*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Richard]

Well if England bat again, Australia could be bailed out by bad weather.

And if Australia bat again, they could be bailed-out by England bowling poorly.

As I understand, the prospect of an enormous amount of disruption (more than 20-30 overs being lost) is slim. You cannot, in my view, take the "well it might rain" angle any more than you can take the "well a bowler might get injured" one. England are far more likely to bowl poorly than it is to rain.

England's best chance of winning and winning emphatically would be to bat again and grind them into the dust. It would also be the least risky strategy, because even if they bowl poorly, if Australia are chasing 500 then it'll only cost a draw, not a defeat. What's more, Australia are more likely to bat poorly again if they're facing a massive chase than if they've been given an immediate chance to atone for their errors.

I just cannot see any sense in enforcing the follow-on. I hardly ever can - the only occasion it should be used is if time is running-out IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

I still believe, Australia batting again in this game provides them with the best chance to get out of jail here, where as if England bat again, and set an astronomical target for Australia to chase, then they would just be trying to bat out time to save the test, which doesn't really go well with the way the Australian side plays, either way they need to bat their arses off to not lose this game now.

Anyways, Prince to score a double in the next innings....

Indeed, and really, either decision should work out. Really, it comes down to whether refreshing your bowlers fully is worth cutting down the time available to bowl at Australia and risking bad weather costing you the game. After 60-odd overs, with a five-man attack, I don't think it is.

If tomorrow is bright and sunny and the ball is doing nothing whatsoever I may change my mind. But at the moment I'm thinking "enforce".

 

[Uppercut]

As I understand, the prospect of an enormous amount of disruption (more than 20-30 overs being lost) is slim. You cannot, in my view, take the "well it might rain" angle any more than you can take the "well a bowler might get injured" one. England are far more likely to bowl poorly than it is to rain.

But England might bowl poorly having not enforced the follow-on? In any case, you have to back yourself not to let Australia get 600- because that's how much they'd need to be anything other than big underdogs.

 

[pup11]

Yes, but their whining will be drowned out by the sound of all the Boards' cash registers ringing. They won't give a rat's about what players and experts think.

Finding a ball that reacts in the same way as a traditional test cricket ball for D/N tests is going to be really tough, and if that problem can be sorted, then there shouldn't be problem, but if that's not the case I can't see the players or the rule-makers supporting this idea, regardless of how much money is made.

 

[Richard]

But England might bowl poorly having not enforced the follow-on? In any case, you have to back yourself not to let Australia get 600- because that's how much they'd need to be anything other than big underdogs.

Nah, if Australa's last couple of wickets add, say, 25 tomorrow, then they make 500 following-on they're big favourites.

England's likelihood of bowling poorly, meanwhile, is equal follow-on or no follow-on (or possibly greater with the follow-on due to reduced rest which however fit someone is will make an impact). But if they bowl poorly having enforced the follow-on they're going to put their side on the road to defeat; if they do it having batted again they're merely going to cause a draw.

I just cannot see how the follow-on in any way enhances England's chances. This game is not going to be a draw if Australia bat again; England are going to win or lose. If England bat again, they essentially take Australia's chances of victory away completely (unless they bat absolutely diabolically, which should be beyond even England - so far they've disappointed by scoring 400-450) while possibly leaving their chances unaltered, possibly enhancing them.

Not enforcing is a win-win.

 

[Woodster]

It is an interesting prospect, should England enforce the follow-on or not ? That we are actually in this position and being able to discuss whether the follow-on should be enforced is fantastic, and especially when a number of pundits, and fans alike, were suggesting we had not got enough to trouble Australia and needed in excess of 500 to ensure the Aussies would not pass us ??

Should we wrap the Aussie innings up pretty swiftly in the morning, I'd be in favour of enforcing the follow-on, especially if the conditions are similar to today. I'm not a massive fan of the follow-on, tbf, but here it's been a shortened day, we've only been in the field for 49 overs, and it does represent a really good opportunity of us niping out a few more wickets while the Aussies are still in arrears. This is one of the few occasions I would seriously thinkm about sticking a side back in.

Should we not ask Australia to bat again, it then becomes a case of Strauss getting his timing of the declaration (should we need to declare and not be bowled out) spot on, and not be too conservative. The batsmen will need to keep the game moving on and continue to be positive and ensure we have an abundance of time to take 10 wickets. There is still so much time in this game left that we should be able to leave ourselves plenty of overs to try and get the 10.

While I'm still thinking it over in my mind, I'd be most happiest should we ask them bat again. Yes, they probably won't bat as badly second time round, but we should still get ourselves into a position wherby we are not chasing too testing a total. But you can guarantee we'll make hard work of it!

 

[Woodster]

Nah, if Australa's last couple of wickets add, say, 25 tomorrow, then they make 500 following-on they're big favourites.

England's likelihood of bowling poorly, meanwhile, is equal follow-on or no follow-on (or possibly greater with the follow-on due to reduced rest which however fit someone is will make an impact). But if they bowl poorly having enforced the follow-on they're going to put their side on the road to defeat; if they do it having batted again they're merely going to cause a draw.

