What to make of this?
Day 1 - 364 runs. 6 wickets.90 overs.
Day 2 - 217 runs. 12 wickets. 59.4 overs.
Yesterday's play was the first time in a long time that left me confused. Generally the end of the first day gives enough hints on how the match will pan out.
Yesterday was different.
196 runs without losing a wicket. 168 runs for the loss of 6 wickets. Bad bowling? Bad batting? And what about the England rune rate, well over 4 rpo. It just did not add up.
And at the end of today;'s play, I remain confused.
Yes, 156/8 represents England on the ascendancy but, is that really true? If the pitch continues to behave the way it has on Day 2, can England honestly put their hands on their hearts and say that they have the werewithal to perform better than the Australians did today?
Then there is the case for not enforcing the follow on.
Australia have a problem with their bowling. Hauritz is hurt, Siddle has a niggle, Johnson's radar
is all over the place. That leaves Hilfenhaus as the lone uninjured bowler in the ranks. Coupled with North, Katich, Clarke, Hussey and Ponting. If England bat more than 100 overs, how much will the injuries come to bite Australia?
Then there is the case for enforcing the follow on.
6 of the last 7 tests at Lords have ended in a draw. Teams batting last have scored 537, 214, 89, 282. 269 and 393 in the 6 drawn games. And with the wicket expected to behave as is or get slightly quicker tomorrow, England does not want to give Australia the advantage of a) getting back into the game by exploiting whatever little the wicket has to offer before easing up and b) let Australia bat last on a wicket with little or no assistance for the bowlers on Days 4 and 5.
Then there is the question of time.
270 overs and a bit remain in the game.If England bat long, it will impact Australia's bowling resources but will give the Australians enough time to eke out a draw. If England don't bat long enough, Australia get the benefit of time.
But long long is long? Strauss was extremely conservative with his declarations in the West Indies. If the same pattern follows, he will shut the game completely before inviting the Australians to bat. And even in that case - if 150 overs enough to get the Australians out a second time? 100? 170? And what about the score - 500?450? South Africa chased 413 to win in 119 overs at Perth. And the West Indies drew twice with their last pair at the crease against England at home.
So many permutations. So much to think. Who wants to be a captain.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Test 2 Day 2 Lords
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Mate
If I was Strauss, I would make the Aus follow on. At the end of the first Aus innings, Eng would be 250 ahead. That is a mountain for Aus to climb to reach parity and then they have to go further ahead to set Eng a target.
Plus - most likely it will be a dead as a dodo last day pitch and chasing a target would be easier.
If Eng don't enforce the follow on would be really daft. They are not known to force the pace at all and they will dither and flounder not knowing when to declare. They would eat up time and leave them with even less time to bowl Aus out.
It's an easy clear cut decision - enforce the follow on.
TG,
Then the follow up question is - does England believe that it can reverse a 75 year old habit of not beating the Aussies at Lords?
And if they dont, there is the danger of trying too much.. And falling flat on the face in the process.
Cheers,
Homer
Well if they can't win from here, then they shouldn't even think of a series win.
The Eng bowlers aren't tired - plus with the odd rain interruption in the weekend - they wouldn't be too stretched out either. The pitch and conditions would still aid some swing/seam. It's all their favour :-)
For Eng to lose it from here would take monumental efforts from both Aus - to set a challenging target, and for Eng to goof it up.
Logic would dictate that TG but as I wrote, this match has not followed any patterns.
If the pitch had retained its character on Day 2, the score sheet could be a testament to the discipline or lack of from the batsmen and the bowlers. But since the Day 1 pitch is so much different from Day 2, it is hard to gauge how this match will unfold.
Cheers,
Homer
The pitch did quicken up a touch today, and would do so tomorrow as well. It's what the ' experts' call a Lords wicket behaviour. The last two days it would die down.
What changed though was the conditions - today it was cloudy, and with a bit of moisture in the air.
I'm certain if it was England batting, they too would have struggled.
In the weekend - while the weather wouldn't be too bad like today, it should be enough to help the seamers.
Hence my point that Eng should enforce the follow on and not bat again.
The issue with them batting again is that - under similar conditions they might also have the same collapse as what Aus did today.
Aus would then be chasing say around 400. But they would have a day and half to get it - whether they would is another issue !
Cheers !
Homer a it off topic but wanted to draw your attention to this - Last I checked wasnt Sachin the world's leading test run scorer? Cricinfo strikes again :)
Incredible as it may seem, James Anderson is the third longest-serving cricketer on display in this match. Ricky Ponting rumbles ever onwards, and will soon pass Allan Border as the world's leading run-scorer;
It depends on the England's strategy while chasing small score because small score to chase does not guarantee that England will surely win.
Now I have started 'Poll the Cricket' in which you can check your cricket knowledge.Go to my blog for your question
Homer,
Was it the wicket no the second day or was it the weather? It was kinda like the second test in SA.
I am following it on cricinfo - at least at the start of the day today they said it is a "blue sky" out there - son;t know what it is right now. KP and Bopara are playing like Dravid of 2000.
But overall, England stuck to follow on or no follow on based on the weather - which is what they said yesterday.
AT LEAST - Hilfy will be bowled into the ground now :):P
AT MOST - well might depend on Swann, as Hauritz got a couple. As per cricinfo commentary, Hauritz bowled a beauty to get Strauss - and next over he is off (the great captain at work).
But then I am not watching it - just cricinfo to go by.
This test match is going very much in favour of England but they should not loose their 'rhythm' in the decisive moments.
Anyone have not still tried my 'Poll on Cricket' to check their knowledge.At least give a try to enhance your cricket knowledge.
TG,
We agree to agree then :)
Cheers,
Mahendra,
Can you send me the link to that article? It will be interesting to see what the reactions to that "fact" were.
Cheers,
Vikas,
I will check the Poll. I am sorry I havent as yet as I was away with no internet connection.
Cheers,
Naresh,
CI was pretty much on the spot on that one. As regards the bowlers, its interesting to red both English and Aussie newspapers start the talk of bowling depth, now that the Test is done and dusted.
Oh, to be a pundit!
Cheers :),
Homer,
In the end, a result we desired.
Even better that the brute Freddie brought it about.
Surprising how Johnson fell apart in this one.
And once again, "tere mooh mein ghee shakkar".
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/414931.html
Too late now though.. they corrected it .. shoot i should have got a snapshot : )
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/414931.html
Too late now though.. they corrected it .. shoot i should have got a snapshot : )
lol Naresh :)
Cheers,
Not for the first time that CI has done this Mahendra.
Cheers,
Post a Comment