Ashes second test, Lords, continued.

First topic message reminder :

Please continue here guys.

Fools!

I knew they should have declared earlier...now that's ruined both Bell and Root's averages for the series.

I'm just glad I didn't wait around for the declaration yesterday.

To be honest, I'm only tuning in today to see just what Australia can do in response. Mildly curious to see whether they can bat for a draw. Probably not, but you never know...

alfie wrote:Bairstow gone...the sparingly used Harris makes the breakthrough...

Chance for Prior to hit a few balls now.  Wouldn't think they will bother letting the bowlers have a bat though.

 it looks a totally different day.  Also though England had lost the flow from yesterday and looked edgy.  They just wanted Roots 200 and to bowl here.  This is a bowlers wicket now for all Harris says it isn't I think it will take spin and swing a bit.

I do agree with him that enforcing the follow on was the way to go. But it is certainly time to get over it!!

I am very happy that we didnt in the end..(Mainly due to J root!)

Hussain summed it up best. If England had declared first thing this morning...they win, declare after an hour....they win or declare at lunch they win. Heck they could have batted to tea and declared and they would still win.

"I knew they should have declared earlier...now that's ruined both Bell and Root's averages for the series."

wolfie root has put on loads more since bell got out!! if we declared when both were in then roots average would have been worse even with the NO.

actually not sure how much he put on, maybe your right!

but still the double ton was the way to go!

mystiroakey wrote:holding is becoming a bore tbh. Wasnt it obvious we were just there to let root get his double!!

jeasus

Always better to bat on for a bit, time allowing, than declare overnight. Keep the opposition openers on edge.

Although strauss does wind me up a bit . It is great to have an ex captain that has played with these players in the commentary - he does give us real insight!

I saw a "if aussie play to win they will, play to draw they lose" so the confidence has not gone from their fans yet for sure.

Watson seems to just be playing his shots, playing how he plays.  right or wrong today?

I was having a chat with a mate of mine a day ago... We were discussing how batting averages for certain batsmen is an indicator that they can score big runs, I.e Amla averages 50 because he has a few tons to go with his failures. With Watson, he averages about 37 because thats how much he scores every innings

Watson should play shots.. That sort of player

England didn't just bat on for a Root 200 . As Hoggy says , they wanted to keep the Aussie openers on edge for a bit.
If Bairstow or Root were in they might have gone another half hour ; but had no intention to send the bowlers out .

Quiet start to Australian innings. Jimmy has got a couple to move , but no drama yet.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:holding is becoming a bore tbh. Wasnt it obvious we were just there to let root get his double!!

jeasus

Always better to bat on for a bit, time allowing, than declare overnight. Keep the opposition openers on edge.

Morning Hoggy - I was critical of Cook for not enforcing the follow on in this summer's second Test against New Zealand. However, traditionalist or old fashioned that I am, I could certainly understand and appreciate not doing so in this match. By contrast, Mike Holding makes me seem very modern in outlook. Heard him say yesterday that our approach upon being able to enforce the follow on should have been, "Put them in, bowl them out and go home."

A game of opinions and I still respect Holding for his.

Due to get sunny later so it won't be easy bowling here.

may well need most of the two days to win it.

I think England can but aussie have a chance if these two get in.

and of course they have the young Agar to get runs down the order too.

mystiroakey wrote:"I knew they should have declared earlier...now that's ruined both Bell and Root's averages for the series."

wolfie root has put on loads more since bell got out!! if we declared when both were in then roots average would have been worse even with the NO.

actually not sure how much he put on, maybe your right!

but still the double ton was the way to go!

Not for me...should have been happy with his ton. Or more to the point Cook should have been.

Became such a yawn-fest I gave up at 4:30 yesterday.

I suppose Root could only massively improve his batting average regardless, but how much better would 150n.o have looked. Would have liked to see Bell get a n.o too.

Just my tuppence worth.

mystiroakey wrote:Watson should play shots.. That sort of player

 Play his natural game?

alfie wrote:England didn't just bat on for a Root 200 . As Hoggy says , they wanted to keep the Aussie openers on edge for a bit.
If Bairstow or Root were in they might have gone another half hour ; but had no intention to send the bowlers out .

Quiet start to Australian innings. Jimmy has got a couple to move , but no drama yet.

 no we batted on for one reason and one reason only- roots double ton.

we decalred when root was out. This was a no branier.

