morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pretty sure Jaques isn't eligible, besides hasn't he been dire for ages?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Second Test at Lord's
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
In that regard, he is more relevant than Taylor as Patel was playing for England in all 3 forms of the game in the off season. Im not saying he should play but that I am surprised that someone who is having a decent CC and was in the Test team 7 months ago isnt even in the conversation.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The ball or the fact that an Englishman walked?
You are either the most bitter bloke in the world or someone doing a terrific impression of him.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
In the spirit of Siddle's interview, calling it now: England declare early, Australia 240 without loss at stumps. You heard it here first.
Riggins
International Captain
I'm going to **** me to no end when one of the aussies comes out and bangs on about how even though we're batting for a draw, the players still need to be attacking, play their natural game, look to score etc etc. And then all the guys get out trying to hit boundaries and score because that's the way they bat, ra ra ra. It's complete bull ****. The way you get through it is to bat like de Villiers/Du Plesis did in Adelaide. Not looking to score, not playing at anything that's not attacking the stumps, just dead bat the **** out of it. The pitch is an absolute road, if you give the bowlers nothing they're really going to struggle to take your wicket. But we wont, we'll go down swinging and ****ing suck, and it's gonna piss me off so much. /endrant
Bell had an even better view...
IMO ICC have got themselves in a complete mess on this issue in general. Whilst i think almost all the 'failings' of DRS are generally down to the misuse by captains (although i am interested in the idea of changing the system so that reviews are only the prerogative of the fielding captain, with ALL wickets being reviewed as a matter of course; whether this would lead to umpires giving more decisions and working against batsmen is a possible argument against), the situation with low catches is very different. Perhaps the review process for these needs to be changed to that in Rugby Union, namely the umpire stating "is there any clear reason why i can't give this out"? Third umpires could then be properly trained in the limitations of the technology, with the result that only CLEAR non-catches would be rejected (perhaps there could also be provision for umpires to state an opinion that it is probably not out - a kind of 'umpires call' situation).
I was musing on the debate about the difference between Ramdin and Broad, and came to the conclusion that what the commentators were missing was that the difference between the two actually stemmed from the historic perspective that judging on clean catches was not the role of the umpire, but rather seen as the responsibility of the player taking the catch. It is the only area of the game where that is the case, and that is why any deception is so frowned upon. It seems to me that the moment the responsibility is said to rest soley on the umpires (including third umpire) the difference between Ramdin and Broad disappears, and morally the catcher has the right to claim anything. So either the ICC continue with umpires accepting the word of players AND imposing penalties for deception, or they should do neither.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah. But the Adelaide Test saw a special rearguard action though. Not easy to replicate.The first few batsman need to play their natural game but if that goes wrong then a few guys lower down need dig in and, as you said, leave everything not hitting the stumps. It requires unbelievable concentration though and willingness to go through considerable pain with no obvious light at the end of the tunnel. Do Aus have those players? Lehmann's comments that at all levels Aus lack players who can bat long suggests they may not have the right guys who can just shut up shop and bat for 8 or 9 hours.
Last edited:
Philhughesisbes
School Boy/Girl Captain
Riggins
International Captain
could not disagree with this part more.
I was at Lords, and can honestly say that whilst from one perspective the entertainment of the final session just about saved what was previously an incredibly dull day, from another it was depressing that the only logical explanation for what went on was that Australia had given up. It was shocking. I almost wondered if the only purpose of Clarke's tactics was to get his series average over-rate down so there would be less danger of any suspensions somewhere down the line.
Not taking the new ball was initially fine as a tactic if it was felt that doing so would keep the low scoring rate going, but within an over or two of it being available it was clear that England were managing to score against the old ball at will. At that point it became increasingly inexplicable that they didn't take it, to the extent that it went from being inconceivable that Cook would declare overnight, to it being an entirely viable option (whether he does so is another matter, but either way i think that the crazy last session has meant that Australia will have probably at least half an hour longer to survive than they might otherwise have had (as usual all the commentators arguing for 'pre-close' declarations were ignoring the runs/overs equation in trying to turn it into a 5 and a half versus 6 and a half sessions to bowl them out debate).
However today is going to be interesting in a number of ways. If the batsmen's efforts give the impression that their bowling on day 3 was toothless as opposed to blunted by the pitch (2 wickets all day!) and fail to dispel the notion that the pitch has died a bit and is rapidly descending to usual road territory then the Aussies might as well pack their bags now.
Agreed. The game has gone past the stage where a few runs will get England nervous (believe me in 2009 a lot of England fans were still a bit pessimistic as we headed into the final day with Clarke and Haddin apparently immovable at the crease with 180 odd to win). You save matches like this by not giving ANYTHING away. Not saying they shouldn't play ANY shots, but they should happen for a better reason than "playing the natural game" (eg. getting Swann to put a few men on the boundary, as is his wont). You don't save games like this playing natural games (unless you're Michael Atherton or Paul Collingwood), you save them by accepting the reality of the match situation and proving that you really can apply yourself and rein yourself in (and this can be relative - if you usually score at 3.5 and over, score at 2.5 an over etc).
England scored at 2 an over for most of yesterday - and they were in a position of dominance - but adapted to what they had to do. They knew the only way they could stuff it up was to lose wickets so they made avoiding that their priority. It's even more true for Austalia.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Which bit? The natural game bit? Guys just have to bat. If that isnt working then they have to go into their shell. However, batsman need to just get on with it and bat. With 10 wickets left, there is no need to over think it. Just play cricket. As wickets fall the game changes and Aus need to show situational awareness and adapt to the game situation. If you go out there to dead bat from ball one then you stop playing cricket. It is how England failed for decades.
