-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Second Test at Lords
- Thread starter superkingdave
- Start date
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
I always dread watching him... looks so weird.
wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
Because he destroyed James Anderson?
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'll still be absolutely shocked if there's anything other than a draw in this game. If England lose their last four wickets for less than 100 runs on this road they'll be disappointed, and 450 is surely enough to save a game on a pitch that's not getting any better for bowlers. That's before even taking into account inevitable lost play.
England's only hope of victory is some serious cloud cover, probably tomorrow.
England's only hope of victory is some serious cloud cover, probably tomorrow.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, you virtually never see good batsmen being beaten for pace, not unless it's 97-98mph and on a deck with moderate (not neccessarily out-and-out quick) speed and bounce. Cook was simply startled by a very rare straight ball, which can indeed happen when a bowler is spraying it so hopelessly. It's not a good tactic nor good bowling, but it is a not-especially-unusual means of wickets falling - and a gut-wrenchingly annoying one at that. And although Hilfenhaus knows every ball won't swing, you still see plenty of straight balls not taking wickets and Bopara's could easily have been another - in fact was more likely to be than to take the wicket. It's disappointing every time it happens, even though it is indeed inevitable from time to time and certainly not undeserved as such.
Australia have provided sporadic threat and bowled one hell of a lot of nonsense. The worst sort of bowling to face-up to, because you've got such a good chance of doing worse than you know you should've done.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, ditto. Such an unattractive player. Screams "get out and get Ponting in" every time.
Mind, Katich isn't much if at all better. Having those two preceed Ponting and Hussey, who are among the most watchable around, is torture.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's what we got at SWALEC. And England only just saved it.
Now, whether we can expect Australia to bat as well as they did then, England to bowl as poorly, or England to bat as poorly as they did second-innings is a moot question and the answer may well be "no"... but as a sensibly-pessimistic England supporter you can hardly blame one for answering "yes".
The fact that there's lots of time (maybe a full day?) scheduled to be lost tomorrow may indeed tip the balance firmly toward draw, but with a full game's play 450 would put England behind the eight-ball.
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I agree. Was nice to get in and see no more wickets lost anyhow. Strauss to hit a double tomorrow hopefullyCome on guys... we're 333/6 not 133/6. Cheer up!
Yeah, good one
simmy
International Regular
It's Katich you wanna worry about
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The pitch at Swalec was getting a lot better for bowlers as the game progressed though. This pitch is much flatter and not so painfully slow, so runs should be pretty easy to come by. But it's not going to get any harder to bat on- if England ought to be capable of scoring 450 now, they also ought to be capable of doing so in the third innings, and Australia should do even better. In Cardiff, by comparison, 500 was a par score in the first innings and about 250 was a par score in the last.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Didn't see the last session, but...
a) Australia really hasn't tried to "bounce out" Strauss. They've left blokes back for the pull and hook, mainly as a reason to make him sit back and think that they're going to try and bounce him out, and then get him pushing at full balls to nick them, or get him LBW when he's only half forward. They just haven't executed well enough.
b) Hilfenhaus' bowling to Bopara was bloody top class. Showed a lot of people that you don't try and get a bloke out within one over; it's Test cricket. You make him work hard for his runs, plans extend over a number of overs before you come along and execute the "wicket ball".
c) To say that Johnson's ball wasn't a good one is pretty silly. If you think that Cook wasn't late on that, you'd be kidding yourself.
d) Johnson's head fell away throughout the first two sessions. His eyes were on a slant, and it made him bowl more round arm than normal, rather than over and through his body. As bad as I've seen him bowl; I've seen him bowl in a mediocre fashion, I've never seen him bowl (for Australia) poorly like he did throughout the first two sessions today. The thing about him is that, he has that ability to still bowl a ball that will rip through you. Thank buggery, because nothing else worked for him today.
e) Amazing how much harder it is to bowl to Cook when he has that pull shot going. When he's pulling off a good length, it messes with the bowler's head so much. You can't bowl straight to him, on a good length or full (once he's in), and you can't give him any width because he cuts so well.
a) Australia really hasn't tried to "bounce out" Strauss. They've left blokes back for the pull and hook, mainly as a reason to make him sit back and think that they're going to try and bounce him out, and then get him pushing at full balls to nick them, or get him LBW when he's only half forward. They just haven't executed well enough.
b) Hilfenhaus' bowling to Bopara was bloody top class. Showed a lot of people that you don't try and get a bloke out within one over; it's Test cricket. You make him work hard for his runs, plans extend over a number of overs before you come along and execute the "wicket ball".
c) To say that Johnson's ball wasn't a good one is pretty silly. If you think that Cook wasn't late on that, you'd be kidding yourself.
d) Johnson's head fell away throughout the first two sessions. His eyes were on a slant, and it made him bowl more round arm than normal, rather than over and through his body. As bad as I've seen him bowl; I've seen him bowl in a mediocre fashion, I've never seen him bowl (for Australia) poorly like he did throughout the first two sessions today. The thing about him is that, he has that ability to still bowl a ball that will rip through you. Thank buggery, because nothing else worked for him today.
e) Amazing how much harder it is to bowl to Cook when he has that pull shot going. When he's pulling off a good length, it messes with the bowler's head so much. You can't bowl straight to him, on a good length or full (once he's in), and you can't give him any width because he cuts so well.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Disagree with that. The pitch didn't deteriorate that much in the second innings, the main issue was the position of the game for England. Once the ball was old, the only threat was from spin, or stump to stump bowling.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Of course he was late on it. Because he was startled to even receive a straight ball. If he'd been getting them more regularly, he'd have hit that (or at least been beaten because he played down the wrong line rather than for sheer speed) 99 times out of 100 or so. It's not like it was a quicker-ball; he just didn't get on it because he so patently wasn't expecting it. There was no good bowling about it, the way for example there was to Bopara in the First Test.
Pizzorno
State Vice-Captain
Hitting someone for one boundary is considered a destruction these days? It really is a batsman's game.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't really think the SWALEC pitch was getting harder TBH - it turned on the first day, it turned on the last. It didn't get that much more uneven - certainly not treacherously so, else England would never have survived. England just batted poorly, and are more than capable of doing it again when faced with a substantial defecit. If England had batted well everyone'd have been talking about what a docile deck it was that never deteriorated at all.
Whether the Lord's pitch will play the same or different to SWALEC, of course, remains to be seen. I'd say that on the opening day it played moreorless exactly the same. Only difference is the outfield was much faster and Australia's catching was much worse. So England have gone slightly better, and if their lower-order produce the goods again tomorrow morn they might get 480-500 instead of 450.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
It wasn't the line that got him in the first place though, it was the length. He went back to a ball that was, by all rights, a ball that he should have gone forward to.
REF: Michael Vaughan. When he got dismissed by Lee, it was because he misread the ball because of a combination of pace and the right length, thus he went back instead of going forward.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was taking the position of the game into account though, it's a potent mix of the odd ball playing tricks, pressure and having to concentrate on a mundane task for long periods of time that makes batting out the last day so difficult on deteriorating pitches like the one in Cardiff.
But even if England found themselves in a similar position here, I'd still back them to get out of it. There's no way Australia could roll them for under 250 unless they batted almost inconceivably badly.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Hughes actually reverse back foot drove him, he's really batting wrong handed.
wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
Anderson swinging it both ways at 90mph and Hughes was dismantling him through the offside. Anderson was looking clueless and got removed from the attack.