if people are booing at the umpires they are being a bit unfair. it's not their fault.

and the umpires should not have the discretion to same playing conditions are suitable in one match situation and unsuitable in another.

they either are, or they aren't. give the players and umpires the discretion to play on if they want to, once that line has been crossed.

Sorry, haven't checked whole thread, but do we know what light readings were today compared to Durham>

according to Michael Clarke in his post match interview, 5.9 today versus 8.7 in Durham (lower = darker, beyond that I've no idea what it means).

Presumably there is a "limit" whereby the umpires have no choice regardless of any previous in the match. If lower is worse  and they played until 5.9 today, why did they come off in Durham?

How much of today's 5.9 was from Clarke's shadow?

Sets a snide declaration chasing some supposed moral victory, almost inexplicably somehow manages to lose the match, ends the day chasing after the umpires and their light meter.

Another pet hate. Why was there an inspection bang on 11am? What may have happened had they inspected at 10.50? Or 10.45, or 10.55, or 10.40. Maybe they did. But it seems as if they waited for official start time for that last inspection (having inspected earlier of course, but not sure when)

Yes, it's my book talking. Just posing a question.

That's good Rease. What I'm saying is the inspection was at 11am purely because that is the official start time. Much like there was only a light decision made at a wicket. Specific timings or events shouldn't dictate when decisions are made.

I don't think it was though, t_s - more likely a dialogue between the umpires and ground staff about how long they needed to make it playable then an agreement to check at 11 with a view to starting at 11.30 if all went well.

I've posted my thoughts on the light issue above - basically agree, it's ridiculous but don't think umpires had much choice given the rules.

Yes, you're right Rease. Basically what I'm saying is that it is human nature to be influenced by when things SHOULD (are expected to) happen, but this shouldn't be the case. There is no logical reason except for the scheduled start time that any pitch inspection should take place at precisely 11.00. Likewise, the suggested start time of 11.30 was also related to the 11am start.

sky should not renew contract until cricket sorts itself out. that would concentrate the minds of a few ties and blazers.

Cricket has got itself sorted out, its the umpires, that haven't

They should just go back to letting the batsmen have the final say on whether play continues or not, the current rule just encourages the bowling team to  shamelessly time waste.

There's a widely held view that umpires aren't allowed to show discretion on the field. This is incorrect.

On various issues they tweak the regulations and show discretion.

1)Unscheduled drinks breaks. The regulations are broken.

2)Sub fielders for when a player is not injured. The regulations are broken.

3)Slow over rates - taking no action, but instead indulging the players.The regulations are broken.

On a match ticket it will say 90 overs to be bowled in the day, between 11am and 6pm. It's the duty of the umpires to ensure this happens.

The umpires rarely deliver on this promise. So the regulations are broken.

Umpires have little or no regard for the fans. Until the ICC tell them to act first and foremost in the interest of the paying public this will never change.

Dar (the senior umpire)could have speeded up Clarke's over rate (and Cook's).He could have told Clarke that although gloomy this was an exceptional circumstance and play will continue given only 4 overs were left.

He could have told Clarke 'I've indulged you and Cook with your sub fielders and slow over rates. NOW I'M GOING TO INDULGE THE CROWD AND THE GAME OF CRICKET'

We'll never know of course, but I wonder when they would have gone off had there been no floodlights.

Rease Heath is correct in the assertion that the ONLY scenario where a Test Match ends in a TIE is where the team batting fourth finishes ALL OUT with the scores level , if the scores are level when the final delivery has been bowled and there are any wickets in hand the match ends in a DRAW, not a tie ...
  so BJT probably didn't need to thai insure the 5.5K after all cos that scenario was 1000's plus ...However , I do agree with the general sentiment here ,that If the floodlights at the Oval are bright enough for a T20 evening match , why the hell aren't they bright enough for a Test Match ?

It baffles me why people (mostly aussies) have gone on about Clarke's captaincy and 'what a brave dec', 'he did it for entertainment,' 'he should be congratulated for being brave' and Warne's best of the lot 'be prepared to lose to win' - ffs are they all born that thick? He dec because it was a dead rubber and he was so desperate for a win and to end positively that he dec when he did. Obv he wouldn't have dec in pretty much any other circumstance.
I'd imagine the aussies didn't think for 1 sec that Eng would have a go for anything like as long as they did and bad light wouldn't have entered their purdy little heads. In the end it was disastrous from Clarke (his and Aussie actions at the end show that) as any momentum Aus had has now gone, they bowled as well as they could do but would never have bowled Eng out and the Eng batsmen now know they can bat at a decent rate against this aussie attack - the main problem this series.
The aussies ashes was always going to be the better spectacle imo and Clarke has done his best to help Eng with his poor decision making. I can't wait to see if the aus thrash us in the odi's and start bleating on about how they now have momentum etc - clueless absolutely clueless!

I know nothing about cricket but knowing the Australian psyche of winning is everything I wonder about the mentality of the people who put £2 million on the draw at odds of 1.01, before the last day commenced.

This is my question .......was it so unlikely that the Aussies, who take winnining at everything so seriously, would take an aggresive stance and go for the match at all cost? For people who reportedly follow the game all the time was that such an unpredictable event?

Oh good my 5yo stalker is back - please do carry on with your insightful comments, the whole forum is waiting in anticipation for whatever gems you come out with - well they would do if it wasn't the same bullocks you write on every single post you've ever written. No opinion, no debate just plain juvenile insults - i really do pity your existence you excuse for a 'man'.

I may be clueless but i have the guts to say what my opinion is (not that it's that brave but still too brave for you) - you have no opinion as you are too scared/thick/insecure to dare express it ever, which is why your entire life seems to revolve around waiting on this forum to spout the same pathetic posts time after time after time. Please do carry on - i think i can guess what your next post will be......