ThePortForum.com

djewesbury wrote:You'd put Root and Stokes in to get these runs surely..?

Probably Bell and Anderson.

That's what I love about Test cricket. 4 days of tedium with longevity records tumbling, and then a sudden and frantic attempt at a result.

Was a long and tedious first innings any worse for Test cricket than a first innings which is half over before lunch on day 1?

AHB wrote:That's what I love about Test cricket. 4 days of tedium with longevity records tumbling, and then a sudden and frantic attempt at a result.

Was a long and tedious first innings any worse for Test cricket than a first innings which is half over before lunch on day 1?

No. Both are bad.

DRT wrote:

AHB wrote:That's what I love about Test cricket. 4 days of tedium with longevity records tumbling, and then a sudden and frantic attempt at a result.

Was a long and tedious first innings any worse for Test cricket than a first innings which is half over before lunch on day 1?

No. Both are bad.

I think I understand what you're doing wrong. You think cricket is first and foremost about a narrow idea of enjoyment; no. Cricket need not primarily be enjoyable per se. It is just silly to criticise cricket for being unenjoyable; because its main function is to be a focus for philosophy and reflection. It is an intellectual activity. There is no 'bad' or 'good' here; just some games which are differently challenging and differently rewarding.

djewesbury wrote:Cricket need not primarily be enjoyable ... its main function is to be a focus for philosophy and reflection. It is an intellectual activity.

Ah, now I understand why it is £100 for a ticket

Having not followed the test closely (who did? Not even the players at times) I too thought the lack of atmosphere deadening to even the more interesting passages of play. The vast silence of all those seats overwhelmed the cricket and put me in mind of all those little clay men by Gormley.

The last session, although it is Rashid who will be remembered I would also put in a vote for Mo's two wickets, he has a knack of taking big wickets with innocuous balls. Cook was marvellous, whatever the conditions it was a remarkable innings. And Bell, having dropped 200 and something runs in the first innings scores sixty-ish, leaving him with a deficit of about 150 runs in the match. His sixty being a score which makes no palpable difference to the result but is just enough not to get dropped, unlike those catches.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There's plenty of atmosphere today.

Twelve fat blokes singing a dodgy version of Jerusalem is not what I call "plenty of atmosphere".

Interesting. It must just be the singing that you don't like then, because I usually only see you in a room containing twelve fat blokes and you seem to enjoy yourself well enough.

We rarely book rooms that take 50,000 people. I think even our tastings would lack atmosphere in such circumstances.

Is it just me who thinks Daniel only comes to this thread to have a moan at me for grumbling about cricket?

Sorry, but Daniel's post about "generally meeting up with 12 fat blokes in a room" made me genuinely laugh out loud and wins the day.

The cricket this week was generally dull, with a hint of interesting at the end. Loved the rugby though, if not the results.

PhilW wrote:Sorry, but Daniel's post about "generally meeting up with 12 fat blokes in a room" made me genuinely laugh out loud and wins the day.

Like most comedy geniuses he is under-appreciated in his time. Askey > Secombe > Manning > Cannon > Jewesbury - where will it all end?

DRT wrote:Twelve fat blokes singing a dodgy version of Jerusalem

They are at it again this morning.

After establishing a very strong position overnight, and with talk of them winning whilst only batting once, England have managed to throw away 7 wickets for 60 runs and now look almost certain to lose.

It might or might not be significant that the 12 fat blokes did not sing Jerusalem at the opening of play this morning.

Talking of fat blokes/ladies singing I wonder if Bell may have cut it a bit fine. I thought he would need at least 50 to save his place, but 46 is close and Vaughan was saying he deserved another innings. The manner of his dismissal was also beautifully nuanced. On the one hand you could say it was bad luck to be given out on review. But I can't help thinking a number three batsman should really know to keep his hands out of the way when padding up. As predicted his score has made no discernible difference to the outcome of the match.

The commentators on Sky were suggesting he needed an innings-saving performance to keep his place for the next test. He clearly didn't manage that but with Cook injured I wonder if the selectors will be brave enough to remove one of the old guard with the risk that Cook might also miss the game.

Is this the first Bell ever to have been made of Teflon?

Very flattered by Phil's remarks and pleased to have given some worthwhile amusement, as must Ian Bell be this evening. I hold fast to my view that Derek has a narrow, utilitarian, Gradgrindish approach not only to cricket but to sport as a whole. It isn't a poncey statement to assert that cricket is about life. I actually think it's true! It matters precisely because it doesn't matter.

Discuss.

djewesbury wrote:It isn't a poncey statement to assert that cricket is about life. I actually think it's true! It matters precisely because it doesn't matter.

Discuss.

Nah. Can't be bothered.

