TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Looking good so far.I'm even later and cant be bothered trawling the last few pages, so what's the verdict here about not enforcing the follow-on?
Looking good so far.I'm even later and cant be bothered trawling the last few pages, so what's the verdict here about not enforcing the follow-on?
Divided pretty much down the middle. In the "poor decision" camp, myself.I'm even later and cant be bothered trawling the last few pages, so what's the verdict here about not enforcing the follow-on?
Not to everyone.Your team is effectively 0-270 with two days and two sessions to go, and that's what you come up with.
Is it the climate that does this to people?
What's Strauss's under-50 percentage since his return to the side at the start of 2008?Well, visually it seems that way, yet he bats so much better once the ball is older. Now it's possible that this is simply a case of Strauss being more comparatively vulnerable once set than 99% of batsmen in history, but somehow I don't think that's the case, particularly given it didn't really happen at First Class level. Everyone can see that the guy has problems keeping out the full, swinging ball and this would obviously have less impact against him if he was batting three.
Strauss gets out for less than 50 whilst opening a staggering 73% of the time. Trescothick does so 69% of the time and Cook just 63%. It's just too many failures from someone whose secondary role after the obvious "score as many runs as possible" is protecting the upper middle order from the new ball. Yet, despite this, he averages the most of three as his concentration against the older ball is awesome.
England would be 370 up if they realised anyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BroadYour team is effectively 0-270 with two days and two sessions to go, and that's what you come up with.
Is it the climate that does this to people?
Broad looks like he would struggle to fight his way out of a paper bagEngland would be 370 up if they realised anyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broad
Onions should have bowled before him and bowled more overs
England wish.Translated:
Ponting is clueless as a captain .. his field placings are abysmal and he incessantly bowls Johnson
Johnson isn't better than Broad atmEngland would be 370 up if they realised anyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broad
Onions should have bowled before him and bowled more overs
Yeah. My concern is Strauss should now have to gamble with the weather at some point in the next 24 hours. If he sets something above 550 and they end up most wickets down but surviving due to rain then he'll look pretty daft. otoh if he sets 450 and they get the runs, which could easily happen on this wicket, he'll look even worse.Divided pretty much down the middle. In the "poor decision" camp, myself.
61%. Fair enough, I suppose.What's Strauss's under-50 percentage since his return to the side at the start of 2008?
Yeah, fully agree. Said virtually the same thing myself a few pages back.Yeah. My concern is Strauss should now have to gamble with the weather at some point in the next 24 hours. If he sets something above 550 and they end up most wickets down but surviving due to rain then he'll look pretty daft. otoh if he sets 450 and they get the runs, which could easily happen on this wicket, he'll look even worse.
Only wishing Siddle was worst tbh.Johnson isn't better than Broad atm
I'm not saying otherwise to the contention that Strauss is better against old ball than new - he is, far more people than not are. Strauss, however, has a better technique against the new ball than anyone else for a long while, so it'd be madness to waste that. Especially given that he himself much prefers going in first.Well, visually it seems that way, yet he bats so much better once the ball is older. Now it's possible that this is simply a case of Strauss being more comparatively vulnerable once set than 99% of batsmen in Test history, but somehow I don't think that's the case, particularly given it didn't really happen at First Class level. Everyone can see that the guy has problems keeping out the full, swinging ball and this would obviously have less impact against him if he was batting three.
Strauss gets out for less than 50 whilst opening a staggering 73% of the time. Trescothick does so 69% of the time and Cook just 63%. It's just too many failures from someone whose secondary role after the obvious "score as many runs as possible" is protecting the upper middle order from the new ball. Yet, despite this, he averages the most of three as his concentration against the older ball is awesome.
I suppose what I'm disputing is this, TBH - in terms of said technique's effectiveness, anyway. He looks a lot more 'proper' than Cook and Trescothick but they get through the new ball a lot more often than he does, and he takes advantage of the old ball a lot better often than they do.IStrauss, however, has a better technique against the new ball than anyone else for a long while
Should just get him playing home ODIs and T20s I reckon, he couldn't find that too pressurising surely?
Couldn't really mess about with the Test team for someone who won't go on tour, though.
Trescothick that is, not David Mitchell.
Yeah, there's just no point playing home ODIs\Twenty20s only. Not if you're English anyway - the attitude here is that they're preparation for World Cups. Some other countries actually apparently think they're worth something long-term in themselves - I don't.He wouldn't do the Champions Trophy in South Africa, 20/20 WC in the Windies or the 50 over WC in the sub (a place where even in the best state of mind he didn't like touring), so what is point?