The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,398
That did not look out.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] England v New Zealand - 1st Test - Lords
- Thread starter Titanic
- Start date
Well.
Depends what the ECB decide to do about "the social media posts".
Talk is he'll be banned for a couple of Test Matches, so they can be seen to be doing something, and he can be made an example of.
Trouble with that is, if he is banned for a few games, he wouldn't then be eligible again until players who've (supposedly) been on IPL duty also start becoming available again too, so Ollie's selection chances would diminish.
In The Guardian OBO earlier, someone remarked it would be a shame – but not an inconceivable outcome – for this to end up being his one and only test match, and he's left high and dry as holder of the strangest one-match-success-story ever.
Pevenseagull
meh
- Jul 20, 2003
- 20,437
Fair play New Zealand.
We have more of a game on than could have been reasonably expected.
We have more of a game on than could have been reasonably expected.
Change at Barnham
Well-known member
New Zealand declare setting England a target of 273.
It's a bold declaration.
It's a bold declaration.
Probably. We're really very good at shooting ourselves in the foot just to make a point.
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
I know it's more than we generally expect in test matches, and well done to Williamson and New Zealand, but I don't see it as particularly brave given the conditions and England's batting line up. I would be pleasantly surprised if we reached 273 with all the time in the world, never mind in 2 sessions.
How many overs available to us ?
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
The equation currently reads 228 runs needed of a minimum of 56 overs (4.07 rpo).
Started as 273 of 75 (3.6 rpo).
For context, the fastest innings so far was New Zealand's second innings at 3.21, but they lost 6 wickets getting to 160, and I would say they are a significantly stronger batting team.
Enough to lose it! Seem to be playing for the draw, TBH.
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
I'd love to see us going for this, particularly given it's the first game with a crowd and there's nothing really riding on this game. But the conditions are tricky and it's really not these two batsmen's game. If Stokes, Buttler and/or Bairstow were in the team there might be a chance of them coming in once the ball's a bit older and the bowlers are a bit more tired, but a) they're not, and b) it's the sort of day/pitch where the ball moves about the whole time.
True. I'm not really blaming England for not taking the bait.
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
I am
. What have they got to lose (apart from a test match)?Edit: Ah, here we go.
Having a go might actually not be a bad idea in this situation. At least it gives NZ something to think about.
I am
Reassess at tea ? oops Burns gone.
Settle for draw
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
How on earth can a player get to play for England with a technique as 'unorthodox' as Sibley's? His stance makes it almost impossible to score on the off side, and he always plays around his front leg.
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
Reassess at tea ? oops Burns gone.
Settle for draw
Well that's clearly the sensible thing to do. Particularly given many of these players are under pressure for their places to one degree or other (not that that SHOULD come into it).
Personally, I'm completely relaxed about the idea of us losing this game having a go, even if I'm realistic about why we probably won't. I'll be very pissed of if we manage to get bowled out in 2 sessions trying to block them out.
England have a great home record in Tests but do seem to struggle in the first test of each series or am I wrong - under prepared ?
I'm not sure how many 1st Tests we have won at home in the last 10 years but it seems to me we are often struggling to save the 1st Test.
Happy to be proven wrong.
I'm not sure how many 1st Tests we have won at home in the last 10 years but it seems to me we are often struggling to save the 1st Test.
Happy to be proven wrong.
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
It tends to be a problem away, I don't think it's an issue at home in general. Most of these players have been playing county cricket and have done well, so I don't see lack of preparation as an excuse.
Since the start of the 2010 English season, England have lost 17 matches in total:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...eam=1;template=results;type=team;view=results
I've not bothered to go through the whole list to check which happened to be the first match, but I don't think there's a notable tendency. I would say that a disproportionate number are in London, which is partly because of Lords having 2 matches every season, and possibly also because conditions tend to be more swing/seamer friendly at the more northerly grounds.
The last 2 first matches we've lost at home were to the West Indies last year, which Joe Root missed, and at Edgbaston against Australia, when Anderson went of injured after about 5 overs.
jakarta
Well-known member
Utter Shit, not even trying. Terrible mindset.