Yes but a draw (as in that case) isn't going to (especially when it's a 2 day game and a draw is expected. A loss (as in England's case) quite possibly will and I'm making no excuses for the loss because both teams have to play on the same pitch. I still do, however, think the pitch was awful.magsi23 said:
Meh, we got well done by South Africa 'A' last winter and that didn't hurt us. I'll start worrying if we're six down at six am on Saturday. Possibly more worrying about the fact that I'm likely to get beaten by my housemates with a large kitchen utensil for waking them up with early-morning f-words, but worrying nonetheless.Tom Halsey said:
No, it's not, and I never said it was. A 2 day game is never realistically going to end in a result.steds said:Yes, apparently it's about batting on a road for the full game. Those Pakistanis obviously haven't grasped that
Is that like "I don't drink, except for on Fridays when I get smashed off my face"?magsi23 said:
Neil's already spoken my exact thoughts. What should he have said? 'We're amining to lose'?magsi23 said:
Farhat retired hurt and then came back after Yousuf's wicket, so on this occasion Cricinfo were actually correct.shaka said:
I'd agree with that. The batting's been shocking in both games, given that you'd expect some of our test batsmen to be able to stick around a bit even in trying conditions. And given how the conditons were supposed to help the quicks, you'd have thought our "strike bowler" would have done rather more than claim numbers 10 & 11 as wickets. Then again, perhaps you wouldn't given his form this year.Tom Halsey said:
Me neither & it flat-out contradicts what Big Dunc said in his Ashes diary. In the serialisation in the Guardian he was quite adament that the choice for the final batter before the 1st test came down to KP or Thorpey because he didn't see either as a test no. 4. KP had a curate's egg of a series, certainly didn't show enough to convince as a 4 for mine.wpdavid said:
For me, the only good to come of this is the likelihood of Bell staying in the side. That may look strange given his form in the Ashes, but he's supposed to be a seriously class act and, short of going away and averaging 150 for Warwickshire, I don't see where he goes from here. Having stuck by him for this squad, to ditch him after one game on what was reporedly an absolute minefield doesn't make sense.BoyBrumby said:
They've ditched him after an abysmal Ashes series and the fact that he doesn't look like scoring runs, not because of one game. Unfortunately it looks like we're stuck with him tentatively edging a 'perfect outswinger' (read half-volley that didn't do anything) repeatedly for the foreseeable future. I actually think a bigger break to get himself sorted out would have been much better for him.wpdavid said:
That does raise the question of how many chances you should give a newcomer. I'd argue that one series against Aus isn't necessarily enough, as long as there was some evidence of being up to it, such as Bell's 2 innings at Old Trafford. Sarwan in Aus in 2000/01 is a good example. IIRC he barely scored a run in that series, but they stuck with him and he's doing fine. The danger with what you're proposing is that we end up back in the late 1980's / early 1990's with half of the batsmen in the CC getting a handful of games. I could live without going through that nonsense again.Scaly piscine said:
He's hardly done anything of note against the top sides. All I remember is one admittedly quite sublime century against the Aussies when they chased down 418.wpdavid said:
