***Official England in India***

[Prince EWS]

I'm not thinking about the possibility of a declaration. Tomorrow's a fresh start for the batsmen, and we all know how fallible our lower order is. There's good case to be made for Prior batting above Fred, as the latter will clog things up against the spinners. Better by far to have Fred come in at 7 and tell him to pretend its a oneday game. Won't happen, I suppose.

Yeah, I see no reason Flintoff is batting ahead of Prior other than to feed his ego. There are so many reasons to bat Prior ahead of him.

- Prior is picked a a batsman who keeps wicket; Flintoff is picked as a bowler who can bat (or rather, should be).
- Prior is more traditional in his technique, particularly against the spinners, wheras Flintoff is more reliant on a platform already being set to do anything.
- Prior isn't used to batting with the tail given he bats in the top 5 for Sussex and it showed in the first innings; Flintoff's batted a lot with the tail throughout his career and is used to it.
- Prior is genuinely just a better batsman - he scored heaps of runs last summer in County Cricket and Flintoff hasn't been able to hit it off the square in the longer format since he came back from injury. Prior has the better FC average and the better Test average.

I assumed Prior would be batting ahead of him once he was picked, particularly given Ambrose actually batted ahead of him at one point last English summer. I just don't get it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Excellent job here by England. They've pretty much won the game already.

Cunning attempt to invoke the mockers gods by SS there. There's life in India yet, clearly.

 

[Goughy]

Excellent job here by England. They've pretty much won the game already.

A collapse and a quick start and India could win this by 7 wickets.

There is a long way to go in this game.

 

[Goughy]

I assumed Prior would be batting ahead of him once he was picked, particularly given Ambrose actually batted ahead of him at one point last English summer. I just don't get it.

I can from the POV that I think 7 is a more important position than 6 and a position that requires more stability than gamble.

Maybe KP read my thoughts on this matter

 

[Uppercut]

You jest, surely? There's no way on God's earth it's in the same league as the original.

Yeah, i wasn't too big a fan of the original though. Better cover than Hendrix's horrendously overrated cover of All Along the Watchtower.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I see no reason Flintoff is batting ahead of Prior other than to feed his ego. There are so many reasons to bat Prior ahead of him.

- Prior is picked a a batsman who keeps wicket; Flintoff is picked as a bowler who can bat (or rather, should be).
- Prior is more traditional in his technique, particularly against the spinners, wheras Flintoff is more reliant on a platform already being set to do anything.
- Prior isn't used to batting with the tail given he bats in the top 5 for Sussex and it showed in the first innings; Flintoff's batted a lot with the tail throughout his career and is used to it.
- Prior is genuinely just a better batsman - he scored heaps of runs last summer in County Cricket and Flintoff hasn't been able to hit it off the square in the longer format since he came back from injury. Prior has the better FC average and the better Test average.

I assumed Prior would be batting ahead of him once he was picked, particularly given Ambrose actually batted ahead of him at one point last English summer. I just don't get it.

Although there's pretty well no good reason for Prior to bat below Flintoff, I'm amazed anyone wasn't expecting it to happen. Pietersen's comments made it pretty clear that Flintoff would bat at six early in his reign, and I reckon it'll be a little while before he bats seven again personally.

Anyway, a good day again, despite me missing most of it either asleep or at the gym. Heard about this "drop" off Strauss that no-one seems sure was actually catchable - can anyone elaborate on that quickly?

However, on the Strauss case, I really do think he's got the hang of his game again. Much as he's hugely limited, you've got to be an incredibly good bowler to not end-up bowling to his strengths if you leave and defend as well as he has been of late. As was sort of touched on earlier, it's rare and hugely refreshing to see an England player come in and do well, deteriorate (and to an extent be worked-out, but I'll always maintain there was more deterioration than working-out), and then recover. I thought Strauss was gone for good before the second-innings at McLean Park and was actually disappointed when he made that 173 against such a weak bowling attack as I presumed it'd mean we had to endure some more failures. But it hasn't, it's enabled us to get back a player pretty well everyone, myself included, thought was lost forever. Hopefully Strauss will be around and scoring judicious runs by the plenty like these two innings' for a good 3-4 years ahead yet.

 

[Uppercut]

I have to admit, i stupidly vowed to a friend that "if England win a test in India, i'll buy you ten pints". So SS, i'm counting on your jinxing skills. Please don't let me down.

 

[Richard]

Excellent job here by England. They've pretty much won the game already.

Don't confuse "in a position where victory is seemingly assured" and "already won". Not when England are involved.

Obviously, though, if we lose from here (I still don't think a draw is that likely, but this pitch has clearly not deteriorated the way I thought it would yet - whether it does tomorrow we wait and see) it'll be a massive disappointment. You don't get opportunities to smash-and-grab a Test series victory in India very often, but winning the toss in this game, added to Strauss' diligence, has given us just that opportunity.

 

[Uppercut]

Anyway, a good day again, despite me missing most of it either asleep or at the gym. Heard about this "drop" off Strauss that no-one seems sure was actually catchable - can anyone elaborate on that quickly?

It wasn't so much a drop, he completely missed it. He pulled his bat inside the line at one wide outside off stump from Mishra that spun back in sharply and took a thick outside edge, went just wide of Dhoni. The criticism is because he wasn't in a position to take an outside edge, but on second viewing that's quite harsh too. It turned a lot one way off the pitch then deviated a lot the other off the bat.

