The man attempted the same thing 2 days earlier in the same match. He just missed.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/ashes-2023-australia-vs-england-cricket-news-second-test-at-lords-jonny-bairstow-runout-exposes-hypocrisy-stuart-broad-video/news-story/4f271fe26b1882ccc0466c21e5521b33?fbclid=IwAR3hWDBobXeN-FFn3EYHcoyDvuoOVjG7ZOOAh5luNeqsknvtzt_4FT0p4Fk

The argument for an in-tournament lucky loser is pretty soft. This is a knock-out tournament, you lose and you are knocked out.

This is a non issue if a player withdraws after round 1, round 2, round 3 and probably round 4; where do you draw the line? It is now an issue because there is no other tennis to compensate for a missing semi-final. Would you have a different opinion if Nadal tried to warm up and pulled out 30 minutes before the match?

Any comparison to the lucky loser from qualifying is irrelevant, they are two separate tournaments. The lucky losers, as late replacements are effective wild card entries using the qualifying tournament as a criteria.

I am surprised I had to read this deep to find this suggestion. Its a good one.

To me there are 2 decisions:
One of Agar and Swepson
One of Hazelwood, Starc, Boland

Agar is the style of bowler who works better on Indian wickets – accurate finger spinner. Swepson is the style that Pakistan have used with most success – leg spinner like Yasir Shah.

Hazelwood is the best of the quicks – need something to be shown otherwise to change my opinion.

Current v Retired (assuming peak powers, current rules)

Current:
Chris Paul
Lebron James
Kawhi Leonard
Kevin Durant
Giannis Antetokounmpo

Steph Curry
Klay Thompson
James Harden
Draymond Green
Joel Embiid

Trying to get the best players on the court in a switch everything style of defense. Can also put out the core of the Warriors super team and replace Iguadola with a better big wing. Embiid over Jokic for defensive reasons.

Retired:
Michael Jordan
Kobe Bryant
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan

John Stockton
Dwayne Wade
Scotty Pippen
Dirk Nowitzki
Shaquille O’Neal

All the modern greats in the starting lineup and a bench that favours the 2000’s players given the rules. The starting lineup is big enough to cover the big wings line-up of the current players and we know that post prime Duncan held his own against most of these players at their peak.

I can only really speak for the current 3 and not compare back to previous generations and it is extremely difficult to split. My personal favoritism goes Nadal, Federer, Djokovic.

I feel like Djokovic is the best of the three and will probably end up with the most titles – he probably has 3 or 4 more in him. He has had to usurp the Federer/Nadal duopoly and contend with a Nadal through most of the peak Nadal years.

Nadal to me is the greatest. He broke Federers dominance, is undisputed king of the clay court and has had to contend with both Federer and Nadal at their respective peaks. He gets one chance a year on his preferred surface and has monopolised the French Open to a degree that is previously unseen (3 losses in 17 years).

Federer had the weakest competition of the three given he is a bit older and his dominance was before and during the emergence of Nadal/Djokovic. His rivals were Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt for a while, clearly not the level of threat that he provided to Djokovic/Nadal.

If one of these 3 won 25 titles and the other two won 15 each there would be no dispute to the greatest of the generation and that person would be probably the GOAT. This has to be one of the greatest 3 way rivalries that occurs through a single generation given the heights it has achieved and the length it has lasted.

I did mix those balls – it was 19.3.

In both cases I have him completing the single/two and then walking out of the crease to deliberately run himself out if he so wished.

Things that would have been better:
1) At 19.4 Silk retiring hurt a ball earlier after hitting a single (needing 6 off 2) and then returning if a wicket fell next ball at the strikers end to face the final ball.
2) At 19.4 Silk completing the single and then running himself out with 2 balls left.
3) At 19.5 Silk completing the 2 and then running himself out with 1 ball left.

Same result all around.

It seems like a very unbalanced line-up to me, with Wade and Stoinis both being top order batsmen that struggle low in the order.

Finch seems to be past his best and having him open when there are the above two plus other wicketkeeper/opener replacement options (Carey, McDermott, Phillipe, Inglis) that better balance the side I would be going with those. If Finch wasn’t captain he would not be getting picked.

I would be picking:
Warner
Wade
Marsh
Smith
Maxwell
Christain
Agar
Starc
Cummins
Zampa
Hazelwood

The #6 spot is the toughest for me – there are a lot of guys who have good top-order records but look lost coming in late. Christian is a specialist in this spot. Balance wise you end up with 5 front line bowlers and 3 all-rounders to add in overs. It feels to be one bowler too many given the ability of those 3 all-rounders and I would like to upgrade Christian to a more accomplished batsmen.

It would be nice to see a few Australia A tours.

