*** Official*** South Africa in England 2017

[marc71178]

Talking revisionist bollocks again I see. There is no way there was any certain victory in Rajkot, it was only an India top order collapse that made that game anything but a boring draw.

 

[Howe_zat]

All these people who claim to enjoy test cricket and want it over as soon as possible

 

[S.Kennedy]

Well Wood can't anyway any more so your point means nothing. Better bowler bowling less four balls at a slower pace is better for the team. Wood is not up to it after the injuries which is a shame but how it is.

Unfortunately you are correct. He seems like he is going to have a career hampered through injury. Shame, as England will go to Australia without any post-85mph bowlers. Besides Wood, Overton is probably the closest to a genuine quick. Australia may have four of the buggers! Or they may have none as things stand with the pay dispute.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Talking revisionist bollocks again I see. There is no way there was any certain victory in Rajkot, it was only an India top order collapse that made that game anything but a boring draw.

No more 'bollocks' than claiming England are favourites for the Champions Trophy!

 

[Adders]

I don't think there is anything that pisses me off more in cricket, than the absolute bollocks that gets bandied around over declarations and follow ons.

 

[Adders]

No more 'bollocks' than claiming England are favourites for the Champions Trophy!

jfc, could you be any more dire?

 

[grecian]

England should certainly enforce the follow on if they knock them over cheaply this morning.



Well, not declaring earlier certainly robbed them of victory at Rajkot in the winter. And then there was that absurd decision to bat again a year or so ago - it might have been v Pakistan - where England had 300 on the board and still came out again to add some pointless runs to it.

Well, what's that got to do with the follow-on, and we comfortably won against Pakistan, no problem whatsoever, your point was meaningless hyperbole.

Anywhoo was out yesterday so missed all the fun, seems we had a decent day.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I don't think there is anything that pisses me off more in cricket, than the absolute bollocks that gets bandied around over declarations and follow ons.

I think they will wait and see what conditions are like today before they decide. If it is a bowling day like yesterday then we send them in again if we get the wicket/wickets in the opening half hour. If it is a batting day we bat them totally out of it and set them 500+ to win. Either way we are in a great position.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If big Vern has recovered from the ballrooms the follow on enforcement might well be moot anyway.

 

[StephenZA]

If big Vern has recovered from the ballrooms the follow on enforcement might well be moot anyway.

Apparent viral infection where he has been kept in hospital overnight.... he is not playing in this test again. That`s not a 24h recovery.

 

[Adders]

I think they will wait and see what conditions are like today before they decide. If it is a bowling day like yesterday then we send them in again if we get the wicket/wickets in the opening half hour. If it is a batting day we bat them totally out of it and set them 500+ to win. Either way we are in a great position.

Agreed. This is the stupidity around this discussion........it's a great situation to be in and there is no right or wrong way to play this. But muppets like Kennedy (and I'm sure the sky crew later) will be out to define the mantra of Roots captaincy by the choice they make.

And as Brumbers has just pointed out......it's all a bit premature anyway.

 

[Stefan9]

Very poor batting display yesterday. Feel time is running out for Kuhn and it's markram time

 

[StephenZA]

Very poor batting display yesterday. Feel time is running out for Kuhn and it's markram time

It is tough on Kuhn and its a product of what SA have been going through and doing for awhile. I have not had a problem with us picking Cook or Kuhn. But we need to just pick Markram now, hope it does not effect his mentality, and give him 18 months to prove himself. He is talented and young enough.

 

[grecian]

I think they will wait and see what conditions are like today before they decide. If it is a bowling day like yesterday then we send them in again if we get the wicket/wickets in the opening half hour. If it is a batting day we bat them totally out of it and set them 500+ to win. Either way we are in a great position.

Pretty much this, conditions will dictate, if it's sunny on a third day of an Oval Test, that is genuinely some of the best conditions to bat in Test cricket. The pitch generally gives over to spin in the final day or so. Yet if it is like it has been throughout you can see them changing it, but who knows, again in total agreement with others that it has become one of the most tiresome discussions in recent years, started with Straus I think, so it's been awhile, and you just can't get away from the thought it is all driven by journos and pundits just wanting an extra paid day-off.

 

[GIMH]

For me the follow on is best employed if you're late on day four when it becomes an option. What's to gain enforcing it early on day three? If they bat well then we wind up batting fourth at The Oval. Even if we collapse we still set a target around 300 that's probably enough.

I remember us enforcing it against saffa in 08 and they batted out the rest of the Test.

If we'd got them all out last night with say ten overs still left I could see the argument for it as you've the potential to send them back in three wickets down and still around 180-200 behind. In this case I don't think the reward is as tangible.

Bat again.

 

[honestbharani]

Its just like a 3rd innings declaration decision. Decide the maximum amount of overs your bowlers would want to get the opposition out a second time, and then see if that is still plenty in the bank, considering weather forecasts etc. And if its still a good 30 or 40 overs more, no harm at all in having a go again and grinding the opposition down mentally and physically.

 

[Howe_zat]

For me the follow on is best employed if you're late on day four when it becomes an option. What's to gain enforcing it early on day three? If they bat well then we wind up batting fourth at The Oval. Even if we collapse we still set a target around 300 that's probably enough.

I remember us enforcing it against saffa in 08 and they batted out the rest of the Test.

If we'd got them all out last night with say ten overs still left I could see the argument for it as you've the potential to send them back in three wickets down and still around 180-200 behind. In this case I don't think the reward is as tangible.

Bat again.

Plus you only have to look at the last two tests to see how much easier it is to take wickets when defending a big target, conditions apart.

It seems clear that current cricketers have caught onto 'enforce when you need to' while commentators insist on the idea of 'bat again when you need to'. It'd be okay if these ideas were seen as roughly equal - IMO the former is much more valid - but it seems like a large section of impatient people will pretend like only the latter idea exists.

Yesterday Holding went round the commentary box asking the question 'why would you need to bat again?' as though that explains his point, without once considering the opposite question.

 

[Howe_zat]

Its just like a 3rd innings declaration decision. Decide the maximum amount of overs your bowlers would want to get the opposition out a second time, and then see if that is still plenty in the bank, considering weather forecasts etc. And if its still a good 30 or 40 overs more, no harm at all in having a go again and grinding the opposition down mentally and physically.

No, it isn't. The fact is we have played two days out of five and considering 'how much time is left in the game' as though it's a serious point is nonsense.

Anyway I'm part of the problem now as I've made at least three points on this, so I'm done. I hate that this has left me hoping we don't take wickets too early just to avoid the same repetitive dribble.

 

[honestbharani]

No, it isn't. The fact is we have played two days out of five and considering 'how much time is left in the game' as though it's a serious point is nonsense.

You seriously did not get that I was making a generic point about how the decision to either enforce or not enforce the follow-on should be taken or you just rambling again for no reason?


EDIT: I suppose me typing "having a go" has given you the impression I meant they should bowl again. I actually meant that as batting again and not enforcing the follow-on, hence "grinding".

 

[Howe_zat]

Vernon back from the hospital, he's going to be able to bat today, though no doubt he'll be feeling peaky.