2nd Test: England v Australia at Lords Jul 18-22, 2013

[midgetwars]

Haddin is to blame for all of this. He ran out Agar and he did some weird thing with Root which cost Australia more than 100 runs and possibly even more.

 

[War]

In Ashes history England have never inflicted a whitewash on Australia. England's most impressive Ashes wins were: 5-1 (1978/79 - the weakened AUS team due to the packer exodus of course), 4-1 (1911/12), bodyline 4-1, 1932/33 & 4-1 in 1928/29.

Unless Cook does a Gilchrist headingley 2001 moment & gives AUS a test match or rain washes out a test, this series is England's best chance to get a Ashes whitewash over Australia.

 

[sifter132]

I never understand the half hour (8 overs) in the evening theory, if you get a wicket or two you're left wondering how much damage you could have done.

I'd want an hour, even if the batting side makes 50 runs it is inconsequential, but if you do snare an early wicket or two you can potentially go to the close with 3-4 down and the opposition in blind panic.

It's just long enough to do some real damage, not too long the opposition can make significant runs.

The case for the only a half hour theory comes down to 2 things as I see it: you don't want the other team to gain any confidence by surviving for a decent period. eg. I think Aussies surviving 15 overs against a new ball would be fairly pleased with themselves, if it were only 5 overs I don't think that would feel like much of an accomplishment. You don't want them feeling the next morning like they've already seen off the new ball and have passed the hard part.

And 2nd, on that theme, you want the chance to use a ball that's still quite new and have another crack with it - good for a new batsmen if you take a wicket the previous night, and you feel like you've still got some ammo up your sleeve if the 2 openers survive.

 

[barmyarmy]

Considering it's stormy and wet at Lord's today that Swann wicket could have been more important than we realised.

 

[Owzat]

The case for the only a half hour theory comes down to 2 things as I see it: you don't want the other team to gain any confidence by surviving for a decent period. eg. I think Aussies surviving 15 overs against a new ball would be fairly pleased with themselves, if it were only 5 overs I don't think that would feel like much of an accomplishment. You don't want them feeling the next morning like they've already seen off the new ball and have passed the hard part.

It's about winning at the end of the day, and I'd rather have a longer go if I have them 10/1 than they close out play easily to resume the fight in the morning.

The ball would be relatively new for the morning, the bowlers fresh, the whole psychology put on batsmen that they have a "tricky spell" to survive is common, but I doubt they'd want to bat 12-15 overs knowing they'll probably only get 15-25 runs at best and have to start over in the morning.

I hate it when we get a wicket and there's no time for any more, and indeed it's hard to use your 3-4 bowlers with only eight overs, do you bowl the main bowler four overs which isn't really much of a spell, bring on the spinner or what?

For any psychological gain the batting side might get, I'd rather have 2-3 wickets down and half an hour just ain't condusive to that.

And 2nd, on that theme, you want the chance to use a ball that's still quite new and have another crack with it - good for a new batsmen if you take a wicket the previous night, and you feel like you've still got some ammo up your sleeve if the 2 openers survive.

Problem with both your beliefs is that you are basing it largely on the theory the batsmen survive, I'm not a believer in bowling eight overs without intending taking 1-2 wickets minimum and am working on a more positive scenario of getting one wicket. If I get the one in eight overs, which you really should with the new ball, opposition having fielded most/all of the day, no real gain from the shortened session before close, then I'm looking at wickets 2, 3 and so on.

The bowlers will be fresh in the morning, the ball probably only 12-13 overs old based on modern slowver rates and the two batsmen at very worst case scenario both with scores of 20+ . What they will feel is they have some runs on the board, but still have to start over.

I know most, including captains, have faith in the half hour bowl, and I think it's wrong and based on flawed and negative logic. Simple question, do you want 1 wicket or 3 by close of play? When the answer is 3 then you look at whether you are remotely likely to get that in half an hour, or if an hour is likelier to produce the desired wickets. If you set yourself up to worry about conceding runs and batsman confidence then you might as well give up cricket and go home, the major difference with the aussies is they used to be positive and confident in everything they did, now they're role reversed with England from the 90s

----------

Not declaring overnight was the right decision. Root getting a double hundred would have been an even greater lift for the England and a huge mental blow for the Aussies. Also, keeping them in the field for longer will ruin their bowler's stamina and morale.

It was a senseless decision, most definitely not a "right decision" at best an ok decision as there was so much time left.

England ponced about, Root didn't quite know what to do and any perceived "greater lift" and "mental blow" was undone when England went out, embarrassed themselves with few runs for two wickets and looking like the aussies.

Since they don't play for 10 days so I seem to recall reading on here, bowler's stamina isn't an issue. Their morale would not be dented any more by an extra 30-60 minutes while trying to reach a batsman landmark, and by and large this series they've done ok so the bowlers would hardly have been affected either way. They know you get days where it doesn't go for you, they know it is the batting that has let them down and they'd not be long from sitting in the pavilion.

----------

I can see why England ponce about when the mindset of all and sundry seems stuck in what they see on the TV. Cricketer on TV does it, that must mean they're doing it right



Anyway, England wrapped it up and made hard work of doing so. It turns out the aussies only made two more runs than the first innings deficit, while enforcing the follow on would have been foolish to say the least, it might have saved us a day of England asserting their dominance which was already apparent and got us to a far more convincing quick win.

Too many armchair psychologists on here, therein lies a lot of the problem. Let's not worry about getting them out, let's worry about getting inside their heads which are already shot, but hey ho, let's ponce about and increase what small chance they have of surviving for landmarks and psychological mindgames.

It's a simple game overcomplicated by people and their psychological theories. Did we make sure of the win by batting longer than necessary? No. Did we do any more damage to the aussies by the large margin? No more than 2-0 in the series does. You can't win the game twice, the only real thing England could have gained by batting on forever and a day would have been if Harris had broken down injured. He didn't.

The aussies know 2-0 is hard to come back from, their issues are with batting and as long as we keep their batsmen down we're winning - actually and in any BS psychological mindgames people want to play alongside what matters.

----------

Considering it's stormy and wet at Lord's today that Swann wicket could have been more important than we realised.

Always worth winning a game quickly. I remember a game against West Indies in 1988, I think England capitulated shortly before the rain arrived.

If the West Indies had decided to grind England into the ground more than thrashing them had already, they could have not won the Test and maybe changed the direction of the rest of the series - assuming it wasn't the last.