Who has the ascendancy after the second Ashes Test draw?

Agreed Mike. At the risk of protesting too much...I’m not fibbing. I completely agree that it’s silly to try and categorise an entire population based on the lowest common denominator, however when passions run high it happens unfortunately. I was quite amazed reading some articles about the single member who was ejected from the long room at Lord’s for ‘hurling vile abuse’ which equated to him calling Smith a cheat and a disgrace. It was certainly unnecessary and distasteful given the timing, but it would appear that it’s a deeply held view by some people (and technically accurate).

Yeah, Gower was great on his day and a mess at other times. I remember he couldn't cope with Alderman in 1989. Hardly fearsome pace there. Holding annoys me at times with his pontificating. However, I do like Hussain's commentary

smith officially out of the 3rd test. odds now will be in england's to tie the series this week and then be favs to kick on and win the ashes. reason being one j.archer game on lads!! let's show some ticker out there batsmen!!

Look James, I don't care if you're fibbing or not. The point you are making is valid - however it's a minority of Aussies who don't recognise that it's fair enough that England have an intimidating fast bowler. Just as it's a stupid minority that booed Smith or chanted as you claim. I think it's fair enough to acknowledge that all countries have their yobs and morons. By taking examples of their behaviour and using it to generally categorise a nation's population is to lower yourself to their level! Australia has been subjected to fearsome fast bowling before - the whole world suffered at the hands of the Windies in the 70/80s and it never got scarier than those fellas at the old WACA! Indeed your own Frank Tyson terrorised Australia on a tour in the 50s. I think you'll find most true Aussie fans see Archer as a totally fair enough challenge. In my circle of cricket playing mates we've been genuinely excited by seeing Archer. He's an awesome talent and should make the next Aussie Ashes exciting rather than the pathetic 5-0 drubbings we've dished out in recent times. One thing I will predict is, you won't see any Aussies wilting off into Test match retirement (a la Swann, Trott and Prior). Whether Archer gets the better of them or not is, of course, another matter but I, and Australia, expect them to fight! Good luck to you, Archer and England - bring it on!

We will need to play well from here on. As it should be though.

Early mail is Jimmy will be back for the 4th test so a good show by the poms in the 3rd and the pressure will be on us for sure. My pessimistic side sees the ashes slipping away...

I remember that well Pete. Dougie was 60 or so when Jimmy came in.

Regardless, I can't help feel Australia's position is a better one to be in. Just one more win from three retains the trophy, after having won five of the last seven Ashes tests, with England still carrying plenty of their own top order issues.

intimidation came out - all quicks want to do that - and dangerous bowling became a thing this was the Perth test that won us the Ashes, Anderson last wicket. notwithstanding his mouthiness, at that stage, being 34, his batting had gone from rabbit to sub-rabbit. i think everyone including Anderson knew Cummins would go short - to be fair he had bowled short most of the summer as Smith used him as his key intimidator. he had bowled 3 or 4 short balls the over before. this is the commentary for Broad, the wicket before: 68.2 W Cummins to Broad, OUT, banged in short and Broad throws up the hands, gloved through to the keeper! Make that one wicket away! That's another good bouncer, Broad pretty much raises the white flag, there was a noise as it touched the glove and Cummins gets in amongst 'em. The Ashes are almost in Australian hands once again... SCJ Broad c †Paine b Cummins 0 (6m 2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00 And then there was this: 68.3 0 Cummins to Anderson, no run, dug in, nasty bouncer, strikes Anderson on the side of the head! England are being pounded into submission... Although the Australians are quickly over to check he is okay. Anderson tried to get the hands up but he wasn't quite quick enough and the ball slammed into the helmet, around the ear. Going to need a minute to compose himself he went down like a sack of spuds I guarantee there were those who thought it a fine sight, given the history i found it sickening. but I don't blame cummins. it is clearly expected, rightly or wrongly, despite the wording of the law. cummins then bowled three more short balls at Anderson to finish the over. I found it distasteful. the umps had no problem with it. like i have said before, i just want a straight answer form someone in cricket that explains what would be required for the umps to use that rule; and if there is nothing, take it out, so everyone knows what the laws are.

No. He bounced a helmet wearing Jim Higgs in 80-81 at the MCG. Higgsy did well to glove it, and started to walk off. The ump no balled it, because HIggsy was a deadset carrot eater. (Dougie went on to get a ton, we won the test, it was another bad moment in the underarm summer.) cannot recall a single instance since?

2015 World Cup, Rainbow. Not the Test.

I don't remember the Cummins / Anderson thing tbh. Still, it seems to me that reasonable protection is on offer and if Cummins truly was attempting to intimidate and/or maim Anderson (who clearly is no Viv Richards) then yeah, it should have been called. A rule is only going to work if it's being enforced. .. I think cricket would be poorer if the short ball was outlawed but there also has to be some protection if the batsman is plainly out of his depth. Like most things I guess, getting the right balance is the key.

Hi Peter, you referring to when Lance Cairns git knocked out? I forgot about that. Was that Wasim or waqar?

Yeah, us fans can be unrealistic and demanding so and so's. .. Mind you, I'd just about sell granny to see Warner make some big runs in the next game. :stoked:

Not much case law I think Cummins to Anderson is a good test case. I said no ball. People in the Guardian said I was soft, in the head and elsewhere. What do people think? (If that was not a no ball, and given we have a bouncer limitation rule, then what is the value of the law?)

We have an elaborately crafted intimidatory bowling law. That is never used. Never. Not since the misuse against Lance Cairns way back. Should we ditch the law. Or have the conversation about how and when we want HMO’s to use it? I don’t like the idea that rabbits at 11 are fair game because they have a helmet and/or should spend time in the nets batting. No. We don’t make batsman go and practise their bowling.

The umpires clearly have the tools to keep it relatively safe Peter. It's just a matter of applying it fairly and forcefully. Mind you, the umpires in this series seem to have their hands full just getting the occasional lbw decision right so it might be asking too much to expect them to keep a lid on the bouncer war as well.

Push em back with the short ones and when you've got them trained not to go forward try and ping them with the yorker. As old as the game itself Dwayne.

Pat Cummins was trying much harder to it/intimidate Archer in the first innings. A bouncer is a part of the game. Such a key part of it that if you take it away you upend the balance of the game far too much in the batsmen's favour.

I think england have blunted whatever momentum the Aussies took away from edgbaston. England probably had the better of the lords batting conditions. The archer effect should reduce as the aussies figure out ways to deal with him. The teams are pretty evenly matched. Small differences will have huge effects. England are basically 1 batting collapse away from losing another test, australia 2 collapses away from losing the series. Just my opinion.