*Official* Second Test at Lords

[GIMH]

Broad looking inoccuous

 

[Pizzorno]

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...

 

[superkingdave]

Enough of this *****y short crap...it useless unless its in at the body

 

[GIMH]

****, droppedish

 

[duffer]

Haha, he finally makes him play and there we go, creates a chance. Not rocket science Stuey

 

[Richard]

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

Bowl Onions FFS. Still hope Anderson gets both of the last two though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Broad looking inoccuous

 

[Richard]

Haha, he finally makes him play and there we go, creates a chance.

Nah, there's no way that was ever going to be caught.

 

[Ikki]

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.

 

[GIMH]

Whoa, shot

 

[Craig]

Australia has been made to follow on once in 231 Tests and that was at Trent Bridge 2005.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Looks like Broad's trying to make Siddle sick again by making him go through constant ducking movements as he bangs it in short.

 

[TT Boy]

Nice shot. Said he could bat.

 

[duffer]

Nah, there's no way that was ever going to be caught.

Okay, he made him hit it in the air at/near a fielder. Better than it flying miles over his head.

 

[GIMH]

Warney bringing a bit of state bias to the table

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[GIMH]

****'s sake, quick runs here

 

[superkingdave]

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

 

[Pizzorno]

England in not bowling properly to tailenders and leaking runs shocker!

 

[alternative]

Get a wicket here ****s.