*Official* Second Test at Lords

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hopefully so they can crush Australia rather than giving them a mild beating. And all the while lessening their own chances of defeat.

That's a bit of a stretch. You don't avoid enforcing the follow-on just to try and get a bigger winning margin. Even if that was the goal, winning by an innings is surely more comprehensive, and you can't do that if you voluntarily bat twice.

It's a defensive move, albeit the right one for England under the circumstances IMO.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah he has, but Swann has just bowled in one innings so far, but with the ball turning and bouncing on day 3 for Horrie, Swann too should enjoy bowling on this track, and might very well have the last laugh, if he spins his team to a victory in this game.

 

[tooextracool]

Got Shane Warne saying he's a good player of spin. I'll take that. Besides, apart from the wicket ball, looked pretty comfortable.

He does have the tools so it wouldnt surprise me, wristy player of subcontinental origin

 

[Richard]

Just don't understand that and doubt I'll agree even if I did.

That's fair enough - I wouldn't expect you to. As long as you don't intimate that there's anything wrong with that way of thinking I'm not unhappy with you.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That's fair enough - I wouldn't expect you to. As long as you don't intimate that there's anything wrong with that way of thinking I'm not unhappy with you.

But you're allowed to do the opposite? vvitsl.

 

[pup11]

Big spell for Siddle. Bowled a great spell earlier without luck, needs to take a wicket this time around.

His inconsistency has been the biggest problem, he has bowled some excellent spells, and then he has also dished out some very ordinary stuff, I think trying to bowl to a plan, and being patient enough to stick with it is very important, unfortunately only Hilfy and Hauritz have been the two bowlers to do it consistently, and that's why they have looked better than Siddle and Johnson.

 

[Goughy]

Hopefully so they can crush Australia rather than giving them a mild beating. And all the while lessening their own chances of defeat.

The best way to 'crush' them would be to beat them by an innings. England may have reduced their chance of losing the game but they have reduced their chance of winning it. ALl that has happened is that the draw has become more likely.

Weak cricket

 

[GIMH]

So you think that a wicketless Graeme Swann has outbowled Nathan Hauritz in this series thus far?

Swann's only bowled in one innings (barring one over) to Hauritz's four tbf. Let's see how Swann does tomorrow - you're not wrong so far though...

Anyway. Just quietly, I think we have enough now. Not saying we should declare, but failing to win this match would be a bigger fail than the Aussies last week.

 

[Richard]

That's a bit of a stretch. You don't avoid enforcing the follow-on just to try and get a bigger winning margin. Even if that was the goal, winning by an innings is surely more comprehensive, and you can't do that if you voluntarily bat twice.

It's a defensive move, albeit the right one for England under the circumstances IMO.

Aggressive move for mine, as well as one that plays the percentages. Enforcing would've given Australia a chance of victory while not increasing England's chances; not enforcing means Australia are completely out of it and England's chances, if anything, are increased because they'll have (hopefully) given Australia a nice pasting in the field.

As for a bigger winning margin, well personally I tend to feel that 350 runs is a bigger margin than 9 wickets or an innings and 14. I'd feel much better having just won the former and would expect my opponents to feel they'd been crushed more effectively.

And as for the bigger winning margin not being the goal - well if you've earned a massive first-innings advantage with loads of time to spare I'd say you've got the luxury of trying for the biggest win you can get. It's good practice to try to kick your oppo while they're down and the bigger the winning margin the better your chances of doing that.

 

[Richard]

But you're allowed to do the opposite? vvitsl.

When exactly have I done that then?

 

[GIMH]

Dunno Rich, I was made up when Ponting never enforced the follow-on in Brisbane as I can't stomach an innings defeat

 

[Richard]

The best way to 'crush' them would be to beat them by an innings. England may have reduced their chance of losing the game but they have reduced their chance of winning it. ALl that has happened is that the draw has become more likely.

The likelihood of a draw after 18 wickets have fallen in two days is slim to zero. Once England earned such a large advantage it was as simple as they were going to win follow-on or no follow-on - as long as they bowled well. England barely reduced their chances of victory by not enforcing - if anything they increased it.

And as I said to Fuller, to me I feel I've achieved a far more crushing victory if I've won by 350 than an innings and 14. Not sure how the opposite can be true, but I'll listen if you can tell me.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

When exactly have I done that then?

"Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded etc etc"

 

[vic_orthdox]

Personally, an innings defeat is so much more embarrassing than a big number.

Siddle gets Pietersen, for a second there I thought that it was going to be given not out, didn't realise that KP had walked!

 

[Richard]

Dunno Rich, I was made up when Ponting never enforced the follow-on in Brisbane as I can't stomach an innings defeat

I find massive run margins far worse than a little "an innings and..." TBH, but I suppose each to their own.

Thought Ponting was absolutely genius in not enforcing personally. In the end Pietersen and Collingwood restored something close to respectability, but he could've earned one of the biggest victories in history.

Daym, Pietersen out.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Siddle gets his deserves.

 

[Top_Cat]

Big, big wicket. Knew Siddle would get at least one wicket running down the slope.

 

[GIMH]

Pietersen gone, disagree with the commentators that the RR will be slowed by that, Prior and then Flintoff know how to hit them

KP looks in bad shape doesn't he?

 

[Richard]

"Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded etc etc"

I've called deluded people who have said "I like to see players who've always looked rank hopeless get decent" where exactly?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Could be an important innings in the context of the series though, Pietersen getting some time out in the middle and batting back into a semblance of form by the end of it.