Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Spoke too soon
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] England vs India Fifth Test - The Oval
- Thread starter jakarta
- Start date
Spoke too soon
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,263
Yet we've only lost one home series since 2012. Basically, England = Palace and Jimmy = Zaha.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
All going tits up now
8 down
8 down
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I have it as 7. But even that is quite something from 133 for 1.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Sorry - meant 7 down, but you never know!
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,272
Sedatives, given the scoring rate.
BensGrandad
New member
The usuaL DISGRACEFUL Batting performance perhaps questions should be asked of the batting coaches are they still Mark Ramprakash and Graham Thorpe.
How much of the disgraceful performance did you see?
There are days when you just have to admire the bowling. Ball was moving more after 80 overs than in the first few
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BensGrandad
New member
You dont need to see a pudding made to know that the end result is poor.
If what GB says in the previous post about the ball moving was this a mistake that Root made for us to bat first? Just asking the experts on here.
No, but in cricket you do need to watch the game, to see who played well. It’s also quite wise to reserve full judgement until both teams have batted. India bowled exceptionally well today, and the ball moved, particularly as it got older. Even Cook and the top order played and missed loads (look at the scoring rate) and a couple of catches were shelled.
As regards the decision, both captains agreed it looked like a decent batting strip
BensGrandad
New member
surely the answer is
(a) The batting was generally poor
OR
(B) The bowling was very good
either way it turned out that it was wrong to bat first it seems, perhaps it is in hindsight.
(a) The batting was generally poor
OR
(B) The bowling was very good
either way it turned out that it was wrong to bat first it seems, perhaps it is in hindsight.
The answer is b but the right decision was to bat.
Great analogy there!
I do find that watching the game gives your opinion a lot more credibility though.
- Feb 22, 2014
- 2,808
I think it was Mark Taylor, Australian captain, that I first heard the phrase “ 9 times out 10 if you win the toss you bat. On the 10th occasion you think long and hard and then bat.” Sums it up for me. Just ask Nasser @ Brisbane!
No. Could be a bit of both (it was) - it’s not a binary thing. We won’t know whether it was possibly a wrong decision until India have batted - and of course they may bat well, and we may bowl shite, which doesn’t then mean the decision was wrong. If we bowl them out for 150 would the decision be right or wrong, does it mean we’ve bowled well or India have batted badly ??
You repeatedly seem incapable of accepting that sometimes the opposition play better than us.....every time things go against us it’s because we did something wrong, not because they were simply better on the day. That’s not how cricket works.
BensGrandad
New member
What would we expect to be an acceptable 1st Innings total for us following on from Root and Bairstow.7 balls no runs.
I don't think we'll follow on.
One of the lunchtime interviews on TMS in an earlier test was with a statistician. If I can recall it correctly, he was saying that over the years the scores of innings 1+3 are greater than 2+4 (although innings 2 was often the highest scoring innings) - but this didn't used to result in there being a hugely higher win percentage for those batting first because of the number of drawn games. That is - all drawn games (that reach a 4th innings) still had a higher 1+3 score, because innings 4 hadn't finished. In fact, I think he said that there was a slightly higher percentage win for the team batting second for a while (1980s-2000s I think).
However, in the last decade or so test cricket has changed for a number of reasons and the percentage of draws has dropped tremendously. The majority of these (previous) draws have been converted to wins for the team batting first.
So, the advantage for the team batting first has changed from 'less likely to lose' to 'far more likely to win'.
This has been particularly true in England and New Zealand. He was saying though that in India, the team batting in innings 2 has a huge advantage because the first morning in India is very bowler friendly, so there isn't a pattern of racking up an untouchable first innings score.