 

[Richard]

Is it me or has the pitch flattened out somewhat rather than deteriorated?

Yes, massively so. Just as I thought it surely wouldn't this time yesterday.

Not for the first time in India of late, we have something of a "lamb in wolf's clothing" to use that excellent Dean Jones phrase.

 

[Richard]

It wasn't so much a drop, he completely missed it. He pulled his bat inside the line at one wide outside off stump from Mishra that spun back in sharply and took a thick outside edge, went just wide of Dhoni. The criticism is because he wasn't in a position to take an outside edge, but on second viewing that's quite harsh too. It turned a lot one way off the pitch then deviated a lot the other off the bat.

So in other words, something he might've caught had he done completely the wrong thing but something that if he presumed a ball would act in the sort of way it would 98.2353468% of the time, he'd never have a hope of catching?

So Strauss still has a shot at chanceless twin-centuries, excellent.

 

[Langeveldt]

To those of you watching on Sky Sports in England, have we seen the emergence of a new Bob Willis? We've seen smiles, encouragement, a friendly face and expert opinion.. Something I'm not used to seeing from him..

Perhaps it's only due to England doing well though.

 

[Richard]

England

It was funny the 1st time, mildly amusing the 2nd now it's just stupid.

Anyway what is so funny about being 140 ahead with 7 wickets left & the opposition to bat last on deteriorating wicket.

England are in stronger position than Australia were at almoast any time during their tour.

TBH, the case is that:
"England "
is a Gelmanism. If you're familiar with him, it's pretty harmless, though as I say I fully intend to give some
"Australia " s
back from now on whenever the opportunity arises (as I suspect it will from '07 onwards rather more often than it did for 18 years before that).

But yeah, agree that it can be somewhat overused.

 

[chalky]

To those of you watching on Sky Sports in England, have we seen the emergence of a new Bob Willis? We've seen smiles, encouragement, a friendly face and expert opinion.. Something I'm not used to seeing from him..

Perhaps it's only due to England doing well though.

He is excellent in his role doing the highlights show, is funny, incisive, honest & has a great chemistry with Charles Colville. Much better than his commentry which is the worst this side of Paul Allott.

 

[Richard]

Heh, have never understood either Willis or Allott hate TBH. Like both of them as commentators.

Charles Colville though, dear oh dear. He's fine as a presenter but I really wish he'd learn what makes a good cricketer before making some of the comments he makes.

 

[GIMH]

Pahaha, out of the blue. Musically i like Guns'n'Roses (although Sweet Child o' Mine annoys the hell out me), they're a good, listenable rock band. They're one of those bands that i never listen to anymore, but when they come on somewhere else i'm like "aw great song, haven't heard this in ages." They also have the quite incredible feat of being the only people ever to cover Dylan and do it better than the original.

Not a fan of Axl as a person. Think he almost tries properly hard to be a cliché. He is better than Billy Corgan of the Greatest Band of All Time though, so that's okay.

LOL, nah just wanted to find out if you were an Axl-hater like many of the others round here, as I may well need to pick you a nice new avatar soon

I have to admit, i stupidly vowed to a friend that "if England win a test in India, i'll buy you ten pints". So SS, i'm counting on your jinxing skills. Please don't let me down.

 

[GIMH]

imo Collingwood's 130 at Edgbaston is the best innings this year by an Englishman who isn't KP. In terms of opposition, pitch, and match situation, it was a gem of a knock. Today was terrific as well: incredible pressure, in no sort of form, but he's made absolutely vital runs and hardly looked like getting out apart from that time he hit the leggie only just over the top.

.

Strauss's two tons against NZ are both up there IMO, the first one he was under the same sort of pressure as Colly, and the second one won the match

 

[chalky]

TBH, the case is that:
"England "
is a Gelmanism. If you're familiar with him, it's pretty harmless, though as I say I fully intend to give some
"Australia " s
back from now on whenever the opportunity arises (as I suspect it will from '07 onwards rather more often than it did for 18 years before that).

But yeah, agree that it can be somewhat overused.

Most of the time the smiley use is justified & England's performance is laughable(like during the one day series) & I can have a laugh with it but it seems this test as soon as England lose a wicket or a boundry is scored against them you get a England . The example I quoted England were still well on top just seemed needless.

Anyway perhaps I'm getting grumpy in my old age

Have taken next Thursday & Friday off work so I can stay up all night & watch Australia South Africa test (Sad B@stard I know) so hopefully will get chance to pop into the Australia South Africa thread & give some back. Come on Steyn

 

[Uppercut]

So in other words, something he might've caught had he done completely the wrong thing but something that if he presumed a ball would act in the sort of way it would 98.2353468% of the time, he'd never have a hope of catching?

So Strauss still has a shot at chanceless twin-centuries, excellent.

Uhm, no not really. It didn't spin THAT much, and if Dhoni had kept his weight on his right foot he could have reacted to the edge. He wouldn't have caught it with bad keeping. But especially considering he's crocked, criticism of him for missing it isn't really fair. It's something someone that, say, Sangakkara at his peak might have got to.

 

[Uppercut]

LOL, nah just wanted to find out if you were an Axl-hater like many of the others round here, as I may well need to pick you a nice new avatar soon

That's what i thought, but let's be honest, i'm sure you already know enough things i hate and can guess the rest.