I listened to a very interesting interview with the head of the Pakistan Cricket Board this morning on TMS. The tension between them and their Indian equivalents was palpable and it seems they are a very long way from being accepted back into the fold. Security of the teams and supporters obviously paramount but let's hope that prejudice and bigotry do not get in the way. I seen enough of that in Glasgow to know how it can ruin a good sporting day out.

djewesbury wrote:Very flattered by Phil's remarks and pleased to have given some worthwhile amusement, as must Ian Bell be this evening. I hold fast to my view that Derek has a narrow, utilitarian, Gradgrindish approach not only to cricket but to sport as a whole. It isn't a poncey statement to assert that cricket is about life. I actually think it's true! It matters precisely because it doesn't matter.

Discuss.

If I must.
If by narrow, utilitarian and Gradgrindish, you refer to Derek's almost inexplicable interest in the outcome of the match and the skills used to achieve this then I would grudgingly agree.

djewesbury wrote: It isn't a poncey statement to assert that cricket is about life.

Actually it is a bit poncey. But I like that. I am not sure that cricket mimics life rather that it is more revealing of the person than any other sport. But only test cricket. Since I am in philosophical mood I will pass on a mot juste I heard today; "Think on Connie, and look sharp!"

LGTrotter wrote:If by narrow, utilitarian and Gradgrindish, you refer to Derek's almost inexplicable interest in the outcome of the match and the skills used to achieve this

This bit I can explain. I lived for almost five decades wondering what the point of cricket was all about, as is testified by the first post in this thread. However, Alex and Ben were kind enough to invite me along to a few games a few summers ago and I started to become interested in learning. Personally, I find learning to be much more rewarding than poncey pontification and the gratuitous use of long words in an attempt to look intelligent.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:If by narrow, utilitarian and Gradgrindish, you refer to Derek's almost inexplicable interest in the outcome of the match and the skills used to achieve this

This bit I can explain. I lived for almost five decades wondering what the point of cricket was all about, as is testified by the first post in this thread. However, Alex and Ben were kind enough to invite me along to a few games a few summers ago and I started to become interested in learning. Personally, I find learning to be much more rewarding than poncey pontification and the gratuitous use of long words in an attempt to look intelligent.

Busted.

Who used a long word? The longest word I can see here is pontification, Derek.

Does anyone know a long word for collapse?

A tremendous display from the England tail-enders, particularly Rashid, but a bridge too far after the disastrous first innings. Pakistan were worthy winners.

As I drove to Leeds this morning, I heard Michael Vaughan suggesting that Bell should replace Moen as opener, Taylor move up to 3 and Moen go down to 6 or 7.

Could this be a new lease of life for Ian Bell in the England side?

He seems to have done it again. He scored 40ish on a pitch where 50 is a good score and someone else then made it a decent innings total. The Teflon Bell still tolls.

Blimey, I didn't see that coming. Last I heard England needed his 'experience'. I think it was getting increasingly hard to justify his place with players like Taylor getting some runs in the one dayers. Compton is a bit of a surprise, but worth a punt.

Some good cricket in South Africa, none of it by the home side, with the notable exception of the opener. Compton seems to be doing well, Hales less so. Is there no stopping Root? Broad likes opening the bowling. What happened to Wood? Not still injured I hope. One nil up tomorrow night unless there is too cautious a declaration. If not then Wednesday.

I have tried watching some of this but find the constant chatter from the microphones at the wicket too much of a distraction. Technology is not always beneficial to the experience of watching sport and this is one example I think the world could live without.

From what I have seen Owen's summary is spot on. Nothing much coming from the SA side. What has happened to the Cookster? He has been doing so well recently but appears to have regressed to the form of 18 months ago. Give yourself a shake man.

Cook and Root should be dropped for being out of form.

On a serious note, did anyone else enjoy Ebony Rainford-Brent's contributions to the one day and T20 Test Match Special commentaries? She seems to have really come into her own for the series against Pakistan. She and Tuffers are just brilliant when handing over to each other.

What happened to that story about South Africa being the best team in the world?

A magnificent display of batting from Stokes and Bairstow.

The BBC website has a typo: a team has declared on 629 for 6 wickets, this being described — obviously erroneously — as “England”. Doubtless a silly error.

jdaw1 wrote:The BBC website has a typo: a team has declared on 629 for 6 wickets, this being described — obviously erroneously — as “England”. Doubtless a silly error.

The same error appears to have gone viral around the web and social media. A further ridiculous claim is that two "English batsmen" scored more than 400 runs between them in a single innings. Do they think we are all daft?

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The BBC website has a typo: a team has declared on 629 for 6 wickets, this being described — obviously erroneously — as “England”. Doubtless a silly error.

The same error appears to have gone viral around the web and social media. A further ridiculous claim is that two "English batsmen" scored more than 400 runs between them in a single innings. Do they think we are all daft?

