England v Australia - 1st Test Trent Bridge

[Billy the Fish]

I genuinely don't understand why people were talking about 220-250 being a par score to chase.

Because of the dry pitch and the fact we've got Swann I think.

Personally I think 250 absolute minimum. This run chase will be won/lost in the MIND as much as it will be on the pitch. Whatever the total we'll need a couple of early wickets to get into their heads and make them wobble. Tomorrow has the potential to be PANT-WETTINGLY exciting.

 

[sam86]

Was never a need to worry.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Because of the dry pitch and the fact we've got Swann I think.

Personally I think 250 absolute minimum. This run chase will be won/lost in the MIND as much as it will be on the pitch. Whatever the total we'll need a couple of early wickets to get into their heads and make them wobble. Tomorrow has the potential to be PANT-WETTINGLY exciting.

Spot on.

 

[Beach Hut]

Strauss is a dreadful co-commentator

Far too plummy for Sky

 

[Simster]

Because of the dry pitch and the fact we've got Swann I think.

Personally I think 250 absolute minimum. This run chase will be won/lost in the MIND as much as it will be on the pitch. Whatever the total we'll need a couple of early wickets to get into their heads and make them wobble. Tomorrow has the potential to be PANT-WETTINGLY exciting.

Yes, 250 absolute minimum, I won't disagree with that or anything you've said. I still think 280 will be around par for Australia on a warm cloudless day on a pitch that is actually holding up well. That's why I think we need 300. A lead of 220 would have looked well short of competitive though.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Clarke and Hughes are key to the Ozzies. We need to get to Clarke early which means early wickets. If we get Clarke the Ozzies will crumble

 

[MJsGhost]

Yes, 250 absolute minimum, I won't disagree with that or anything you've said. I still think 280 will be around par for Australia on a warm cloudless day on a pitch that is actually holding up well. That's why I think we need 300. A lead of 220 would have looked well short of competitive though.

The highest 4th innings run chase at Trent Bridge is currently 284 (Eng vs NZ in 2004), whereas the highest in an Ashes test is 189 (Eng in 1977), so it's understandable that 220 was considered par/competitive.

This is one crazy game though, so I won't be happy with less than 350, just in case!!

 

[Dave the OAP]

Broad is a cheat.

 

[Simster]

Broad should have walked.

HKFC, I told you he was a twàt.

 

[vegster]

Strauss is a dreadful co-commentator

Far too plummy for Sky

Strauss is an all round good guy. When he quit he should have written for the papers. Very sad to see him prostitute himself on Sky.

 

[Billy the Fish]

That evens up the the missed stumping and the Trott decision from yesterday as far as I'm concerned. Now he just needs to make it count like Agar did.

Terrible sportsmanship, but don't believe for a second that any of the aussie team would've walked in that situation.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Terrible sportsmanship, but don't believe for a second that any of the aussie team would've walked in that situation.

Exactly. Can't blame him really.

 

[vegster]

Broad should have walked.

HKFC, I told you he was a twàt.

Other than Gilchrist, no Aussie has ever walked, besides, this evens up the Trott debacle.

 

[Brownstuff]

Dirty cheat
He will live to regret that

 

[cjd]

Broad not walking is the final ingredient required to make this a classic Ashes Test match.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I genuinely don't understand why people were talking about 220-250 being a par score to chase.

Because:

1) Australia's batting isn't good (as they showed in the 1st innings - Agar won't get 98 again)
2) The pitch on Day 4 and 5 will assist Swann and it will keep low. Statistically, teams don't win tests in England chasing more than 250 in the 4th innings.

 

[Simster]

Other than Gilchrist, no Aussie has ever walked, besides, this evens up the Trott debacle.

Not convinced by that, to be honest. And I have to say, the difference between this and the two other poor decisions is that the batsman knew perfectly well that he'd hit it. He simply should have taken the decision away from the umpire.

TMS are saying Broad's acting was brilliant. I didn't think so - it was written it was all over his face, but as I've said before, Broad is a renowned cock and this shows it.



Anyway, I think this message on cricinfo sums it up for me:
"Well deserved punishment for fooling around with their reviews! DRS is meant to correct howlers like this, and not to be used as high stake gambles! Serves Clark right!"

 

[vegster]

Dirty cheat
He will live to regret that

Like Atherton does every day when he is not busy with Sky commentaries or writing for the Times ....

 

[Simster]

Because:

1) Australia's batting isn't good (as they showed in the 1st innings - Agar won't get 98 again)
2) The pitch on Day 4 and 5 will assist Swann and it will keep low. Statistically, teams don't win tests in England chasing more than 250 in the 4th innings.

So you're convinced - you'd settle for a lead of 260, some 10-40runs above par?

 

[banjo]

Broad is a cheat.

What comes around goes around.