Morgan look a fair bet for a recall and I never rated him either.

Root has been rushed into the opening slot and unless he is moved back into the middle order, then I can see his Test career being in tatters come the end of the winter tour.... Personally, I'd take a punt on Michael Carberry and get Root back down at 6.

What a total crock of shiite England are with the bat..
Technique aside, which is dire, their attitude stinks!!!
Root and Bairstow are not up to it.
In fact I would say that they look like boys among men.
Not that there are many of those about any more in the England side.

Funny, Root looked pretty up to it smacking 180 at Lords...

Root has good potential, but its likely to go to waste if they continue to expose him as an opener against what is a fairly useful Aussie new ball attack.... He will get ripped to shreds in Australia, unless we move him back down the order.

Bairstow though is just clearly out of his depth - His innings on Friday was painful to watch and you almost felt sorry for him, going through what is an obvious mental torment for him. His dismissal was awful, the type that a club cricketer on a Saturday afternoon would be embarrassed about.

England placed too much emphasis on retaining the Ashes, not enough on winning the sewries

Time for a change in Prior methinks?? Can't buy a run, not been great with the gloves, and since being named Player of the Year, his form has taken a massive turn for the worse!!

Ryan Harris has been the best bowler in this series by a mile. Thankfully he missed the first test!