Still, England should make the aussie's bat again. I would really like to get stuck into Hughes at the moment, wouldn't want to give Hughes and Ponting time to calm down.
2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's
- Thread starter somersetargyle
- Start date
Still, England should make the aussie's bat again. I would really like to get stuck into Hughes at the moment, wouldn't want to give Hughes and Ponting time to calm down.
P
pcfan123
Guest
^ yea but playing for rain usually is a bad idea. I say it depends on how the morning goes and how /how long the tail bats for. If the wicket is batting well we might bat, also depends on how KP's achilies is feeling tbh.
Hmarka added 0 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...
Hughes probably wont play a shot like that again though.
Hmarka added 0 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...
Hughes probably wont play a shot like that again though.
The thing is that at the moment (well yesterday) there bowling attack was the walking wounded. So if we put them out again then and score big they are all gonna be screwed. But then what is the likely hood of us scoring big twice in a game?
The problem with our first total is that its one where its only a short decleration target and we wont have a lead of more than 200. So it's a tricky position to be in. If we had scored 600 and then skittled them out for 200 I'd say yeah straight away follow on! Especially if it's over night as the bowlers may be stiff but also rested.
In any case its tough call on the decleration at the moment.
The problem with our first total is that its one where its only a short decleration target and we wont have a lead of more than 200. So it's a tricky position to be in. If we had scored 600 and then skittled them out for 200 I'd say yeah straight away follow on! Especially if it's over night as the bowlers may be stiff but also rested.
In any case its tough call on the decleration at the moment.
2005 England enforced the follow-on and only just chased down the 100+ runs target set, losing key bowler Jones early in the follow-on.
You shouldn't just enforce the follow-on because you can, you have to take into account factors like :-
- Time. Is there enough time to bat again? In this instance we have THREE days left, England should only need to bat 3-4 sessions to add 250-300 and set a massive target. It might depend on the weather forecast and............
- Size of lead. Is it enough to win the match without having to bat again? I doubt the aussies would be bowled out twice for around/under 200 so the chances are England would have to bat again. Time would be an issue whoever batted third, either way you would probably have to fit in two innings although England would know how many runs were needed if batting last
- Fatigue. Having your bowlers in the field in consecutive innings can hold you at a disadvantage. If you bat again then your bowlers are fresh and their side demoralised from fielding. If you enforce the follow-on are you going to get the best out of your bowlers and fielders?
-Batting Last. Generally you want to avoid batting last, part of the sizeable advantage of batting first is you don't and get the best of the pitch for batting.
For me it is better to bat the opposition out of the game, the only times I would enforce the follow-on is a) when it is say 300+ lead or b) when there is not enough time to bat and then bowl. At the moment if the aussies were bowled out fairly quickly for a deficit of say 225 then England would want 4+ sessions to bowl at them last and say 3 to bat them out of the game. That leaves 2 sessions spare to bowl or for possible bad weather, not forgetting they try and squeeze in time made up which in the middle of summer should be ok as long as the weather holds.
I must admit I was gobsmacked at the aussies collapsing, some VERY poor strokes indeed, some poor hooking and very un-aussie like shots. Are you England in disguise? Poncing might have got a dubious decision, bet he's kicking himself for not taking five lower order England wickets in over two sessions and something like 60+ overs. We can't expect the aussies to fall apart like that in a hurry.
There was something in the back of my mind made me think batting might not be that easy though. Despite an opening stand of 196 England did get away with some shots and the aussies did bowl some good balls. Both Cook and Strauss could have been dismissed a fair bit earlier than they were. England should still have made 500+, some of the dismissals in both innings so far have been decidedly poor. I wonder if Broad's two late wickets will be enough to save his place, second innings may be his last chance to do something with the ball.
England have found something they precive as a weekness, I don't think it will matter if he doesn't play that same shot I can still see him being bounced out.
P
pcfan123
Guest
If we bat first and get skittled out for 250 in 4 sessions then Aus will have no problem chasing it down in 5 sessions. I can see it now, "Aussies save historic streak with record chase at lords"
I say we follow on, if we bowl the same lengths we should get them for 400-500 odd, and chase it down in 3 sessions.
I agree that Aus will not give up their wickets so cheaply and quickly again, however Flintoff and Anderson were bowling perfect lengths and the ball beat the bat many times.
Broads wickets were both gifts to him, gifts from the Aussie batsmen playing ridiculous shots in bad light. As much as I hate to admit, if he does not improve in the 2nd innings, he should not retain his place over Harmison (he is not there to bat, and has not contributed with the bat anyways).
I say we follow on, if we bowl the same lengths we should get them for 400-500 odd, and chase it down in 3 sessions.
I agree that Aus will not give up their wickets so cheaply and quickly again, however Flintoff and Anderson were bowling perfect lengths and the ball beat the bat many times.
Broads wickets were both gifts to him, gifts from the Aussie batsmen playing ridiculous shots in bad light. As much as I hate to admit, if he does not improve in the 2nd innings, he should not retain his place over Harmison (he is not there to bat, and has not contributed with the bat anyways).
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Enforcing the follow on would be the wrong thing to do in my books. Australia aren't going to be bowled out cheap twice in a row, unless some sort of miracle occurs. Most likely Australia will set a total that will be very difficult and nervy to chase down for England.
Another thing worth raising is that Australia have that stupid x factor thing where when their backs are at the wall they fire up. If England find themselves chasing down 300 - and Johnson starts firing all of a sudden, out of the blue (which he does quite a bit) I think the game could very well be Australia's.
But, the fact of the matter is that England should win the game from here. Nearly perfect position.
Another thing worth raising is that Australia have that stupid x factor thing where when their backs are at the wall they fire up. If England find themselves chasing down 300 - and Johnson starts firing all of a sudden, out of the blue (which he does quite a bit) I think the game could very well be Australia's.
But, the fact of the matter is that England should win the game from here. Nearly perfect position.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Quicker and faster?
Don't worry, it'll flatten out again, eventually. I'd wager that rain affects the actual surface conditions at Lord's very little now they have proper drainage and also that very nifty cover for the square.
piriyanth
International Cricketer
I guess there no rain interruption.
piriyanth
International Cricketer
Hang in there Siddle and Hauritz. Playing well so far.
OffCutters
International Coach
Strauss will probably follow on, then we get a 100-run lead, and then England chase it on the last day. England-1, Australia-0.
Not if Siddle and Hauritz keep playing like this he wont
