England v Sri Lanka, Test Series (June 2014)
- Thread starter MUFC1987
- Start date
D
Dutch
Guest
Ah but we have the fast scoring and incredibly in form Alistair Cook who is not afraid to use unorthodox and attacking gameplans to force a result and......em.....er.....I get your point.....
SetonHallPirate
Not that kind of Pirate
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2013
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
barmy, 10 sessions for the first two innings. 13 would mean we'd be on Day 5 right now, not Day 4.
Samuels
Rally Round The West Indies
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Location
- Kingston, Jamaica
- Profile Flag
- West Indies
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Good to see Ballance among some runs. He has been one of the most consistent players in domestic cricket and it would have been a shame to see him spoiling one chance after another. England simply could not afford to have another James Taylor. Btw, you got to love Sangakkara. Ever since he has been gave up keeping in the test matches, he has been batting like an absolute masterclass. Have a look at his stats.
Role|M|Runs|Avg|HS|100s
As wicketkeeper|48|3117|40.48|230|7
As batsman|75*|8181|70.52|319|29
Total|123*|11298|58.53|319|36
*Match still on
As wicketkeeper|48|3117|40.48|230|7
As batsman|75*|8181|70.52|319|29
Total|123*|11298|58.53|319|36
*Match still on
Aislabie
Test Cricket is Best Cricket
Delighted to see Gary Ballance getting some runs, although I think that his success at number three simply shows that he's a natural run-scorer, and not that he's a natural number three. Fair props to him, though, he looks like class.
I'm not sure about him at Number 3 either, but it's really good to see someone doing well in County Cricket, getting a chance and then taking it with both hands.
Bit of a shame the way it came about though, as would have liked to see England have at least 30 minutes at Sri Lanka tonight.
Bit of a shame the way it came about though, as would have liked to see England have at least 30 minutes at Sri Lanka tonight.
zimrahil
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2001
- Location
- Birmingham, England
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
My thoughts exactly
Bring back Athers declaring when Hick was on 98!
I understand the argument but the game is probably a draw anyway and a Lords hundred does more for England than extra overs not to bowl SL out in but I still think the point of the game is to try to win.
I understand the argument but the game is probably a draw anyway and a Lords hundred does more for England than extra overs not to bowl SL out in but I still think the point of the game is to try to win.
ferg512
International Coach
I felt Cook did the same with Root in the first innings as well. Didn't need to waste anymore time letting him get to 200. Now they're basically relying on Cardiff 2011 to happen again which is unlikely. Hopefully the deck in Headingley has a bit more grass on it, this has been one of the most boring test matches I've seen for a while.
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
I think letting root bat on was definitely fine. we were scoring quickly at the time, the runs were going to be easier to get then than in the third innings or on day 4/5. I wouldn't have contemplated declaring until anderson came in, and even then would probably have just let him have a swing. It simply wasn't a match we were ever going to get 20 wickets for under 500 runs so going for close to 600 first innings made a lot of sense.
We shouldn't have batted for so long but poor top order batting once again put us in an awkward spot. Balance kind of had to dig in and bat us into a dominant position, arguing about the exact declaration kind of masks the fact that the top order failed yet again. If the batsmen performed we wouldn't been in a position of giving balance a shot to get to 100.
But i think waiting for him to get his 100 is justifiable, anyway. (note that I think they didn't specifically wait for him to get a hundred, more decided to declare overnight and bash to close) England got 69 runs off the last 10 overs, so if we declared say 10 overs earlier (when jordan got out) the lead would have been 320, with 98 overs for Sri Lanka to get them. I'd say sri lanka would have a very good chance of doing that. 389 from 90 overs is very unlikely. Of course you want to do you utmost to win, but there has to be a balance with not losing.
The problem was not batting 45 minutes too long. it was batting too poorly in the first 2 hours.
We shouldn't have batted for so long but poor top order batting once again put us in an awkward spot. Balance kind of had to dig in and bat us into a dominant position, arguing about the exact declaration kind of masks the fact that the top order failed yet again. If the batsmen performed we wouldn't been in a position of giving balance a shot to get to 100.
But i think waiting for him to get his 100 is justifiable, anyway. (note that I think they didn't specifically wait for him to get a hundred, more decided to declare overnight and bash to close) England got 69 runs off the last 10 overs, so if we declared say 10 overs earlier (when jordan got out) the lead would have been 320, with 98 overs for Sri Lanka to get them. I'd say sri lanka would have a very good chance of doing that. 389 from 90 overs is very unlikely. Of course you want to do you utmost to win, but there has to be a balance with not losing.
The problem was not batting 45 minutes too long. it was batting too poorly in the first 2 hours.
Similar threads
