*Official* Pakistan in England and Ireland 2016

[smash84]

Scaly has a point. Really bad decision this although in the end shouldn't matter.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So I guess they will bat for 30 minutes to an hour in the morning and look to get the lead to 550 before declaring.

 

[Daemon]

I think it was a bad decision but getting to watch Root again has soothed me totally. If Hales fails 4 more times is his place under threat? Or do we just have to pick him because we have literally no more batsmen?

hildreth?

edit: always thought he was an opener, carry on

 

[GIMH]

You're familiar with Manchester? Cloud forecast for the entirety of the remaining couple of days. Rain forecast both days.

England have been fortunate they've had as many overs as they've had, because a lot of umpires would have took them off for bad light around an hour ago. The fact that they didn't improves England's chances because it will probably be similarly murky the next couple of days. That itself could save England 20-30 overs.

Hypothetically there are nearly 200 overs left. But it's not beyond Manchester to wipe out a good chunk of those. A few forecasts I've looked at predict around 4 hours to be lost to rain.

Yes I am familiar with Manchester. yes I probably would have followed on. No it isn't Alastair's 'we're gonna have a bowl' moment; teams do this all the time.

And saying the result is irrelevant to the quality of the decision is somewhat foolish; captains are there to do what they think will get results. If we draw this match then this decision will rightly be looked at. If we win it, then job done. I am not for a minute saying actions should solely be judged on results, but in sports the ends justify the means.

 

[nightprowler10]

So when's the next Test match starting? Can't wait to watch some cricket.

 

[Furball]

I absolutely would not have enforced the follow on with Anderson and Stokes literally having just recovered from injury. Plus sticking a few more overs into the legs and arms of the Pakistani bowlers (particularly when Yasir bowled close to 60 overs in the first innings) is a good move, assuming Mrs Shah hasn't brought along her pills.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So when's the next Test match starting? Can't wait to watch some cricket.

Wednesday 3rd August at Edgbaston.

Going on day 2 myself so hope to see both sides bowl that day.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I absolutely would not have enforced the follow on with Anderson and Stokes literally having just recovered from injury. Plus sticking a few more overs into the legs and arms of the Pakistani bowlers (particularly when Yasir bowled close to 60 overs in the first innings) is a good move, assuming Mrs Shah hasn't brought along her pills.

Next Test is well over a week after this one. Anderson and Stokes bowled comfortably more overs in an innings for Lancashire and Durham. This is a superfluous line of argument at best. I could say England would have knocked them over quicker by bowling again today and having more time off before the next match. It pales into complete insignificance when you consider how fraught with danger the forecast is for the next couple of days is.

A nigh on 400 run lead and a dodgy Manchester forecast is not the time to be pissing about.

 

[Furball]

lol, the game will be done tomorrow.

 

[theegyptian]

I didn't actually see any of today's play but looking at the scorecard I'm disappointed at the way Hales appeared to play. This would have been an ideal opportunity to really attack. A 30 off 15 balls, or 40 in 25 balls would have been more valuable for the team than him scoring 50 off 80 balls(an innings which given the benign match conditions wouldn't have proved a whole lot - and he couldn't even do that). Today he managed to be both technically crap and put his own (incorrect) interests in front of the teams.

He seems to lack the right kind of mentality and/or game awareness. Warner's a brilliant bat, but at the start of his test career he wasn't but he had a great mentality to the game. If he'd have gone out there today he'd have been trying to whack it all over the place. He put the team first whilst playing to his own strengths. Hales here is doing the opposite imo - Playing for himself but doing it in a way that actually disadvantages him.

You can have the right kind of mentality but an average technique and do well ( See Cook for instance), you can have a average mentality and good technique and do well (take Bell for instance). Hales seems to have nothing really going for him in both mentality and technique - you don't make many test players like that.

 

[Furball]

Nah I'd rather someone like Hales try to play properly instead of just slog.

 

[theegyptian]

Nah I'd rather someone like Hales try to play properly instead of just slog.

Really you think today he should have just been playing a normal test innings?

 

[Furball]

With a degree of aggression.

 

[Top_Cat]

You are correct and the fact that England have enforced the follow on roughly half the time in the last few years says that's precisely the approach they take.

The main reason I get wound up is because it isn't an important decision, there are plenty of good reasons not to do it and you should enforce the follow on when you feel you need to, but not enforcing the follow on absolutely dominates discussion, and always without question draws criticism. It's get-on-with-it-itis, armchair psychology nonsense, jumping to rail against 'defensiveness' (even though the point of 'enforce to protect your top order wickets' is by far the most defensive suggestion I've heard today) and an extra helping of historical revisionism (Steve Waugh always enforced the follow on apparently).

The mythology extends the other way too. Everyone blames Waugh's decision in Kolkata in '01 to enforce the follow-on for costing them series but it took a top-5 all-time Test knock and the bowling performance of a lifetime to prove it wrong.

It's superstitious cricketing mumbo-jumbo. No matter whether Cook enforced it or not, this game probably ends tomorrow.

 

[Cabinet96]

Why is not enforcing the follow on always considered a defensive move regardless of the reason for the decision?

 

[Top_Cat]

Old sporting chance mythology. It's poor form to set a team an impossible massive target instead of sending them back in to redeem themselves, chaps. The latter, all results are still possible but the former you kill the game. It's outdated in the modern game, tbh.

 

[Adders]

I think the fact that Scaly has waded in so strongly against the decision not to follow on, categorically affirms it as the 100% correct call.

 

[Midwinter]

While each case needs to be judged on the context of the game, as a bowler, the follow on should only be enforced if the conditions are overwhelmingly in the bowlers favour. Have a rest and start bowling again when fresh and can really get stuck into it.

England's bowlers were only a few overs short of their quota for the day, so it would be like handing them the second new ball and expecting the same results as with the first one.

 

[Black_Warrior]

As a pure cricket fan, there's nothing I'd love more than to watch Cook and Root bat for the next 2 days

 

[Adders]

I really can't understand why the decision is so questionable and such a talking point? Yeah I can see some of the arguments for enforcing it, even though ultimately I think not to is the right decision.......but it is such a marginal thing I can't see why anyone would have their knickers in a knot over it.

Dobell had it spot on IMO......

What Cook's decision was not is ridiculous. There is enough logic in the decision to make it understandable at worst and reasonable at best.