• 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*** New Zealand in England series 2013

wpdavid

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Jono said:
England batted an hour too long. And Cook was batting with Trott, he could have told him to up his rate. He obviously wasn't fussed.

Its not that big a deal, but the fact people are refusing to admit that Cook clearly batted too long here is a little odd. They were never going to lose, and a test match is a test match. Its particularly surprising this coming from England fans, who value test cricket so highly.
Click to expand...
It's also a little surprising that they're not fussed about the extra points from winning 2-0 instead of 1-0, if the rankings mean anything at all to them.
 
flibbertyjibber

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
wpdavid said:
It's also a little surprising that they're not fussed about the extra points from winning 2-0 instead of 1-0, if the rankings mean anything at all to them.
Click to expand...
SA are so far ahead that 1-0 or 2-0 means very little at present. We'll win both ashes series anyway and might close up then.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
Jono said:
England batted an hour too long. And Cook was batting with Trott, he could have told him to up his rate. He obviously wasn't fussed.

Its not that big a deal, but the fact people are refusing to admit that Cook clearly batted too long here is a little odd. They were never going to lose, and a test match is a test match. Its particularly surprising this coming from England fans, who value test cricket so highly.
Click to expand...
I've said I got annoyed about not going for the win. But the way some people have been extrapolating that decision into insults and armchair psychiatrics has been nuts.
 
MW1304

MW1304

Cricketer Of The Year
Its gonna be 9 down, the rain is really coming.

10-fer at Headingley. Superb individual match effort from Swanny, however this ends.
 
grecian

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Howe_zat said:
I've said I got annoyed about not going for the win. But the way some people have been extrapolating that decision into insults and armchair psychiatrics has been nuts.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I just hope we wrap it up, and everyone can shut up. No chance of that I realise, but it's getting ****ing tedious.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
What I find interesting is that some of the people who have been very critical of Cook's declaration timing here are the same people who would've applauded Smith's declaration here under the logic of "there's no difference between 2-0 and 1-0." The overall series result is either infinitely more important than the scoreline or it's not; it's not a theory that should change depending on whether it backs up what you want to see as a spectator or not. If there was no difference between 2-0 and 1-0 there then the same logic applies here.

I agree with Howe a bit in that there's an overwhelming discontent among armchair fans about any captaincy decision that isn't aggressive or ballsy. Fans look for any excuse to go for the win, probably because it's more exciting and/or domineering, but they apply completely inconsistent logic to their arguments regarding it.

More than anything though I actually agree with Goughy. England should've gone for the win here but once they didn't enforce the follow on, the pace they batted and the length of time they batted on were completely consistent with that decision. With an uncertain forecast, if you're pushing for a win you should always enforce the follow on as there's then absolutely no risk of batting too long or not batting long enough. You automatically stop batting at the precise moment you've batted long enough if you chase in the second innings - because you've won the game. If England decided to really press for a win after batting again then it'd make little sense as they'd have to declare with a lead that could be hauled in should the weather hold up, just on the chance that it didn't hold up. The best and easiest way to take the weather and the declaration timing out of the game was to just bowl again. If they couldn't get the runs in time after that then so be it.

There was actually a much greater chance of losing by batting again and pressing for a win than there was by enforcing the follow on and pressing for a win, so once they batted again their intentions were clear.
 
Last edited:
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
Prince EWS said:
What I find interesting is that some of the people who have been very critical of Cook's declaration timing here are the same people who would've applauded Smith's declaration here under the logic of "there's no difference between 2-0 and 1-0." The overall series series is either infinitely more important than the scoreline or it's not; it's not a theory that should change depending on whether it backs up what you want to see as a spectator or not. If there was no difference between 2-0 and 1-0 there then the same logic applies here.

I agree with Howe a bit in that there's an overwhelming discontent among armchair fans about any captaincy decision that isn't aggressive or ballsy. Fans look for any excuse to go for the win, probably because it's more exciting and/or domineering, but they apply completely inconsistent logic to their arguments regarding it.

More than anything though I actually agree with Goughy. England should've gone for the win here but once they didn't enforce the follow on, the pace they batted and the length of time they batted on were completely consistent with that decision. With an uncertain forecast, if you're pushing for a win you should always enforce the follow on as there's then absolutely no risk of batting too long or not batting long enough. You automatically stop batting at the precise moment you've batted long enough if you chase in the second innings - because you've won the game. If England decided to really press for a win after batting again then it'd make little sense as they'd have to declare with a lead that could be hauled in should the weather hold up, just on the chance that it didn't hold up. The best and easiest way to take the weather and the declaration timing out of the game was to just bowl again. If they couldn't get the runs in time after that then so be it.

There was actually a much greater chance of losing by batting again and pressing for a win than there was by enforcing the follow on and pressing for a win, so once they batted again their intentions were clear.
Click to expand...
There we have the crux of the matter
 
stumpski

stumpski

International Captain
If the batsmen aren't going to run, switch the bowlers round so that Swann gets a go at Wagner. And I'd take Finn off now, he's had enough chances with the number 10. Jimmy time.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
Swann the first spinner to take 10 at Headingley since Underwood in '72. When did uncovered pitches stop happening?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top