David48 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Slow, maybe; but determined by factors like the state of the game, the state of the pitch and the amount of time left. Why risk getting out quickly by pushing the scoring rate along at a ODI rates when there is so much time left in the game? I'm sure Australia would have done the same in England's position; indeed they would have been fools had they done otherwise! Nah, they would have got on with the job. Modern day run rates are above 3.3 now I believe. Get the runs on the board quickly, give yourself time to bowl out the opposition, allow for things like rain. The only surprising thing is why England is being so timid with their shot selection My thinking is that yes ... they are deliberately playing cautiously (slowly). The longer the occupy the crease, the more the pitch deteriorates. A declaration at lunch or between lunch and drinks this afternoon would be the way to go if I was captain. If they have wickets in hand after lunch ... throw the bat for an hour, lead by 350 plus ... declare. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Slow, maybe; but determined by factors like the state of the game, the state of the pitch and the amount of time left. Why risk getting out quickly by pushing the scoring rate along at a ODI rates when there is so much time left in the game? I'm sure Australia would have done the same in England's position; indeed they would have been fools had they done otherwise! Nah, they would have got on with the job. Modern day run rates are above 3.3 now I believe. Get the runs on the board quickly, give yourself time to bowl out the opposition, allow for things like rain. The only surprising thing is why England is being so timid with their shot selection My thinking is that yes ... they are deliberately playing cautiously (slowly). The longer the occupy the crease, the more the pitch deteriorates. A declaration at lunch or between lunch and drinks this afternoon would be the way to go if I was captain. If they have wickets in hand after lunch ... throw the bat for an hour, lead by 350 plus ... declare. . I dont know about that. The pitch will deteriorate no matter what and Australia has to bat last. The more time England has to bowl them out the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 But if the England total is too high Australia will play for the draw, and the less time they need to last, the easier that will be. I'd have thought England would want to fairly soon put on a spurt of runs to finish, and then get down to the bowling out. SC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 But if the England total is too high Australia will play for the draw, and the less time they need to last, the easier that will be. I'd have thought England would want to fairly soon put on a spurt of runs to finish, and then get down to the bowling out. SC That is my feeling. England should win this match now and another hundred runs from the last four wickets will be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 But if the England total is too high Australia will play for the draw, and the less time they need to last, the easier that will be. I'd have thought England would want to fairly soon put on a spurt of runs to finish, and then get down to the bowling out. SC That is my feeling. England should win this match now and another hundred runs from the last four wickets will be enough. England could declare now, take half an hour off to sip some martinis and still come back and win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 What number will Agar bat at in the second innings? Can't see him coming in at #11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) But if the England total is too high Australia will play for the draw, and the less time they need to last, the easier that will be. I'd have thought England would want to fairly soon put on a spurt of runs to finish, and then get down to the bowling out. SC That is my feeling. England should win this match now and another hundred runs from the last four wickets will be enough. If I was the English Captain, I'd stick to the game plan aforementioned, build a much larger score then necessary and build a psychological boost for the next game and remember, this is a Series and not just one game. The English spinner (Swann is it?) will be far more effective then Australia's. OH well ... we'll see how the Captain's tactics pan out ... . Edited July 13, 2013 by David48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Australia need 310, England have 5 and a bit sessions to get 10 wickets. My money's on England. Maybe it's because I'm a bit older than you guys (57) but I see test cricket as a totally different game to ODIs and 20/20. In those two versions of the game run rates are important, not so much in tests. Had England "got on with it" would they now have the lead they have; a lead which has virtually put Australia out of the game? As Boycott often says; you do have to take 20 wickets to win a test match, but first you have to make sure you score more runs than the opposition! Given the match situation, I think England's tactics yesterday were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 Game on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Australia need 310, England have 5 and a bit sessions to get 10 wickets. My money's on England. Maybe it's because I'm a bit older than you guys (57) but I see test cricket as a totally different game to ODIs and 20/20. In those two versions of the game run rates are important, not so much in tests. Had England "got on with it" would they now have the lead they have; a lead which has virtually put Australia out of the game? As Boycott often says; you do have to take 20 wickets to win a test match, but first you have to make sure you score more runs than the opposition! Given the match situation, I think England's tactics yesterday were right. Point taken 7x7....but the test match game has changed dramatically in the last 10-15 years. Runs per over rate has gone up dramatically. Sure T20 and T50 has something to do with it, but not entirely. Australia, in their recent golden era were one of the first proponents of this. Score quickly, take all the singles you can, build a big score, give yourself plenty of time to bowl out the opposition. You can occupy the crease for 2 days, but if you dont score enough runs you will find it difficult to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Game on! God, I hope Australia put up a good fight this time. Can't see them winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I see your point, BookMan. Certainly, both forms of the one day game have