I couldnt be surer on this . I am 100%

trebellbobaggins wrote:Due to get sunny later so it won't be easy bowling here.

may well need most of the two days to win it.

I think England can but aussie have a chance if these two get in.

and of course they have the young Agar to get runs down the order too.

I'm beginning to think Agar's wonder-innings was one of those debut flukes...no pressure or expectation, last man in and all that.

Now they've promoted him up the order, he's got more pressure to deliver and is batting more cautiously as a result.

Hi guildford

Follow on ...to kick an opponent while he was down...was an option. But with five close up matches to get through the risk of having Anderson in particular bowling for two or three days in a row , should Australia bat long in their second innings , made the course they have taken more sensible. In my view.
Of course England may have to spend a day or two in the field now : but they have had a full day to put their feet up in the meantime , which makes a difference...

And the Root 180 was worth seeing.

mystiroakey wrote:

alfie wrote:England didn't just bat on for a Root 200 . As Hoggy says , they wanted to keep the Aussie openers on edge for a bit.
If Bairstow or Root were in they might have gone another half hour ; but had no intention to send the bowlers out .

Quiet start to Australian innings. Jimmy has got a couple to move , but no drama yet.

 no we batted on for one reason and one reason only- roots double ton.

we decalred when root was out. This was a no branier.

I couldnt be surer on this . I am 100%

You taken up mind reading , roakey ?  

I'll email Cookie and ask...

No , But every single piece of evidence suggests it.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:holding is becoming a bore tbh. Wasnt it obvious we were just there to let root get his double!!

jeasus

Always better to bat on for a bit, time allowing, than declare overnight. Keep the opposition openers on edge.

Morning Hoggy - I was critical of Cook for not enforcing the follow on in this summer's second Test against New Zealand. However, traditionalist or old fashioned that I am, I could certainly understand and appreciate not doing so in this match. By contrast, Mike Holding makes me seem very modern in outlook. Heard him say yesterday that our approach upon being able to enforce the follow on should have been, "Put them in, bowl them out and go home."

A game of opinions and I still respect Holding for his.

My mistake Guildford.
Hadn't actually heard what Holding was saying (so shouldn't have commented on it really). Thought he was arguing that England shouldn't have batted on this morning.
As for not enforcing the follow-on while, of course, you've got to respect Holding's opinion, I do agree with you that I certainly wouldn't agree with it in this case.
Day 3 (in particular) and 4 have been the best batting days on a number of recent Lord's pitches. Why give your opponents the best of the conditions with the chance that you might be faced with a tricky chase on a deteriorating pitch?

Although its about 1000/1 odds, I would laugh heartily if Aus manage to bat for the draw.

After all, England have shown them how to bat on this pitch and if they can curb their natural attacking instincts, they could just nudge and nurdle their way to a big score and eat up the remaining time.


And as I write this Watson is out lbw for 20 and Aus are 24-1.

Looks like the miracle isn't on, after all.

Probably co-incidental that Root's dismissal co-incided with the declaration then

Clearly Graf. just a fluke of timing !!

Watson goes.
What, no review??  

Watson goes in the usual manner ...except he declines to refer it. Though you could see he wanted to  

Well bowled Jimmy.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:holding is becoming a bore tbh. Wasnt it obvious we were just there to let root get his double!!

jeasus

Always better to bat on for a bit, time allowing, than declare overnight. Keep the opposition openers on edge.

Morning Hoggy - I was critical of Cook for not enforcing the follow on in this summer's second Test against New Zealand. However, traditionalist or old fashioned that I am, I could certainly understand and appreciate not doing so in this match. By contrast, Mike Holding makes me seem very modern in outlook. Heard him say yesterday that our approach upon being able to enforce the follow on should have been, "Put them in, bowl them out and go home."

A game of opinions and I still respect Holding for his.

My mistake Guildford.
Hadn't actually heard what Holding was saying (so shouldn't have commented on it really). Thought he was arguing that England shouldn't have batted on this morning.
As for not enforcing the follow-on while, of course, you've got to respect Holding's opinion, I do agree with you that I certainly wouldn't agree with it in this case.
Day 3 (in particular) and 4 have been the best batting days on a number of recent Lord's pitches. Why give your opponents the best of the conditions with the chance that you might be faced with a tricky chase on a deteriorating pitch?

what are you talking about??

he did argue that england shouldnt bat on this morning!

he has also argued about a lot of stuff in regards to england- Some I agree with and some I dont. However he is becoming like a dog with a bone recently and is really becoming a bore!

mystiroakey wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:holding is becoming a bore tbh. Wasnt it obvious we were just there to let root get his double!!

jeasus

Always better to bat on for a bit, time allowing, than declare overnight. Keep the opposition openers on edge.

