banjo
GOSBTS
82-8 Moeen 5 wickets.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
England v South Africa, First Test at Lord's
- Thread starter jakarta
- Start date
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,640
Moeeeeeeeeeeeeeen 
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
Well done Mo.
banjo
GOSBTS
94-9. Another for Mo.
England WIN by 211 runs 
England 458 all out
Joe Root 190, Moeen Ali 87, Stuart Broad 57* Ben Stokes 56
Morne Morkel 25.3-2-115-4
South Africa 361 all out
Moeen Ali 20-7-59-4
England 233 all out
Alastair Cook 69
Jonny Bairstow 51
Keshav Maharaj 32.1-8-85-4
South Africa 119 all out
Moeen Ali 15-4-52-6
Moeen Ali match figures 35-11-111-10
England 458 all out
Joe Root 190, Moeen Ali 87, Stuart Broad 57* Ben Stokes 56
Morne Morkel 25.3-2-115-4
South Africa 361 all out
Moeen Ali 20-7-59-4
England 233 all out
Alastair Cook 69
Jonny Bairstow 51
Keshav Maharaj 32.1-8-85-4
South Africa 119 all out
Moeen Ali 15-4-52-6
Moeen Ali match figures 35-11-111-10
banjo
GOSBTS
A win for England women too by 3 runs.
Genius.
Well I clearly don't have a clue; despite my previous posts it is obvious we needed a lead of at least 450 going into the 4th dig on a wearing pitch.
Or not...
No chance....look at test history. On a percentage basis anything over 250 is usually enough.
Ooooh, three whooshes. I'm honoured. Can't be arsed [emoji23][emoji23]
There is more than one way to skin a cat. In the end it was immaterial but there would have been no point declaring 320 or 340 ahead with so much time in the game.
We could have declared over night and still been marginal favourites but on that pitch 130 overs was surely enough which meant our declaration would have given us a near 400 lead if we would of batted with intent and played well.
As it was the South African wickets moved the game forward and we've won with a day to spare.
Good win for England with room for improvement. A better fielding display by the visitors and it may have been a different outcome.
Agree that would be typical, but it's highly unlikely the Saffas would have chased down anything over 250, especially with how the pitch was behaving.....but extreme caution usually means we'll try to get 450 ahead to make the game 'safe'. The game has moved on so much in the last 20 years or so (scoring rates), makes the argument for 4 days tests a bit stronger. Personally hope things are left as they are though.
No need to apologise.....and I agree with you.......my bad for not looking at earlier posts [emoji849][emoji849]
I was only following on cricinfo today as I was watching the nipper playing for Yorkshire. But I did say to one of the other dads that by the sound of how the pitch was, anything over a 300 lead should be enough. He was wanting 400+ due to time in the game.
So basically I'm aftertimimg my agreement with [MENTION=6741]jakarta[/MENTION]
So basically I'm aftertimimg my agreement with [MENTION=6741]jakarta[/MENTION]
I agree anything over 250 should be enough, but why take risks declaring with either a 250, 320 or 350 lead when you can take the game out of their reach with c.400 and still have loads of time (3.5 sessions) to bowl them out.
Percentages dictate you take the low risk option which still gives you a great chance of winning.
I see no advantage in declaring with a 320/340 lead when you can bat aggressively and put the game completely out of reach.
England and Wales were over 100-1 when post 182 was made but what do I know about cricket. Can't wait for help on deciphering the Second Test.
We'll fook it oop [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]