• 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

Pizzorno

State Vice-Captain
All this talk about following in is useless when we all know quite well that these two are going to get past the follow on target anyway. We'd have a better chance if Broad wasn't on...
 

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Haha, he finally makes him play and there we go, creates a chance. Not rocket science Stuey
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
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.
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.

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.

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?
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.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Looks like Broad's trying to make Siddle sick again by making him go through constant ducking movements as he bangs it in short.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Ha...terrible start for England, guess we should have expected that. Definitely an advocate of a thrid man...take out the mid on/mid off or fine leg
 
Last edited:

Top