They already have enough but they will go to 420.Am I the only one who thinks there's no way they should be declaring if and when we're 400 ahead?
Slagging off the bloke who has scored freely is taking the anti Yorkshire thing you have a bit far don't you think.Just letting van Zyl bowl is really weak from Bairstow. Mid on and off are up, you have to go for it down the ground.
Slagging off the bloke who has scored freely is taking the anti Yorkshire thing you have a bit far don't you think.
Yeah it is, hence as I say it complicates things. Normally I advocate batting on longer than most people but there is a fine line here because yeah you don't want them blocking from the outset.Then isn't that more of a reason to set them less of a target?
Set them 550, they'll just be ****s and block the game out. Set them 400 and they might have a go for a while and lose a few wickets, hence giving you a better chance to win.
Then isn't that more of a reason to set them less of a target?
Set them 550, they'll just be ****s and block the game out. Set them 400 and they might have a go for a while and lose a few wickets, hence giving you a better chance to win.
I suppose it depends on whether we make inroads with the new ball second time around. If Amla comes and goes early on again, then fair enough, but if he comes in against or survives the new ball then it isn't such a silly idea, even allowing for his poor form of late. And we all know that AB is capable of doing just about anything if there's some support.South Africa were basically 214 for 15 in their first innings, scoring at not much over 2 and England are about 300-12 in this innings against a team with 3 bowlers.
I don't know why people are trying to make out there's a decent chance of South Africa chasing 400 or so. It's not easy to score on this pitch. Occupying the crease is much more doable.