The New Cricket Thread

[Jairzinho]

Why are we still batting?

[Captain Howdy]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Why are we still batting?

The ghost of Cookie lives on

[Jairzinho]

Get a lead of 375 and have a dart at them for three overs.

[Captain Howdy]

Ha ha 

[Pureblood]

9 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Why are we still batting?

Because we're shithou... worried about going 2-0 down.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Excellent century in the context of the game, well batted, Stokes. Played some nice shots. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Early wickets will obviously be the key, get a few and who knows. If Aussies see off the new ball it will probably be a draw. I can't see them knocking off the runs. 

[Captain Howdy]

[Dougie Do'ins]

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Because we're shithou... worried about going 2-0 down.

So what you think they should/should have done ?

[Jairzinho]

Declared a while ago.

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

So what you think they should/should have done ?

No idea.  My opinion is worthless. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Declared a while ago.

 

Think the declaration when made was about right. We obviously didn't want to give the Aussies much of a chance and 50 overs is enough time to get them out if we can put them under pressure and make the ball talk. I'm not sure what a declaration half an hour ago would have proved. Most of the runs above a 200 lead came in that last little session. 

[Rico1304]

Just now, TK421 said:

No idea.  My opinion is worthless. 

You got there in the end.  

 

Root of is just getting a quick cricket set ready and warming the ball up so no one gets a cold ball on their little fingers.  

 

Hilarious how you are questioning the decision when the Aussies would still be batting if you had your way. 

[Jairzinho]

You want your opposition to have a chance of winning. To actually go for it. Now they won't. We've needlessly taken time out of the game, as we always do. May not matter, but tactically it's terrible. Especially when you're one nil down in the series.

[Trumo]

Apparently, Smith has scored almost half their runs in this series. In his absence, will the rest just dig in and leave absolutely everything that's pitching wide of off stump, letting the game peter out into a draw? Or will the Aussies think they can put England back in their box once more and actually go for it? Can Broad go nuclear like he did at Trent Bridge 4 years ago?

[Pureblood]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

You want your opposition to have a chance of winning. To actually go for it. Now they won't. We've needlessly taken time out of the game, as well always do. May not matter, but tactically it's terrible. Especially when you're one nil down in the series.

 They will be banking on Smith being out of the next one and will fancy their chances of making it 1-1.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

You want your opposition to have a chance of winning. To actually go for it. Now they won't. We've needlessly taken time out of the game, as well always do. May not matter, but tactically it's terrible. Especially when you're one nil down in the series.

 

The Aussies might still think they have a chance. They basically need a one day score. I'm not sure what 20 runs less and 2 overs more would have achieved. If they collapse fine, if they don#t we take the draw and move on to Headingley only 1-0 down with three tests still to play. 

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Pistonbroke said:

 

The Aussies might still think they have a chance. They basically need a one day score. I'm not sure what 20 runs less and 2 overs more would have achieved. If they collapse fine, if they don#t we take the draw and move on to Headingley only 1-0 down with three tests still to play. 

No chance they go for it. We've ensured they won't.

 

And when I say a while ago I don't mean two overs.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

How did that miss.........

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

No chance they go for it. We've ensured they won't.

 

And when I say a while ago I don't mean two overs.

 

A lot of the runs came in the last 5-7 overs though. It would have been madness to set them a score of 220 to chase imo. 

[Dougie Do'ins]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

You want your opposition to have a chance of winning. To actually go for it. Now they won't. We've needlessly taken time out of the game, as we always do. May not matter, but tactically it's terrible. Especially when you're one nil down in the series.

They could always toss a few up, let them score runs and draw them back in but as has been mentioned, I think the danger of going 0-2 with three to play is to bigger chance to take. We could easily see the remaining tests washed out.

[Jairzinho]

11 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

A lot of the runs came in the last 5-7 overs though. It would have been madness to set them a score of 220 to chase imo. 

220 at about 4s, without Smith is pretty much exactly what I would have set them.

[Jairzinho]

What a shocker of series he's having. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

220 at about 4s, without Smith is pretty much exactly what I would have set them.

We obviously have a different opinion. Aussies would have fancied that big time, plus they have the players to do it. It's a fine margin at times.

 

All the streams I use have suddenly gone. Do you have any? The fuckers started showing the PL or the cricket was on but on a loop going back to the previous few frames all the time. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Missed the Warner wicket n all.