Bowl Onions FFS. Still hope Anderson gets both of the last two though.Can see the logic in opening with Broad, he's good at getting the tail and it keeps Flintoff fresh for the new ball. Hope Jimmeh gets a chance for his Michelle though
Broad looking inoccuous
Nah, there's no way that was ever going to be caught.Haha, he finally makes him play and there we go, creates a chance.
England should be giving themselves as much time necessary to bowl Australia out. Then they can bat accordingly knowing the pace at which scoring runs needs to be done. If they bat now they have to dilly-dally to a good total and then declare. That's likely to take more time than they would take if they were to bat last. And the more time this Test takes, the less likely Australia are to lose. Winning is not really in the equation for Australia - well at least realistically. So it variates between how probable England are to win and how probable Australia are to draw. More time taken = more probable for Australia to draw.This game is under no circumstances going to be drawn, barring some phenomenal batting from both sides. It's a question of whether Australia win or England win. England give themselves the best chance of winning and stopping Australia winning by batting again.
Because it means your batsmen can not bat and rest up for the next Test? Psychologically, it'd also be more harmful for your opponents and more beneficial to yourselves.Wrapping the game up early is completely useless. Why on Earth would you want to win by an innings and 14 in 4 days when you can win by 350 runs in 5 days?
Okay, he made him hit it in the air at/near a fielder. Better than it flying miles over his head.Nah, there's no way that was ever going to be caught.
Nah, you're not under any time pressure if you have five sessions to take ten wickets. If England can't do that they're not going to do it having enforced the follow-on. If England bowl well, they win follow-on or no follow-on. And if they bat now England certainly don't need any dilly-dallying. 350 in a day should be the easiest thing.England should be giving themselves as much time necessary to bowl Australia out. Then they can bat accordingly knowing the pace at which scoring runs needs to be done. If they bat now they have to dilly-dally to a good total and then declare. That's likely to take more time than they would take if they were to bat last. And the more time this Test takes, the less likely Australia are to lose. Winning is not really in the equation for Australia - well at least realistically. So it's variates between how probably England are to win and how probable Australia are to draw. More time taken = more probable for Australia to draw.
England don't have to bat particularly well. They just have to bowl well and take 20 wickets. The less pressure they have time-wise to do that the better.
Not if you portray it otherwise, and a good captain can portray whatever he does in a positive light: "let's go out and crush them into the dust". Batsmen don't need rest; bowlers do.Because it means your batsmen can not bat and rest up for the next Test? Psychologically, it'd also be more harmful for your opponents and more beneficial to yourselves.