M Renshaw, K Patterson, T Ward, J Phillipe, H Hunt, B Street should get a look given age profile and current year SS results.

I feel like Pakistan is a 3 quicks + Lyon type of country. Pakistans 3 top ranked bowlers (2 in ICC top 10, third at 18) are all quicks. With 3 tests in 4 weeks I could see some rotation between the quicks and Boland could play 2 matches.

Sri Lanka and India are definitely 2 quicks and 2 spinners – more so with the emergence of Green as a 3rd quick.

I would be equally surprised if he becomes a regular as if he doesn’t play another game. My guess is that he has a career that is 8-12 tests. I hope he gets a Ryan Harris/Stuart Clark like career and pushes 25 tests and 100 wickets.

Based on the limited information around exemption cut-off dates, the timing of the test, reported inconsistencies in the test results and the media representation it looks to be the dodgiest of ways to get the guy into the tournament.

Does anyone know what the alternative “medical exemption” Djokovic could have used to gain entry?

Lets say his amazing immune system worked and he didn’t contract COVID between 5 December (end of Davis Cup) and 16 December how would he have obtained an exemption?

In individual games it is pretty hard to have an equitable penalty system, especially with both batters and bowlers contribution to time wasting and delays, I am guessing that it is a match official job to determine similar to the test over rates and applying a penalty in real time in the second innings presents a lot of challenges.

In tournament styles you can use over rates penalties as a tie breaker as an incentive, this doesn’t impact individual series as well.

I would like to see a move to 5 overs bowled from each end before changing, this removes 16 end changes per innings, at 30 seconds saved is 8 minutes or approx 2 overs.

Another alternative is having over rate assessed for in game penalties at the 15th over mark and not care too much about the pace for the last 5 overs in game; maybe use similar post game penalties such as fines. The in game penalties could be runs or fielding restrictions.

Agree. Even before the second innings that was my opinion.

Harris is really only a placeholder for Pucovski if he ever gets healthy.

Green made the team by being a great shield batter. It wasn’t just potential.

He should play Hobart, it’s a dead rubber test. No need to drop him, it’s a choice between Ussie and Harris.

This is all high level nit-picking to try and compare 3 all-timers. It is trying to find a reason to separate because the equalness of the Slam record. I don’t really know how to argue a strength of competition, especially given the dominance of these three over the competition.
If a prime year = 2 slam finals:
Federer’s prime value (2004-2009) came when his best competition was Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Murray and early Nadal/Djokovic. He had a late renaissance in 2017/18 winning 3/4 slams he participated in (missed the French Open).
Nadal’s prime value (2008-2020, with interruption in 2014 & 2015) coincides with Djokovic’s (2011-2021).
From this I take-away that Nadal/Djokovic were able to overtake the dominance of Federer when he was at the end of his peak and have been able to maintain if for longer than Federer. During this the best competition was Federer, Murray, Wawrinka.

And sorry for mini-hijacking the thread with GOAT athlete conversation. These three really challenged my thought process on an overall level so I thought I would share that.

Nadal is the king of clay – maybe the most dominant a single athlete has been in a discipline of their chosen sport of all-time, if not at least in the last 40 years.

That he gets knocked for being so skewed to clay is a bit unfair as you pointed out he still has enough slams in the three events that less suit his skills that make him a star in any era. If for some reason there were 2 slams a year on clay instead of 2 on a hard court then Nadal may be on 30 and Federer/Djokovic on 15 (or with increased clay focus everyone else gets a little better and Nadal isn’t quite so dominant).

Federer got a head start in a time where the next best weren’t as good There was a lull between Sampras/Agassi and when Federer/Nadal rivalry. His peak came before Djokovic asserted his dominance and the contenders beyond Nadal were guys that are probably not long term #1 quality in any era (Hewitt, Roddick, Murray).

Djokovic is my best out of the three, and my least liked. He had to disrupt the Federer/Nadal dominance and will likely end up with more slams. He is the most rounded across all surfaces. The only thing that can discount him is that his dominance is only in the time post-peak of Federer and Nadal and that the next generation have not even risen to the challenge of late career Federer/Nadal so the competition level for Djokovic is potentially a little lower. Really just mental gymnastics to downplay how great his achievements are.

It is a bit weird in that if there was only 1 get to 20 and the other 2 were at 12 slams each, then the one with 20 probably would have made the top tier. That you get three players at this level at the same time is truly amazing and I would say unprecedented in a sport where you can so easily compare the achievements across generations,

It is also meant to be very exclusive and reserved for athletes who are GOATs in there respective sports. I also tried to lean more strongly towards accessible and popular sports over niche sports given the difficulty in rising to the top is much harder with a larger talent pool. I went back and looked at my early list and I had Williams in the second tier as she is not an undisputed GOAT in tennis. Both Bolt and Phelps achieved feats that had not been seen before in terms of number of medals and longevity of achieving these at the Olympics.