But a mere 399 partnership, they must both be kicking themselves for their indiscipline. #missingBell.

LGTrotter wrote:But a mere 399 partnership, they must both be kicking themselves for their indiscipline.

Is the missing run really the fault of both?

jdaw1 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:But a mere 399 partnership, they must both be kicking themselves for their indiscipline.

Is the missing run really the fault of both?

Oh yes; Stokes got out and if Bairstow had got on with it rather than shilly-shallying around with his century the 400 would have been got.

I was thinking this will be a draw then I remembered it is only day two, perhaps it is a function of back to back tests but it seems to have gone on much longer. Root dropping AB...

I'm listening again to the first session from this morning. It seems a good way to top and tail a Sunday.

The gloss seems to have come off somewhat.

What explains so many centuries and two double centuries in the same innings?

Should the groundsman be sacked?

I rather think the South African team will slip him a purse of sovereigns, or possibly Krugerrands, they have hardly scored a run in ages and now they have had plenty of time at the crease with lots of confidence boosting runs. Dull as ditchwater for the rest of us but who cares about the reputation of test cricket when there are egos to be smoothed.

Indeed. It doesn't do the game any good to see so many high scores and a pitch that seems to ensure no team will be bowled out. If only Bell was there he could have thrown in the towel early tomorrow morning and made a game of it

These high scores aside, I did smile when I read this earlier today.

Final session in Cape Town, bad light and rain look like bringing it to a close as a draw. What a bizarre final few sessions of a test. Credit to Amla and Bavuma - they really did dig SA out of a hole and a loss in this one.

DRT wrote:I did smile when I read this earlier today.

I bet his averages look good this season!

flash_uk wrote:Final session in Cape Town, bad light and rain look like bringing it to a close as a draw. What a bizarre final few sessions of a test. Credit to Amla and Bavuma - they really did dig SA out of a hole and a loss in this one.

I wasn't quite as hysterical as Aggers was about this one, I just couldn't see it being anything other than a draw, even at six down. You are right about Amla and Bavuma, I would add de Villiers to the list, with much talk of adapting to the situation of the game he did just that. England seem to find this very difficult.

We had the commentary on in the office on the last day and were really looking forward to England being bowled out for around 170 with 30 overs left for South Africa. The target might have been tempting enough to persuade them to chase it and who knows what might then have happened with the ball swinging, seaming and spinning.

That could have made for a terrific last day of cricket with 20 wickets falling for around 320 runs. I love test cricket, you can have 4 days of predictability (some might say boring, but I didn't think any of the centurion's innings were boring even if it does turn out that Stokes's achievement was perhaps more easy than we had first thought) and then it all explodes in a day of madness.

What a pity the weather intervened and saved England from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again.

I don't think Stokes's achievement was easy in any conditions. The SR for him and for Amla tells you a lot.

djewesbury wrote:I don't think Stokes's achievement was easy in any conditions.

Quite.

AHB wrote: who knows what might then have happened with the ball swinging, seaming and spinning..

The only team I saw moving the ball were South Africa. Anderson particularly seemed innocuous. And I still think it had draw written all over it. Any test with a double century on each side kind of has to be.

I assume Bell, soon to be Sir Ian, will be recalled for the third test to shore up the middle order?

But I have much hope for Taylor, another Tendulkar. Well he's short and his name begins with 't'.

I want to see Joss Buttler back.

Another good day for test cricket. Stokes can't help himself at the moment and I was glad that Root got some runs. Still a few more runs to knock off but it is looking more hopeful than at 90-4.

Does anyone have an answer to the opener conundrum? Because it doesn't look like Hales is it.

Bell?

I pop out to do a bit of shopping and come back to this! It's all over (mostly) and Broad has done it.

I received an email over the weekend to say that my name had come up trumps in the ballot for tickets to see day 2 of the Lord's test against Sri Lanka. I bought two tickets in the Compton Stand (5-4-97 and 98) and would be happy to offer the spare ticket to someone who wanted to join me - face value is £60.

I should also offer my support and best wishes to Scotland as they fought to a valiant draw against Hong Kong in their 4 day game.

I also wish them the best of luck in the one day series starting tonight.

AHB wrote:I received an email over the weekend to say that my name had come up trumps in the ballot for tickets to see day 2 of the Lord's test against Sri Lanka. I bought two tickets in the Compton Stand (5-4-97 and 98) and would be happy to offer the spare ticket to someone who wanted to join me - face value is £60.

If there is a proper cricket fan able to accept this kind offer, then that proper cricket fan should accompany Alex on Friday 10^th June 2016. But if not, and only if not, even though it seems to be an inefficient use of a ticket, I would like to accompany Alex.

Please could I be first reserve?