Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
22 already added by these two. The worst possible time for a big lower-order stand is the match's second innings.Warney bringing a bit of state bias to the table
22 already added by these two. The worst possible time for a big lower-order stand is the match's second innings.Warney bringing a bit of state bias to the table
Extremely well said; I couldn't agree with this any more if I tried. The weather forecast for the rest of this game is hardly perfect either so England need to look to wrap this up as quickly as possible. Batting again now would just be a waste of dry conditions; not to mention momentum.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.
Broad will take 4fer and I'll be getting a PM from King Pietersen about how great Stuart Broad is.Gah, Broad opening again. I hope Strauss gives Anderson the chance to get his 5'fer and further nail down that knighthood of his.
Nobody cares about your planetcricket rivalries, bore offBroad will take 4fer and I'll be getting a PM from King Pietersen about how great Stuart Broad is.
It's not bad. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not predictive of more than 20-30 overs to be lost.The weather forecast for the rest of this game is hardly perfect either
I had a bit of a rant last night saying this exact thing, but given how easy batting seems this morning, I'd be tempted to not enforce.Extremely well said; I couldn't agree with this any more if I tried. The weather forecast for the rest of this game is hardly perfect either so England need to look to wrap this up as quickly as possible. Batting again now would just be a waste of dry conditions; not to mention momentum.
Spot on, let's just hope Strauss doesn't read thisEngland 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.
I thought he was an Kiwi before coming to Australia.Australian.
Strauss is the only person who doesn't realise this.England need to open every single session of the game and the series with Flintoff IMO. The first few overs in a session set the tone, and to keep bowling Broad at the start really screws up the entire system.
Pretty much, although they know more about cricket then you do, tbh.Nobody cares about your planetcricket rivalries, bore off