Well he has to wait his turn. Which is only right. I know many posters would want both Jones and Flintoff in but lets get one at a time in the team first. To go into a Test with question marks over both Jones and Flintoffs fitness might be a bit risky.
Jones has been back playing longer than Flintoff. So Jones should be ahead of Flintoff.
He is good on the wickets where there is a little bit support for the fast bowlers. A bowler with his pace can't do anything on flat pitches like that. He is not an express blowler and relies of the movement off the wicket.
I don't consider that to be the case here though. There's nothing that can have changed in the meantime. Therefore it's quite annoying to be told "face it" when there's nothing to face.
No-one "decided", the rain forced the groundsman's hand.
Not really, he's quite capable of moving it through the air.
Yep so did I yesterday - and agree it's very good
It's not a record, Denis Atkinson bowled 72 during the famous Cowdrey/May stand in 1957. I don't know if that's the record but it beats Panesar.
Other than the fact that you were advocating using up ANOTHER 40 overs in useless batting time
What?!
A bowler with a pace between 120-130 km and swing the ball in the air....................
Thanks dear. I feel sorry for the bowlers and specially Panesar. They deserve better than they got.
It didn't, actually. Apart from the fact that you need an obscene amount of rain to juice-up the pitch during the course of the game (only time that really happened in the last 3 years was 2007 against India), the point is not that rain deprived us of a result but that lost time did. An uninterrupted Test in this country is a rare thing - usually to get a full game in you'd need to make-up lost time. And had that been do-able, there'd have been results in the games I said there'd have been results in.
It's not really terribly difficult to note that most Lord's wickets in recent times that have borne little resemblence to this one. This has been far slower than most recent ones, and not surprising either given the extremely hampered preparation.
No, I wasn't, because I didn't say they WOULD have won had they batted again. They may or they may not have done. As enforcing the follow-on didn't work, we can only guess what might have happened under different circumstances. And no, there is no would or would not have - you don't know what would have happened, I don't know what would have happened, nor does anyone else.
Quite what's so surprising about that I'm not sure - but someone who can swing the ball, at whatever pace, takes the pitch out of the equation.
A bowler with a pace between 120-130 km and swing the ball in the air....................
Ooo, you're welcome sweetie.
