I never realised we had only won once during the Packer series of 1978/9. I'm all up for winning there this December and I hope there is a cake to ice!
The Second Investec Ashes Test, England v Australia, Lords
- Thread starter hans kraay fan club
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I never realised we had only won once during the Packer series of 1978/9. I'm all up for winning there this December and I hope there is a cake to ice!
- Thread starter
- #202
Good start 
The Beeb last night speculated it was to take the heat off Broad. Didn't help Anderson much, the crowd (AND more amazingly the BBC commentary box) thought he WAS Broad!
It really was totally baffling.
You also have to remember that Anderson is our best strike bowler. Why have him out in the middle batting for longer than necessary in this heat when he's the one who has to put in a 8 over shift as soon as the innings is done?
Personally I think the idea of a night watchman is a totally crap idea in ANY circumstances.
No idea if that's true or not yet. We could skittle them out for 170-220, then suddenly 300 is more than enough.
Would have to disagree. The idea of putting a middle-order batsman in late on when the bowlers have their tails up and the light might not be that good..just as long as you've got a good blocker. But I take your point, it depends on the circumstances. Does seem strange to put in Jimmy though.
- Thread starter
- #210
Daft. There absolutely ARE circumstances where the use of a nightwatchman is very much valid. (This wasn't it though, obviously).
Yes well we could skittle them for 22 like Lancs did to Essex.
You're being PICKY. I guess I could have said "I'd expect Australia to overhaul 300 quite comfortably" but it would've taken longer.
- Thread starter
- #212
I don't think he is being picky. The old addage that you should never judge a pitch until you've seen both teams bat on it, is a wise one.
(That said, i do THINK 400 was par...)
Not daft at all. There are loads of cricket people who agree with me.
Obviously the idea of a night watchman is to protect the guy at the other end for the remaining overs. However, why bring in a #10 or #11 to do that job? Why not the #6, 7 or whoever is next due in?
It creates problems. Firstly, it means a competent batsman is more likely to run out of partners, since the night watchman has been and out for the sake of ten minutes cricket. Secondly, a night watchman will often come in and end up not facing the strike to justify the decision. Thirdly, a night watchman is MORE likely to lose his wicket than a number 6 or 7 in those ten mins. And then what?
And look at the state of play now. Swann and Broad are BOTH finding gaps by playing sensibly. When one of them gets out, we're all done. If Swann had come in last night, he'd have prolonged his innings when Broad left him.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Especially since in putting Jimmy in, it's going to end up giving Broad less partners at the crease. Baffling decision really.
342-9 (98 overs)
Swann 20* Broad 22*
The game has moved on at a decent pace both runs and wickets, and England are definitely in it.
Swann 20* Broad 22*
The game has moved on at a decent pace both runs and wickets, and England are definitely in it.
topbanana36
Well-known member
lets have some fun in the sun.
tinycowboy
Well-known member
Lovely work from Broad and Swann. Score is starting to look halfway respectable thanks to some steady work from the tail.
England 351-9 (98.5 overs) 
SIX 
Buckley's Mad Eye
New member
- Oct 27, 2012
- 1,393
I'm loving this partnership.