Eh. The game's still there, it's not as though you need Botham's expert technical opinion. If there were interesting stories and personalities involved it'd be great, as it was it was less interesting a discussion than a CW all time thread, because those sometimes have fredfertangThis isn't commentary. This is just two old blokes chatting. Both absolute legends of the game, but this feels like a podcast being played over the top of a live cricket match. Since Roberts came on commentary they've barely mentioned the game other than the wickets.
This also applies to what just happened to WrightKing cricket said:In truth, these long batting orders are no such thing. Test pitches are more forgiving these days, so mediocre batsmen can score well. Yesterday, Mitchell Johnson – a reasonable batsman with a Test hundred – was asked a couple of questions by the man who sounds like he should be a Nordic aviary, Danish Kaneria. Mitchell Johnson did not have the answers.
If it were a French test, Johnson would have said ‘boeuf?’ in the vain hope that might have made sense. It didn’t.
A couple of wide deliveries were left alone. Johnson looked like he knew what he was doing, but they were wide enough he could leave them without needing to know which they were spinning.
A straighter ball then had to be played at because if it were a leg break, it would have hit the stumps. Was it a leg break? No, it was a googly. Johnson’s defensive push missed it by about a foot. “Boeuf?”
Next ball was fractionally wider and maybe a bit fuller. Is it the googly again, Mitchell? Kaneria’s leg break splattered the stumps.
Not long though.Damn. If they send in Luke Wright I'll have to turn off for a bit
But he scores too slowly! What we need is POWER HITTERS who don't waste any time in getting back to the pavilion. Textbook innings from WrightRoll on Jonathan Trott's return. Luke Wright is an awful, awful batsman. Should be nowhere near international cricket.