Cricket thread

[deptfordmarmoset]

If that's the case, neither captain nor coach know much about cricket.

A lead of 250 with two (most likely) wet days left. Use the dry time (now?) and bowl them out. If they exceed 250 then either the weather gods decide the fate of the Test or England adapt 20/20 mode and make up the difference to win.

Easy peasy.

The weather is bearing up better than the forecasts I've seen so perhaps England have a more optimistic view of the weather. But, given the state of the match and a swinging ball, there's no way India will clear the deficit. Put 'em in, get 'em out!

 

[Dayvo]

So England batted for another 39 runs. Can't see the point of that at all.

Never mind: over to Anderson and co. to do the business.

Kohli, apparently, has a sore back (in addition to a guilty conscience) and may be restricted in his movement.

2-0 is beckoning.

 

[Dayvo]

Cut and pasted from cricbuzz:

100th wicket for Anderson at Lord's. 550th Test wicket.

Bowler hat off to him. Excellent achievement.

 

[Hugh Manatee]

That's 100 for Anderson at Lords.

Edit. Damn beaten to it. I'll go with the highly cerebral, "Woah, Jimmy Jimmy. Jimmy, Jimmy etc, etc."

 

[Dayvo]

That's 100 for Anderson at Lords.

Edit. Damn beaten to it. I'll go with the highly cerebral, "Woah, Jimmy Jimmy. Jimmy, Jimmy etc, etc."

Ah, thanks for telling us!

 

[rich p]

551

 

[Dayvo]

And off for an early lunch. Quelle surprise!

 

[Beebo]

Cut and pasted from cricbuzz:

100th wicket for Anderson at Lord's. 550th Test wicket.

Bowler hat off to him. Excellent achievement.

Apparently no other bowler has ever taken 100 wickets at a single venue except Muralitharan.
And Sri Lanka only play at 3 test venues so it is easier to achieve.

 

[rich p]

Apparently no other bowler has ever taken 100 wickets at a single venue except Muralitharan.
And Sri Lanka only play at 3 test venues so it is easier to achieve.

Easier if you chuck it too...

 

[Dayvo]

Well, that's that.

England win by an innings and 159 runs - in other words, India were stuffed out of sight.

two candidates for man-of-the-match: Woakes and Anderson - not an easy call as they both deserve it.

2-0 and on to Trent Bridge on Saturday.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Well, that's that.

England win by an innings and 159 runs - in other words, India were stuffed out of sight.

two candidates for man-of-the-match: Woakes and Anderson - not an easy call as they both deserve it.

2-0 and on to Trent Bridge on Saturday.

Woakes for me because he steadied the batting as well as unsteadying the Indian batters.

The England knock this morning: was it worth it? An innings and 159 runs suggests not, unless the object was to rub India's nose into the dust.

 

[nickyboy]

I read somewhere that test cricket is becoming more and more about home team domination. This series seems no different

I wonder what could be done to balance things up a bit. Perhaps the "no toss" start to the game whereby the away side chooses whether to bat or bowl first?

I think this operates in the county game now, has it had any effect?

 

[Dayvo]

I read somewhere that test cricket is becoming more and more about home team domination. This series seems no different

There has always been 'home advantage'; whether fast and bouncy in Australia and the Caribbean, slow and turning in Asia, or swing and seam in England and NZ. Teams and players have adjusted to the conditions.

The noticeable difference today, however, IMO, is that there are different formats of the game, which each require their own techniques and strategies. T/20 players (generally) will lack the technique and application to play a five day Test match. Likewise a player like Pujara (or a Boycott) wouldn't be able to play the shorter game to the required level.

How to make Tests fairer and more equal? No easy answer, but away teams do win Test series fairly often, so I personally don't think a change is necessary.

I'm a traditional old fart who doesn't like change.

 

[nickyboy]

There has always been 'home advantage'; whether fast and bouncy in Australia and the Caribbean, slow and turning in Asia, or swing and seam in England and NZ. Teams and players have adjusted to the conditions.

The noticeable difference today, however, IMO, is that there are different formats of the game, which each require their own techniques and strategies. T/20 players (generally) will lack the technique and application to play a five day Test match. Likewise a player like Pujara (or a Boycott) wouldn't be able to play the shorter game to the required level.

How to make Tests fairer and more equal? No easy answer, but away teams do win Test series fairly often, so I personally don't think a change is necessary.

I'm a traditional old fart who doesn't like change.

If you analyse the results home and away, it is getting harder and harder for away teams to win for whatever reason. The reality is that India have almost no chance in these conditions and England has almost no chance in Indian conditions. For any sport to be compelling there needs to be a reasonable chance of an upset. So I'd be in favour of something to tip the balance a bit such as giving the away team the bat/bowl choice. It would also reduce the likelihood of groundstaff preparing pitches specifically to suit the home team

 

[Dayvo]

If you analyse the results home and away, it is getting harder and harder for away teams to win for whatever reason. The reality is that India have almost no chance in these conditions and England has almost no chance in Indian conditions. For any sport to be compelling there needs to be a reasonable chance of an upset. So I'd be in favour of something to tip the balance a bit such as giving the away team the bat/bowl choice. It would also reduce the likelihood of groundstaff preparing pitches specifically to suit the home team

England won the 1st Test by 31 runs. India could have won and weren't outplayed.

Had India won the toss in the 2nd test and England batted first, then who knows what the outcome would have been.