Agree with matth that Kelly Slater should be pushing into this tier. I haven’t the knowledge of how he compares to his peers and in an all-time sense but understand that many consider his a GOAT of surfing. A project like this would need many contributors to get a truly reflective listing that covers all sports.

I will be very interested to see what the rest of this series has to offer. This has been an amazing extended period of dominance with each of the three having their respective strengths and weaknesses. I often wonder what happens if one of them isn’t at this level but rather at the Murray/Warinka level if the remaining two would be more dominant or if the desire would have subsided.

I was trying to think up a list of the best athletes of the 2000’s and couldn’t have these three in my top tier. Reasoning was that if you can’t be the undisputed best in your own sport, you can’t be in my top tier. Williams, Phelps and Bolt were my standouts.

I don’t think the system is broken, merely the bias is put onto the players who do the most things, regardless of overall impact.

It doesn’t matter which sport you look at, there are different awards and flaws in each method.
The AFL Coaches Association has each coach giving a 5-4-3-2-1 for each game, maximum of 10 votes and its leaderboard this year is very similar to the Brownlow. Despite the different perspective you go back to 2005 and 2004 to get a non midfielder/ruck winning the award.
The AFL Players Association has each player give a 3-2-1 on the seasons efforts based on a shortlist of players (3 nominated from each club by the players). As already mentioned this is also a midfielders award, in 40 years, 6 forwards and 1 defender has won the award.
NRL – game by game media award
NBA – seasons efforts 5-4-3-2-1 for a selected group of people (100 vote givers from memory)

It would be nice if different positions get a look in but the most impact generally comes from the midfielders. If you are not a KPP the better you are, the more likely you will be a midfielder.

For me, the reform that is needed is the weighting of particular awards in peoples mind of greatness and the visibility of the different types of awards and how these can be manipulated by narratives.

Your HIA explanation would mean Panthers only used 7 interchanges as they never used #1.

I counted the two interchanges mentioned above as the second part of the “free interchanges” in the list.

59 F2: Fisher-Harris > Pangai Jnr – reportable offence
66: F3: Sorenson > Fisher-Harris – reportable offence (JFH returning confuses the situation here)
69: F2: Pangai Jnr > Kenny – next interchange after JFH exited for reportable offence
76 F3: Kenny > Pangai Jnr – next interchange after Sorenson exited for reportable offence
79 #8: Pangai Jnr > Sorenson

I am not sure if the labels of F3 and #8 for the last two should be swapped given Sorenson is returning.

I din’t count them all in the play by play, just went by the headings for a quick overview to see what all the fuss was about for the Kenny/Pangai Jnr one.

Going by play by play, the Panthers interchanges are:
19m F1: Leota > Kikau
24 HIA1: Martin > Sorenson
29 F1: Fisher-Harris > Pangai Jnr
38 HIA1: Capewell > Martin
38 #2: Sorenson > Kenny
45 #3 Koroisau > Leota
49 #4: Kikau > Capewell
49 #5: Pangain Jnr > Fisher Harris
59 #6: Kenny > Koroisau
59 #7: Leota > Sorenson
59 F2: Fisher-Harris > Pangai Jnr
66: F3: Sorenson > FIsher-Harris
69: F2: Pangai Jnr > Kenny
76 F3: Kenny > Pangai Jnr
79 #8: Pangai Jnr > Sorenson

So by the look of it, there was no interchange #1, 8 free interchanges which equals 15 (as mentioned by you).

Does the return of HIA count as an interchange? Both the Blake and Martin returns account for a gap in the interchange numbers in the play by play. If so, then Panthers used 8 legal ones and Eels 9.

As a neutral – the game was gripping and the Eels had a rougher time of the ref decisions over the last but I would say that the Panthers were on the wrong side of actual point scoring decisions in the first.

The Eels never looked like breaking open the Panthers defence to score a try off their own merits – only scoring from Edwards inability to catch that kick.

Luai gets a disallowed try because the offside player makes a defensive error and is taken out. Burton try gets disallowed because Luai has 1 foot behind line of play, the same way every defender gets behind the tryline to be onside.

No-one is questioning why the Eels had 9 substitutions (according to NRL.com play by play)?

I think the correct team won, they scored more point, created better point scoring opportunities as shown by two contentiously disallowed tries, another obvious disallowed try and numerous more close calls.

Ferguson, living up to his reputation, just had to stay down and take the penalty and no-one would have said anything – popping up and wanting to fight just showed how much of an act it was.