djewesbury wrote:50-9, but surely Derek can tell us how England have thrown this away.
As Mike pointed out, England have still to bat
Goodness me. Let us not worry about England's batting, they have won this. I thought Australia had lost when they scored 136 last test, there is no coming back from this. But let us hope England can arrange to keep this one going for a few days, it might seem inhospitable to the Australians.
djewesbury wrote:50-9, but surely Derek can tell us how England have thrown this away.
As Mike pointed out, England have still to bat
Goodness me. Let us not worry about England's batting, they have won this. I thought Australia had lost when they scored 136 last test, there is no coming back from this. But let us hope England can arrange to keep this one going for a few days, it might seem inhospitable to the Australians.
Don't worry, Owen, I was simply giving our correspondent from Bordeaux something to moan about. He seems to enjoy it.
I agree that even the (former) Wizards from Oz can't come back from this. Possibly career ending for some of their old guard?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
I think England will be OK with the bat. I don't think there was so much going on this morning that the pitch was unplayable. This group of AUS batsmen simply can't handle the ball moving about a bit. That is a normal day for the ENG guys. Plus some of the first session dampness and moisture will be lifting. I'll stick my neck out and say a century for both Cook and Lyth.
All things considered, I think England had quite a good day today. Apart from Bell, obviously.
What do they do now? Bat all day tomorrow and have a 500 run lead or declared at opening and take advantage of the early conditions to skittle Oz out before lunch?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
jdaw1 wrote:Careful: Australia’s top-scorer has a lifetime total of many tens of thousands of runs.
Who, E. X. Tras?
I think England would be sensible to put a lead of 400 up if possible. Though there is an argument that we should have declared when we scored 30 and really kicked the sand in their barbie.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Brave captaining today. To win the toss and put the other team into bat is non-standard. And paid handsomely. If Australia had won the toss, who would have batted first?
Finn, much praised by the shadow selectors of , was sub-standard today. He conceded twenty-one runs (21 runs!) for his measly one wicket.
Do England bat and bat? Is there a declaration coming? I sort of hope Australia take some wickets because England could have declared last night and not had to bat again. But keeping the Australians in the field for a day will be a nice torment for them.
djewesbury wrote:I have to disagree about the non-standard nature of putting the other team in when the toss is won on a pitch with some green, under overcast skies.
I defer to your knowledge. What proportion of toss winners do not then bat first?
I think getting a bit of a total makes sense. Even if they declare at say a lead of 400 or 500, ENG would have three new balls available to take 10 AUS wickets across 3 and a bit days! And what better taunting than allowing Root a double century if he can manage it.
djewesbury wrote:I have to disagree about the non-standard nature of putting the other team in when the toss is won on a pitch with some green, under overcast skies.
I defer to your knowledge. What proportion of toss winners do not then bat first?
I recommend reading the whole article, it's very interesting. It does record that at the time of writing (the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK) England was the only country where the team batting first still won more matches; but this needs to be weighted by determining how many teams losing the toss and batting first went on to win, and this is a little too time-consuming for me to calculate right now (though I would offer "England at Edgbaston in 2005").
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
flash_uk wrote:I think getting a bit of a total makes sense. Even if they declare at say a lead of 400 or 500, ENG would have three new balls available to take 10 AUS wickets across 3 and a bit days! And what better taunting than allowing Root a double century if he can manage it.
Are England trying to ensure ever-greater certainty of winning this test, or are England trying to demoralise with a view to wining the next? The former requires a lead of, say, 400. But the latter favours declaring now.
flash_uk wrote:I think getting a bit of a total makes sense. Even if they declare at say a lead of 400 or 500, ENG would have three new balls available to take 10 AUS wickets across 3 and a bit days! And what better taunting than allowing Root a double century if he can manage it.
Are England trying to ensure ever-greater certainty of winning this test, or are England trying to demoralise with a view to wining the next? The former requires a lead of, say, 400. But the latter favours declaring now.
I think we definitely need more time. Australia should be tired out, their bowling options exposed, Root allowed to go past 150 and beyond, and then they should be sent in to bat for a completely unachievable total.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
If this is going to finish tonight they are going to have to get on with it. Fortunately Australia are still showing the same steely determination to lose, so they might do it.
I watched today on and off. It felt like England were making a meal out of what should have been a snack. Is that unfair?
Given the rapid fall of English wickets this morning I do think my idea that they should have declared at 11:00 and skittled the Aussies out before lunch wasn't a bad shout.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:I watched today on and off. It felt like England were making a meal out of what should have been a snack. Is that unfair?
Given the rapid fall of English wickets this morning I do think my idea that they should have declared at 11:00 and skittled the Aussies out before lunch wasn't a bad shout.
I'm not sure things were so bad. The pitch was doing nothing special between 11 and 3, so a couple of guys like Rogers and Warner should be expected to put runs on. Yeah ENG had a couple of no ball wickets, but that aside, did most things well. They took 7 wickets in 2 sessions - what's wrong with that?
DRT wrote:I watched today on and off. It felt like England were making a meal out of what should have been a snack. Is that unfair?
Given the rapid fall of English wickets this morning I do think my idea that they should have declared at 11:00 and skittled the Aussies out before lunch wasn't a bad shout.
I'm not sure things were so bad. The pitch was doing nothing special between 11 and 3, so a couple of guys like Rogers and Warner should be expected to put runs on. Yeah ENG had a couple of no ball wickets, but that aside, did most things well. They took 7 wickets in 2 sessions - what's wrong with that?
And they dropped a couple. And some edges didn't quite carry, nobodies fault but it did slow things up. Not much seemed to happen while the sun was out so I can see where Derek is coming from about the early declaration because there was a bit more cloud about in the morning. But overall; a bit unfair.
Edit; Oh, and England are going to win the Ashes tomorrow.
And you having not made the effort to guess are claiming victory from other people's work. As usual.
Well done England, very well deserved.
Goodbye Michael Clarke.
Cookie is now crying. Get a grip man.
I knew you'd find some things to grumble about. Never happy. Well, I expect that I will be there on the day that the urn is presented at the Oval. See you there, Derek - oh, no, hang on…
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
jdaw1 wrote:Daniel, Derek! Girls! How long have you two been married? Enough petty squabbling.
Sorry, Sir. It was him, Sir - he keeps pulling my hair when you're not in the room.
I was doing my homework quietly.
Predictions for the Oval? A washout is my prediction for the Saturday, with 10 overs bowled so no one gets their money back. It is traditional that the side who have won take there foot off the gas but Australia look too cooked to come back. I hope they bowl Rashid but I bet they don't.
They would be wise to try someone who can spin the ball at the Oval - it would be a good opportunity to try someone out ahead of the UAE fixtures. Whether that's Rashid or not I'm unsure.
I have tickets for the Sunday. If Saturday is a washout then play is a cert then.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
I shall be at the Oval on Friday, a little miffed that the series is already decided but hoping to be able to give Clarke a resounding round of applause when he walks back to the pavilion after his first innings first ball duck.
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
, was sub-standard today. He conceded twenty-one runs (21 runs!) for his measly one wicket.
- Great! So do... Oh. That's right, I had a ticket, but now I don't 
