BoyBrumby
Englishman
It's an interesting point, actually.Luck definitely plays a bigger part in cricket than most sports IMO
I'm not convinced it does as such, association football's uniquely high premium on scoring means it's probably the most susceptible to the vicissitudes of spawn (it's possible to jam one in off the centre half's arse from your only corner and the oppo fail to score from 50 chances).
However, due to the nature of batting, with the little death of a dismissal in every innings, it's possible that luck affects players more in cricket than in other team sports. Once a batsman is gone, occasionally due to some outrageous jam (Kane Williamson in the group game v England, for instance) he has no further chance for redemption in that innings and/or game, depending on format).
Won't feel safe without anything less than 150 and seriously doubt we'll get that.So the question is, how many runs do England need to shut down the game? 350? 400? I can't see Australia scoring enough second innings runs to build a lead of 200 if they concede a deficit of more than around 75. Will that be enough runs?
Chasing 4th innings on this deck is going to be stiff AF. Lyon's ragged a few already.