Dec 3-7: 2nd Test: Australia v England at the Adelaide Oval

[midgetwars]

I reckon england are right now about the rain...

Also, i don't think england need only 1 wicket... They need 2. North then the H-bomb: Haddin

 

[angryangy]

It could be slightly in England's favour today if they can come back for half an hour or so.

Otherwise, rain was always on the cards. Strauss can hardly blame anyone else if they don't have enough overs to bowl when they could feasibly have had up to 30 more overs at Australia by now. Sure, that would have offered Australia a slim shot at a win, but England must accept that the path they now take favours a draw.

 

[used2bcool]

Cricinfo expects a restart in about 7 minutes as apparently the worst of the weather has passed. How many overs do you reckon we'll get before bad light forces them off again?

If England take advantage of the break in concentration and the generally seamer-friendly conditions that exist after a rain break, they could be right on top here.

But I agree that if Australia escape with a draw here and the overs lost in rain play a significant part, England have no one to blame but themselves. Even after the rain last evening and the forecasts all screaming about rain, they still batted about 20 overs too many.

 

[shravi]

Go Clarke! Love watching him bat, especially against the spinners.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Clarke's batting beautifully.

 

[aussie1st]

Also, i don't think england need only 1 wicket... They need 2. North then the H-bomb: Haddin

I would say Zorax was right 4 out of 5 times but I believe Mr South is due his annual career saving 100.

 

[Owzat]

Somewhat odd decision to bat on, may have made an innings victory more likely but took out 10 minutes in change of innings alone with the threat of rain.

Why don't England open the bowling with Finn?!?!? As much as some on here may love Broad, is he really a) good enough to open and b) taking enough wickets to justify giving him the new ball?

Time will tell if England can win or if Strauss will have got England in a dominant position and tossed it away because he refused to look at the wider picture.

 

[aussie1st]

That sums up our spinning stocks, even KP looks more dangerous than our guys. Not good, we needed a huge one from Clarke.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Mwuhahaha KP removes Clarke

As if a double century wasn't enough for him, Clarke is gone, England in control with only Hussey, North and Haddin and the tail left

 

[angryangy]

There's now rain pretty much everywhere within 100 km of Adelaide. It looks like the morning session will be most likely to see a break, but the afternoon will see a lot of rain.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Rain Gods must love Aussies

 

[Sureshot]

It could be slightly in England's favour today if they can come back for half an hour or so.

Otherwise, rain was always on the cards. Strauss can hardly blame anyone else if they don't have enough overs to bowl when they could feasibly have had up to 30 more overs at Australia by now. Sure, that would have offered Australia a slim shot at a win, but England must accept that the path they now take favours a draw.

30 overs? So we'd have had a lead of around 270. I know the pitch is deteriorating, but it's still a solid wicket as the Aussies have shown. I think hoping to bowl them out cheaply again just wasn't going to happen. Though I don't think Strauss has been aggressive enough in some of his field settings, you can't play to the weather, you have to play the situation, which is that this wicket is still pretty good to bat on.

Anyway, I don't think we did too badly today. Swann bowled well and the seamers did okay on an unhelpful surface. The wicket at the end gives us a sniff tomorrow if we can get 40-50 overs in. Even if it does fall to a draw, we can still take all the momentum from this match on to Perth.

 

[aussie1st]

You can get out North and then let the heavens open. On a more serious note, if we do get play and North gets out cheaply again then surely he must go regardless whether we come out with the draw through the rain or not.

 

[angryangy]

Declaring with a 200 or 300 run lead is not exactly aggressive or particular to a rain affected game. It's just relatively proactive.

I don't see the need to play the mind game. Who cares how many you think they can make? That's up to them. If it wasn't, you'd have them make 0. Just bowl them out and then worry about there being a target to chase. With such a good lead, it would be irrational to fear chasing for a short time. If they do get sunshine and manage to bat out of their skins, well and good, but setting a bigger total doesn't negate the effect of time. Either way there comes a level of performance that equates to batting out the game.

You don't find yourself ruing decisions so much if the other team does well. It's when they're 8 or 9 down and that's all she wrote, that's the point where self flagellation occurs.

I mean if the losing team manages to outperform the other in the last mile and catch up, then fair enough that there is merit in that. However, if you outperform them for pretty much the whole game and achieve nothing, what is the point?

 

[Sureshot]

I think we can all agree that declaring over night would've been the best option, but you can be more aggressive on surfaces that offer more. Yes, it's spinning, but it's pretty flat. Getting a team in to bat with a lead of 375 is a huge psychological advantage, more so than say, 250-300.

Just bowl them out and then worry about there being a target to chase

I think that's a remarkable statement. What if you ended up chasing 250-300 on the last day? That's a lot of pressure even if it isn't a lot for the form our guys are in and the form your bowlers aren't in.

Cricket is more than a numbers game, particularly in the Ashes.