He dropped it. Not sure why he appealed it

However this finishes, I'm really going to miss this series I think it's been fascinating from start to finish. 

1 hour ago, ChrisyG said:

Labuschagne - 9 runs in 118 minutes 🥱

Yeah but that batting allowed Khawaja to bet loose and score at blistering rate of 1.8 an over. 

I understand it at the end of the day running down the clock. Come back in the morning and go for it. But that first session was dull as can be and they're still 50 runs short of England at the same stage.

There is of course a balance. Labuschanges 5 off 44 (and counting) won't help attract new test cricket fans (and I say that as someone who can watch a Mark Selby safety battle) 

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

We did that when Ali and Root was at the crease actually. 

Root managed 11 balls.... 

Think I'm partially agreeing with Jim 😱😱

I enjoy the front foot approach but when you've just lost a wicket or two why not ease off for few overs and build back into it? We seem to play into the momentum that the bowlers build up when they get a wicket. 

I wouldn't enjoy the aussie approach where they had 1 run for 5 overs at one point but atleast some attemp to protect your wicket would be nice. 

It's the pass it out from the back at all costs mentality, sometimes you just need to smash it into row z

10 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

That hasn't aged well, even over 20 minutes

20 is generous. Two had gone within 5 mins of that post. 

7 minutes ago, Gav said:

England flying along here, 61-0 of 11 overs!

5.30 an over!

This aged well

4 hours ago, DeeCee said:

Never seen a post before that I didn't understand any of the words 👏

I was following it as far as "If the" then lost it. 

4 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 Silly statement by someone who's never played it. Try facing a hard 80mph ball 

At Lords we were aiming pelters at the head of a one legged tailender. Why is it all of a sudden dangerous to play in, for example, light rain to top order batsmen?

10 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It’s not that simple. Try bowling with a wet ball.

It's a soft sport.

Also man up and play in a bit of drizzle

I'd rather watch slow boring cricket than no cricket at all. It needs to build more flexibility into its timing so you can finish a game. That includes not letting teams get away with a slow over rate. 

30 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Stokes isn't arrogance

Can categorically say that he absolutely is and could find you a dozen teachers that would say so (and much worse). As a sportsman though fantastic. 

11 minutes ago, Gav said:

It was certainly on sky in 2005 too, but your point still stands.

You can catch up on BBC each night during this Ashes series, I also think C4 had some coverage.

It was C4 in 2005 then it went exclusively to sky at some point before the next Test

12 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

We had Ashes fever in 2005. Even people who weren’t previously interested in cricket got involved.  Interest was at an all time high in my experience. Than the powers that be sold cricket to SKY. 

2005 was the first bit of test cricket I properly watched. I remember it being the school holidays. I'd have been 13 and I think we still only had 4 channels so it was just by chance i put it on but after the first time I remember just getting up every day and going to put the cricket on. I wasn't the only one either. That was the moment to capitalise on the new found interest instead they took it off free to air TV and my interest in cricket became a passing glance at the big events.

I'd say this series has done a lot to capture people's attention again and from my point of view it has been an entertaining series even when we've lost. Its a shame that the sports approach to time and scheduling has resulted in it fizzling out. Imagine what it would have done for interest in the sport if it was 2-2 going into a decider with momentum in the favour of the under dog. Now we're playing for a draw and the Aussies retain the ashes by default. 

35 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

There is a difference between it being light and it being light enough to play cricket. I certainly wouldn't want to be facing say Mark Wood with the red ball in hand at 20:30.

I get that as light is going down but the sun ain't going down at 630 at this time of year. 

One thing I don't get though is that it's claimed to be too dangerous for fast bowlers at a certain light yet at Lords(?) I watched as both teams chucked 85mph balls at batsmans bodies and head, why isn't that dangerous? 

38 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

They are given an extra half an hour in the day to get the overs in that they can't do that is poor on their part. England's overrate yesterday given they bowled predominantly spin and knew they weren't going to get a huge amount of playing time was dreadful

Agreed. Needed to speed up. 

38 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

That is just part and parcel of cricket rain has saved England in the past think back to Cardiff in 2013. It saved us in Sydney from another whitewash on our last tour down under.

I don't like it regardless of who it benefits. I wouldn't want to win by default. As sports fans we surely want to see a game decided in play on the pitch not by the weather forecast in the dressing room. 

Imagine the football world cup gets postponed for whatever reason and they just decide its a draw. It wouldn't happen. 

Again as an occasional cricket fan - test cricket will struggle to attract new fans if a test series, the apparent pinnacle of test series, can be decided by the weather. In no other sport would such a thrilling contest be allowed to fizzle out. This series should be 2-2 and set for the ultimate decider. Instead it fizzled out and England now playing for a draw. 

More flexibility needs ro be built into the timing. This time of year its light from 7am - 9pm yet we can only play 11-630 ( latest 730). When there was such heavy rain forecast for day 4 and 5 why are they not making them play the full 90 overs on the good days. Why are we wandering off for tea after two hours in the only weather window of the day. Why is there a pitch inspection  at 12:15 and lunch taken at 12:20. In any other sport, if an event had been rained off it would be rescheduled. In any other sport every effort would have been made to get players on the pitch but cricket seems to be male every effort to keep them off it. 

It's a shame, the format of 5 day cricket is fantastic. The different strategies and scenarios that play out is griping. Letting it be decided by the weather is a compete disservice to the game

12 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

The biggest loser of time is overrates. England's overrate yesterday as it has been all series was unacceptable and so has Australia's for that matter. 26 overs lost due to slow overrates in the first 3 days of this test and that is with the additional half an hour as well.

Yeah true that's been a huge issue as well. I just find cricket seems to be a giant exercise in finding as many ways to not be on the pitch as possible 

What's with all the stupid breaks in cricket. It was clear there was limited playing time yesterday but they still took afternoon  tea. They've been having drinks breaks galore and now they're taking lunch 5mins after the pitch inspection

51 minutes ago, JohnD said:

My weather app shows little or no rain at OT until around 3pm

 

Well my conclusion after checking several weather services is that weather forecasting is a crock of shite 🤣

A lot less optimistic about the weather today. Reckon there will be half an hour about 4 when it's not raining. 

16 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

What’s it say for 16:00 onwards?

Thanks in advance 😀

Back up to 60% rising to 80% by 1900. I've been told the met office app is one of the more optimistic ones so I'm choosing to ignore the others 🤣

Edit: Back up to 60% all day now boooo

Met office looks more optimistic for the afternoon...

What score will stokes declare on...