I just cannot see how the follow-on in any way enhances England's chances. This game is not going to be a draw if Australia bat again; England are going to win or lose. If England bat again, they essentially take Australia's chances of victory away completely (unless they bat absolutely diabolically, which should be beyond even England - so far they've disappointed by scoring 400-450) while possibly leaving their chances unaltered, possibly enhancing them.

Not enforcing is a win-win.

Much of your theory Richard is based on England bowling badly. Now should I be the captain of England at this point, us bowling badly would not be crossing my mind, despite the potential of it. Strauss has to back his bowlers to get the job done, give them the confidence, not worry about 'what if we bowl badly'!

 

[aussie]

Was driving around today & heard Rusell Crow on the radio. Never knew he as cricket fan, a kiwi & family to Crowe's. Top stuff.

 

[Richard]

Much of your theory Richard is based on England bowling badly. Now should I be the captain of England at this point, us bowling badly would not be crossing my mind, despite the potential of it. Strauss has to back his bowlers to get the job done, give them the confidence, not worry about 'what if we bowl badly'!

Much as we've bowled refreshingly decently today (though certainly not outstandingly - only Ponting was genuinely got out, the rest it was all bad batting to varying extents), I just can't see the point in confidently proclaiming your certainty of bowling well and blundering straight on then finding it doesn't happen, if you've the alternative of not doing.

If England bowl well in Australia's second dig, they'll win follow-on or no follow-on. If they bowl badly, they'll (probably) lose if they enforce and (probably) draw if they don't. It's just a case of insuring for the eventuality of bowling badly while not making any effect on the outcome if you bowl well.

As I say - not enforcing is a win-win situation. You just have nothing to lose by batting again, you have something to lose by enforcing the follow-on.

As for Strauss backing his bowlers, so much of that is about his own demeneur. As long as he says the right things and keeps the right body-language, he can put it accross as a positive to take whatever option he chooses.

 

[GIMH]

Woooooooo****inghooooooooooo

Jimmeh, you ****ing god of ***, I love you

Nobody can match English cricket fans for pessimism. Australia are 286 runs behind and it's the last pair before the bowlers in. You couldn't really have hoped for anything better at the start of the match, or the start of the day.

Yeah, Hauritz and Siddle could both crack double hundreds and then Ponting could nip out a quick five wickets with his outswingers, but realistically England are well on top. Enjoy it or something.

edit: Scrap that, it is the bowlers in now.

Haha indeed, depressing reading back through this thread, brilliant day of cricket for us. Makes me laugh to think how everyone was going on about how boring it was when we were batting and how this would be another nail in the coffin for Test cricket. I don't care one bit what par was or should have been, I think we may well have just about got enough runs

social took great pleasure in informing us last week that 7 crim batsmen = 22 of ours, sure is nice to see that two of ours managed more than your whole lot have scored so far

No, but seriously, couldn't have asked for more from our boys today. Just wondering whether I'm gonna get the day of cricket I was looking forwards to on day 4!

 

[GIMH]

Watching the highlights now, Jimmeh's batting has improved so so much. It wasn't all that long ago that Nasser Hussain used to say "Jimmy Anderson only bats 11 because there isn't anywhere lower to bat" and in fact he dropped below Panesar in the order. The way he's batted lately I wouldn't panic if had to stick him at 8

 

[four_or_six]

Watching the highlights now, Jimmeh's batting has improved so so much. It wasn't all that long ago that Nasser Hussain used to say "Jimmy Anderson only bats 11 because there isn't anywhere lower to bat" and in fact he dropped below Panesar in the order. The way he's batted lately I wouldn't panic if had to stick him at 8

Yeah, whoever got this batting buddy thing going deserves to take some credit. Seems to be working well.

 

[GIMH]

Yep, do we have the best lower order in world cricket?

 

[four_or_six]

Yep, do we have the best lower order in world cricket?

India's is good, and Australia's is decent too. But I reckon we're up there.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, whoever got this batting buddy thing going deserves to take some credit. Seems to be working well.

It was Bumble, Athers wrote an amusing piece about it this week.

Oh and my negativity was utterly silly and stupidly wrong. I couldn't explain how depressed I am about that ATM

 

[GIMH]

You're going the next Test aren't ya grecian?

 

[grecian]

You're going the next Test aren't ya grecian?

Yep, hopefully we won't be in the dire situation I feared. Do have to say it's rained for most of the day every time I've been to Brum for the cricket, so here's hoping that can change and I get to see Freddies five-for or his century

 

[GIMH]

Which day you going again? Day two?

Going on day three myself, a bit worried that we might have wrapped it up by then

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I just cannot see any sense in enforcing the follow-on. I hardly ever can - the only occasion it should be used is if time is running-out IMO.

Well i agree in the most part. But if its really overcast tomorrow and the ball is swinging around corners first thing, theres a chance you'd want to put Australia in again knowing you could take 3-4 quick wickets and pretty much win the game there and then.

If England batted again and collapsed to the swinging ball we could be in trouble too.

 

[GIMH]

From what Jimmeh said, they will base the decision on the morning weather. And of course we haven't necessarily got a decision to make, got to kill them off first

edit, just watched Onions' wicket again, some catch from Broad it must be said. Glad Onions got the wicket as well, hope he gets one and Jimmeh the other in the morning.