Morning Hoggy - I was critical of Cook for not enforcing the follow on in this summer's second Test against New Zealand. However, traditionalist or old fashioned that I am, I could certainly understand and appreciate not doing so in this match. By contrast, Mike Holding makes me seem very modern in outlook. Heard him say yesterday that our approach upon being able to enforce the follow on should have been, "Put them in, bowl them out and go home."

A game of opinions and I still respect Holding for his.

My mistake Guildford.
Hadn't actually heard what Holding was saying (so shouldn't have commented on it really). Thought he was arguing that England shouldn't have batted on this morning.
As for not enforcing the follow-on while, of course, you've got to respect Holding's opinion, I do agree with you that I certainly wouldn't agree with it in this case.
Day 3 (in particular) and 4 have been the best batting days on a number of recent Lord's pitches. Why give your opponents the best of the conditions with the chance that you might be faced with a tricky chase on a deteriorating pitch?

what are you talking about??

he did argue that england shouldnt bat on this morning!

Guess I was right to comment on his comments then!

OK roakey & kingraf : obviously they declared when Root went out - only the bowlers to come...

Look it doesn't really matter ; but I can only go on what I would have done as captain in the circumstances. Which is either declare half an hour before the close last night , or bat on for a brief session this morning - as they did. Unless there are time issues , there is little point to declaring precisely at stumps , as it allows the opposition to plan without any uncertainty. Captaincy 101 really...and it often makes no difference ...but any tiny edge etc...

Of course the proximity to a milestone for a batsman makes a handy reference point : but it is not - or should never be - the over riding consideration. A mistake the Indians sometimes make.

End of the day. The win is England's - they could have batted until tea or declared last night and the result would still be the same so what is the problem with declaration time?

God these Aussies are something bad

Phil Hughes against Swann should be funny

Rogers goes bowled Swann.
Swann strikes in the first over of his spell again.

Swann gets Rogers!

Rogers leaves a Swann straight ball...

Not a good idea  

Tea time finish ?

Whoa!

Rogers bowled for 6 and Australia 32-2.

This could be all over before tea...

Anderson and Swann remove the opening pair.

Alfie - pretty much agree with you. I was really just emphasising that not everyone goes along with that line of thought; Mike Holding, in particuilar.

With regard to Anderson putting his feet up, there is quite a gap before the third Test so that could probably be argued both ways. Also, would it have been kicking the Aussies harder and more demoralising for them to beat them inside 3 days?

Given 2 wickets down already, the above makes little difference in reality. Agree with you about Root - should shut up the doubters for a couple of weeks!

Watsons does it again.

Long road ahead for Aussie but BBC saying conditions will get easy for batting so you never know.

I just wonder if they are actually looking at the assist Swann is getting? Because clouds won't change that.

Does losing by 200 runs inside four days hurt less than losing by 350 im Five? Dont think it matters

England needed to give batting time to some players and the big score will have been fantastic for Root so I am totally happy with the decision.

A loss is a loss

I'd say the Trent Bridge loss hurt a lot. Played well, England didn't, get really close, and still lose. Gotta be pretty demoralising that

If aus could somehow get to 400 I think they can take positives..


They need to keep fighting

Good lord. Crazy review.. Again.

Phil Hughes

Oh deary me.

Swann has Hughes lbw for 1 and Australia look on the verge of collapse at 36-3.

Im sure Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could offer better resistance

mystiroakey wrote:If aus could somehow get to 400 I think they can take positives..


They need to keep fighting

Australia will do very well to reach 200 leave alone 400. Swann could go right through them here...

mystiroakey wrote:If aus could somehow get to 400 I think they can take positives..


They need to keep fighting

The rate they're going, they'll be lucky to make 100.

I don't think they've got any fight left in them.

If they lose this as badly as it looks like they're going to, I suspect they will be a broken team for the rest of the series and a 5-0 whitewash is entirely possible.

Think they may already have one eye on the home series.

Lucky for them they have one of the best players of spin out there now. Could see them through perhaps.

This is like a complete role reversal from around ten years ago. A spinner causing huge problems supported by pace attack and the opposition being out-classed in all departments. Then it was Australia in command now it is England.