Basil Fawlty
Don't Mention The War
Can we survive the next three overs please, before we can even think about it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Second Investec Ashes Test, England v Australia, Lords
- Thread starter hans kraay fan club
- Start date
Can we survive the next three overs please, before we can even think about it.
larus
Well-known member
Should have enforced the follow on. The Aussies will take something from this that they continually make early inroads into our batting. Poor....
I'll forgive Cook and Trott they've been so good over the last few years but Pieterson why is he still in the side? He fails time and time again then the commentators cream themselves over one innings in ten. A terrible shot AGAIN!
Basil Fawlty
Don't Mention The War
Following on was pointless, especially with out lead over 200 odd. You have to remember this is still a Day Two pitch, there wasn't much turn for Swann and it wasn't doing much for Jimmy as well. If we can survive these next three overs, then we can push on Tomorrow, we will be fine.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
Yep, Peter Siddle's bowling like a broken man.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
Wasn't much turn for Swann? The man just took 5 wickets! All of the bowlers took wickets and were bowling with confidence. I totally disagree with you, but then it is a game of opinions.
Arkwright
Arkwright
Totally this, I know it's easy from the comfort of my sofa but when you have a team down why not rub their noses in it and stick them back in.
Our bowlers where bowling well with control so let them have another bash with the new ball.
Basil Fawlty
Don't Mention The War
The odd one or two did turn, but nothing major to shout home about. Just imagine what Swann will do on a wicket like this when its day 4 and 5.
Seagull kimchi
New member
We just hate to win pretty!
BensGrandad
New member
When will Cook learn to enforce the follow on he is showing how poor he is with his judgement as a captain. Had he done this the game would be virtually over now.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Should have followed on!
Southern Scouse
Well-known member
- Jul 21, 2011
- 2,095
What a fantastic advertisement for Test cricket. Trent Bridge and now Lords. Completely unmissable.
Finchley Seagull
Well-known member
Really can't believe how many people are having a go at Cook. We were right to bat again. It clearly isn't a bad batting wicket and Australia could have made 400 and given us a difficult task batting last. We still have 3 days left and are one up in the series. Why would we give Australia more of a chance of getting a win?
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Totally agree. The only chance Aus had of winning was to follow on with the wicket still decent, rack up 400 and skittle us for 130 in day 5, on a minefield of a wicket.
Buckley's Mad Eye
New member
- Oct 27, 2012
- 1,393
They absolutely did the right thing batting again. I think they've probably got enough already, but if we can get up to 200 we can set attacking fields for longer. Swann is obviously the key man now.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
I'd be interested to know what Brearley, Border, Waugh and Taylor would have done re the follow on decision. Whatever way you dice it up we should win either way.
Finchley Seagull
Well-known member
I think that last statement is the key. We will probably win anyway. Ignoring what happened since we batted again, the Aussies have a bit more chance if batting again so the logical thing is for England to bat. If there was only a day and a half left then time becomes an issue but with three days to go, it's not. What would people say if we put them back in and they won (and I realise they could still win now) and levelled the series?
I genuinely don't understand the stick that Cook gets for his captaincy.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
By way of comparison and similar circumstances, 5 months ago No.1 ranked team South Africa played Pakistan at Centurion, scored 409, bowled Pakistan out for 156 with an hour to go of Day 2, so a lead of 253. Graeme Smith enforced the follow-on, they were 14-1 at stumps, bowled them out on Day 3 for 235 and won by an innings and 18 runs.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,269
England have NEVER enforced the follow on and lost in their entire test history. It happens 1% of the time - 3 times in history and each time Australia have lost.
Arkwright
Arkwright
I really do think England did the wrong thing and should have stuck the Aussies back in.
Sport is about momentum and the Aussies were dead and buried with a total lack of confidence. By England batting for what twenty overs and loosing 3 wickets we have given the Aussies some much needed belief. Okay we may have needed to bat last on a turning wicket but who is to say that we wouldn't have rolled them over again.
If your on top stick the knife in, I'm the same with football why take your foot off the gas and cruise to 2 - nil when you can stuff a side.
Sport is about momentum and the Aussies were dead and buried with a total lack of confidence. By England batting for what twenty overs and loosing 3 wickets we have given the Aussies some much needed belief. Okay we may have needed to bat last on a turning wicket but who is to say that we wouldn't have rolled them over again.
If your on top stick the knife in, I'm the same with football why take your foot off the gas and cruise to 2 - nil when you can stuff a side.