influenced the run rate in tests. But tests are a five day game, and each game is different. It was still only the second day when England began their second innings, they had plenty of time. Had they tried to score quickly would they now have the lead they have? Witness Prior's dismissal. England do have plenty of time to bowl out Australia; 5 and a bit sessions. Would England being bowled out yesterday for a lower total have improved their chances or Australia's? I think Australia's. I think we must view the game differently. I can enjoy a fascinating duel between batsman and bowler; even if few runs are being scored. I think you prefer big hitting and a high run rate. We must agree to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkokhatter Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 While another 50 runs would have been nice, they would have taken too much time out of the game and that's due to the over cautious approach yesterday. Anybody really think that Shane Watson is as good a bowler as his figures suggest. 310 lead should be enough, but a couple of partnerships for the Aussies and things could change again. Saturday night though so should be out on the town not listening to TMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I think we must view the game differently. I can enjoy a fascinating duel between batsman and bowler; even if few runs are being scored. I think you prefer big hitting and a high run rate. I don't really prefer big hitting, just a continuous ticking over of the scoreboard. Whether it is singles or boundaries. Big difference between 2.6 RPO and 3.2 RPO. The duel between batsmen and bowler can be just the same 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Keeping the scoreboard ticking over is important; but not as important as not getting out. You can't keep the scoreboard ticking over when you're back in the dressing room! Big difference between 250 at roughly 4.5 an over (Australia's first innings) and 375 at roughly 2.5 (England's second innings). But as I said, I think we must agree to differ. BTW, from what's been said on both TMS and SKY; ex professionals, Australian and English, seem to agree with me! Edited July 13, 2013 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Keeping the scoreboard ticking over is important; but not as important as not getting out. You can't keep the scoreboard ticking over when you're back in the dressing room! Big difference between 250 at roughly 4.5 an over (Australia's first innings) and 375 at roughly 2.5 (England's second innings). But as I said, I think we must agree to differ. Both are important. But if you are playing in the middle just to bat it out you don't score runs. If Agar had defended he most likely would have faced the same amount of balls but scored 30 runs. As it was, the policy of scoring and rotating strike, not protecting the tail end paid off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 I think it was as much to do with the time available. I wouldn't be happy with the Aussies having this total to reach in two and a half days for example. As it is I think the total is achievabke....England need a couple of wivhets before tea or they will be sweating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Had Agar come in at that time on the fifth day, 9 wickets down and still over 100 behind, would he and Hughes have played like that? Of course they wouldn't! They'd have blocked and blocked and played for the draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Had Agar come in at that time on the fifth day, 9 wickets down and still over 100 behind, would he and Hughes have played like that? Of course they wouldn't! They'd have blocked and blocked and played for the draw. So u are saying England was playing for the draw with their slow scoring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I think it was as much to do with the time available. I wouldn't be happy with the Aussies having this total to reach in two and a half days for example. As it is I think the total is achievabke....England need a couple of wivhets before tea or they will be sweating. If Australia can make 100 without loss they might have a chance. I think England's bowling is too good though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 Anderson has leaky boots this arvo mate. Stick to Swann and Broad I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Anderson has leaky boots this arvo mate. Stick to Swann and Broad I hope. The Aussies are keeping the scoreboard ticking along. That's Wat it's all about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 Why is Watson shaking his head? LBW without any shred of doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 Anderson has leaky boots this arvo mate. Stick to Swann and Broad I hope. The Aussies are keeping the scoreboard ticking along. That's Wat it's all about Good run rate but yer looking stumped now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Good knock from Watson. I hope we don't see a collapse now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Probably best to bring in Agar now.... Keep things ticking over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) ... Edited July 13, 2013 by BookMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Looks like Cowan is batting for the draw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Had Agar come in at that time on the fifth day, 9 wickets down and still over 100 behind, would he and Hughes have played like that? Of course they wouldn't! They'd have blocked and blocked and played for the draw. So u are saying England was playing for the draw with their slow scoring? Of course not They were playing to build a big lead and had plenty of time in which to do so. Therefore no need to take risks just to have a high run rate. A lead of 311 with a run rate of roughly 2.5 and 5 and a bit sessions to play is a far better position than a lead of 211 with a run rate of 5 and 7 sessions to go! After 30 overs Australia are 92 for 1; a run rate of 3.06. Are they scoring too slowly for you? I think they are playing according to the match situation. There is, at present, no need to go any faster. This run rate will get them to the target in the time they have left; but if they try to score faster and as a result lose wickets then they've lost. They are doing the right thing and forcing England to get them out rather than giving their wickets away in pursuit of quick scoring. As I said, we obviously have a different view of test cricket. We must agree to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 Two down....anyone for dominos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now