For Bayliss and Strauss, absolutely. After which the former waltzes off into the sunset and Strauss gets to claim he's achieved his ambition.
Shades of Christchurch 1984 (when England were bowled out for under 100 in both innings)
It isn't bothering me. Every Test side has a day like this and nothing should be taken away from what was simply an outstanding bowling performance.
How England recover is more important.
But this is on the back on a 4-0 drubbing against the Aussies, and at a time when there is genuine concern for the future of international test cricket.
Going on tour for months on end is a huge commitment, while the financial rewards for one day cricket globally are huge. There is a concern that leading players could retire from the test arena simply to focus on one day cricket. You don't make your fortune or wow the crowds these days by playing in test matches.
These are dark days and worrying times for lovers of test cricket.
It's the way it is with international cricket these days. Teams just don't seem to travel well.
It's because there are scarcely any warm-up matches these days. Sides coming over here get a couple of one-dayers and two thrash against Odds and Sods XI and then it's into a test arena.
I remember when the tourist games were big events. Remember Sussex beating the West indies?
Heard an interview during the many rain delays with Andrew Strauss: apparently the whole selection process and infrastructure is going to be remodelled. (No truth in the rumour that a monkey with a pin is awaiting confirmation of the post!)
But the infrstructure is already being remodelled, that's the problem. We've lost more first class cricket in favour of more bish-bash-bosh and then wonder why we can't build an innings.
And as Matt Prior said yesterday, the whole point of central contracts was to give some stability, not say that people are undroppable no matter how badly they play. If players know that they're in for the next test even if they fail, there's little incentive to knuckle down.
Shades of Christchurch 1984 (when England were bowled out for under 100 in both innings)
It isn't bothering me. Every Test side has a day like this and nothing should be taken away from what was simply an outstanding bowling performance.
How England recover is more important.
Or the 1st Test in Wellington in 1978 when needing 137 to win, England were skittled out for 64. The first time NZ had beaten England in a test. Sadly yes, I was there to witness it.
A rampant Hadlee. I think Geoffrey was captain for that one...
But the infrstructure is already being remodelled, that's the problem. We've lost more first class cricket in favour of more bish-bash-bosh and then wonder why we can't build an innings.
And as Matt Prior said yesterday, the whole point of central contracts was to give some stability, not say that people are undroppable no matter how badly they play. If players know that they're in for the next test even if they fail, there's little incentive to knuckle down.
A rampant Hadlee. I think Geoffrey was captain for that one...