[Cricket] England v Sri Lanka - First Test - Lords

[Luke93]

I bet Sri Lanka wish they hadn't slowed the whole thing down on the first two days now with their disgraceful over rate.

More overs would have been worse. We've roughly lost 5 a day, so that's 20 by day 4. Those extra overs would have seen a 400 run lead AND putting SL into bat towards the end of day 4.

 

[crodonilson]

Come on England, today could be a pivotal day where we make some HEROES.

 

[El Sid]

Lack of a quality spinner starting to show. Couple of quick wickets needed after lunch or we could see Sri Lanka getting close.

 

[spring hall convert]

Anyone else think Sri Lanka may have a go at this? 150 a session, 9 wickets in hand, decent pitch. It seems very doable to me.

What price are Sri Lanka to win from here?

 

[crodonilson]

Anyone else think Sri Lanka may have a go at this? 150 a session, 9 wickets in hand, decent pitch. It seems very doable to me.

What price are Sri Lanka to win from here?

14/1

 

[spring hall convert]

14/1

Really, wow? That's is 100% worth a tenner IMHO.

We're not talking an outrageous run rate here and they have two of the all time great test match batsmen, both of which are in form.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I'm keeping a close eye on the betting. Last time Sri Lanka were here, England were matched at 1000-1 and won when there was a mysterious late batting collapse after a days rain.

Not that anything untoward is happening this time around of course. It's entirely plausible that the 67 that Sri Lanka were bowled out for in the 1 dayer was legit. Entirely plausible. Nothing suspicious at all.

 

[keaton]

So are people still convinced we should have declared earlier?

 

[Pavilionaire]

So are people still convinced we should have declared earlier?

When the England lead was around 300 Shane Warne was arguing that if England had set a target of 360 and given themselves 10 overs last night they could have upped the run rate to achieve that outcome, i.e. knock off 60 runs off 10 overs with Broad, Plunkett and Anderson still to bat. Instead, Balance received no such instruction from the dressing room so ambled his way to the close (that final 6 notwithstanding).

Warne also said, and I quote, "sometimes in order to win you have to risk losing". This gets to the heart of the issue.

 

[keaton]

When the England lead was around 300 Shane Warne was arguing that if England had set a target of 360 and given themselves 10 overs last night they could have upped the run rate to achieve that outcome, i.e. knock off 60 runs off 10 overs with Broad, Plunkett and Anderson still to bat. Instead, Balance received no such instruction from the dressing room so ambled his way to the close (that final 6 notwithstanding).

Warne also said, and I quote, "sometimes in order to win you have to risk losing". This gets to the heart of the issue.

I accept that and when we used to pile on runs and set people targets of 500 that was silly. But if Cook is limited in his captaincy, Warne would have been to (and lost a lot of test matches). At the moment it doesn't look like giving them 20 more overs to chase the total would have been a particularly great idea

 

[Pavilionaire]

I accept that and when we used to pile on runs and set people targets of 500 that was silly. But if Cook is limited in his captaincy, Warne would have been to (and lost a lot of test matches). At the moment it doesn't look like giving them 20 more overs to chase the total would have been a particularly great idea

I disagree. Sri Lanka have dropped anchor, their run rate is under 3, they've got their two best batsmen at the crease and are scoring at 2.5 per over, and all this with the ball being 47 overs old. I think with a little more time and 30-odd fewer runs to chase they might have been more up for the chase and therefore more likely to be playing shots.

Cook has to be guided by the stats. Declaring with a 360 lead would mean Sri Lanka would have to smash the record by 16 runs for a 4th innings Lord's chase to win. Sri Lanka are also historically poor at chasing in the 4th innings away from home.

I can see the argument for doing what he did, but I just think it's more of the same old, same old and this match will end up a tame draw as a result of England's conservatism. I'd also add that the fact only you and me are active on this thread is testament to people tuning out of the contest just when it should be reaching a thrilling climax.

Test cricket is supposed to a form of entertainment, but after this borefest I can't see the World Cup losing many viewers over the coming weeks.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

It's starting to get to tipping point with the draw close to being the only result in town.

On Betfair (32 million staked on the win market which gives you an idea of the sums involved). England are 15-1 and the draw 1.07. Sri Lanka 220-1. If England are to win this i expect the commentator to say things like 'That was an incredibly loose shot to play in the circumstances' 'I can't understand why he played that' etc.

If England get to treble figures, I'm having a Tenner

 

[Beach Hut]

170/4

 

[banjo]

5 down game on.

 

[Beach Hut]

5 down game on.

Indeed, I smell a victory

 

[crodonilson]

Incredible stuff, these players are trying their hearts out to put their names into English cricketing history. The memories of Australia could be banished in the next 2 hours.

 

[banjo]

Indeed, I smell a victory

Jimmy's up for it.

 

[banjo]

Lucky lucky boy.

 

[mikeyjh]

Lucky lucky boy.

I particularly love the commentators reaction to an 'Umpires Call' decision, "He's got that one right Billy" Whichever decision he made, he would have got it right, silly cluckers.

 

[Pavilionaire]

4.55 and England 10/3 to win with the bookies. I bet Cook would be willing to trade 30 runs for another 5 overs with the new ball tonight, shame that option is not available.