England v Pakistan: 2nd Test,

First topic message reminder :

Location:

Old Trafford (Manchester)


Date:

22nd to 26th July 2016


Officials:

Match Umpires: Rod Tucker (Aus), Kumar Dharmasena (SL)
3rd Umpire: Joel Wilson (WI)
Referee: Richie Richardson (WI)



Media Coverage

TV Live: Sky Sports 2 from 10am daily.
TV Highlights: 1 hour shou Channel 5 20:00 daily. 2 hour show Sky Sports various times and channels
Radio: 5L Sports Extra and BBC Website links



Weather Forecast




Teams:

England:
Alastair Cook (capt), Alex Hales, Joe Root, James Vince, Gary Ballance, Ben Stokes, Jonny Bairstow (wk), Moeen Ali, Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad, James Anderson


Pakistan:
Mohammad Hafeez, Shan Masood, Azhar Ali, Younus Khan, Misbah-ul-Haq (capt), Asad Shafiq, Sarfraz Ahmed (wk), Wahab Riaz, Mohammad Amir, Rahat Ali, Yasir Shah.

Misbah has to be the most loveable cricketer in the game at the moment

Can't believe Cook is even considering batting again with the lead still over 400.

What is the point of adding another 100? How much of a rest will the bowlers actually get?

Pakistan have fought back to a decent total considering where they were.

I do wonder if you get a quick hundred then put them back in. Will England want to be chasing a total here on the last day as Pakistan's batsmen seem to be settling?

I'd be in favour of batting, in truth.

The bowlers have been out there for a couple of sessions, so giving them a rest until tomorrow afternoon would be much appreciated. It also allows the chance of demoralising Pakistan still further, and to plunder some easy runs, whilst giving the pitch a level of further deterioration.

There's no rush, after all.

Surely the follow on will be enforced?

I'm usually a fan of batting again, but it'd be outrageous to do so this time

The Gabba Test of 2006, ah the memories. And Ponting not enforcing the follow-on!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/249222.html

Think Cook will have a bat again tbh.

Yep batting again.

I support your decision, skipper.

Well, I suppose I can see the point in giving the bowlers the rest of the day off, as well as having overnight to rest up.

Bat out today and declare after an hour or so tomorrow...absolutely no need for any more than that.

I can't believe they're that tired anyway - they've only bowled 60-odd overs between them.


Agree with a guy on the live text who said put Hales and Ballance in to open with Vince at #3.

Lead of 398...batting again after bowling the opposition out in 63 overs for 198. Sorry don't get that decision at all - even if by some miracle Pakistan made 500 in the 2nd dig, you gotta back yourselves to chase 100 in the 4th dig

Pakistan can now slow the over rate and if they bat sensibly have a decent shot at a draw (anyone know what the weather forecast is?)

391 and Eng bat again....odd...very odd...
with 5 bowlers...some of whom are test speicalists only
who bowled barely 60 overs in first inning.....

actually inexplicable........other than some secret commercial diktat from the broadcasters / hosting local bodies
" get the game into the 5th day"

England will still have around 150 overs to bowl Pakistan out, let us not forget.

They have already been in the field for around four hours, in the second of a back-to-back test, so having a rest will do no harm.

KP_fan wrote:391 and Eng bat again....odd...very odd...  
with 5 bowlers...some of whom are test speicalists only
who bowled barely 60 overs in first inning.....

actually inexplicable........other than some secret commercial diktat from the broadcasters / hosting local bodies
" get the game into the 5th day"

and i forgot......OR unless they are worried chasing a very highly unlikely less than 100 odd against Yasir shah

I probably would've had a bowl but don't really see the harm. England won't bat for too long anyway.

KP_fan wrote:

KP_fan wrote:391 and Eng bat again....odd...very odd...  
with 5 bowlers...some of whom are test speicalists only
who bowled barely 60 overs in first inning.....

actually inexplicable........other than some secret commercial diktat from the broadcasters / hosting local bodies
" get the game into the 5th day"

and i forgot......OR unless they are worried chasing a very highly unlikely less than 100 odd against Yasir shah

England are bloody terrified after first innings figures of...1/213.

Nearly a lead of 400, 5 bowlers in the side, not been in the field even for a day, and yet Cook doesn't enforce the follow-on!

Rain taking time out of the game. Pakistan won't mind that at all. Now that England are batting, Cook won't declare before they a reach lead of 500, meaning Pakistan will have to negotiate even lesser overs. Saving this test could still very likely be beyond them, but Cook has given them the best possible chance.

Probably also looking to protect Anderson & Stokes' workload a tad.

If Pakistan manage to force a draw because of the weather, Cook's decision to bat again will not look very clever...

Can't captain according to weather forecasts

GSC wrote:Can't captain according to weather forecasts

Why not? If there's a reasonable chance of rain, you should adapt your tactics accordingly.


They do in F1.

*Giggle*

There's actually some folk who think Pakistan can escape with a draw. Not going to happen.

Cook is the finest player the England cricket team has ever had, and he has made completely the correct decision.

Of course, some folk just want to blame him for anything.

Mind you, I've just glanced at some old scorecard from 1930, where England didn't enforce the follow-on despite leading by 500-odd, and they didn't close out the victory.

At 271/1, I wonder if the Windies were thinking about victory...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62579.html

Nobody in F1 actually reacts before the rain is falling though.

Focus on the opposition, not the weather.

Lead now near enough 500, suspect they'll bring Pakistan back out to field for maybe an hour tomorrow morning.

Yep bat for an hour, maybe 20 overs tomorrow morning and then put em in and go to work

I'd be fine with England batting for a whole session.

Allow Cook and Root to grab another century each, before routing the opposition in style.

As regulars will know, electing to bat again is certainly not what I would have done. However, it was Cook's call and he was clearly entitled to do what he considered best. Regardless of what I might think, a win and his decision is justified. Questions, albeit serious ones, only fall to him if we don't. Leave it at that.

Meanwhile, unable to watch from after lunch but pleased to note that Ali picked up another couple of wickets. 2/43 off 7.4 overs including the prize wicket of Misbah - a slightly expensive runs per over rate but not really a problem given the final figure in the wickets column, a Rashid-like analysis to outdo Rashid! I don't believe that Ali is a classically great spinner but he continues to be remarkably effective and that's probably what matters most.

If England enforce the follow-on then Pakistan have to bat for an awkward end-of-day session. They then have to start again in the morning, meanwhile the bowlers who haven't bowled that many overs anyway get, to rest overnight.

The weather may also come into play. It's really a quite absurd decision to bat again. I was thinking that under Bayliss and Farbrace Cook's captaincy had greatly improved, but I'm afraid this decision is one of the worst I have ever seen.

931035 wrote:If England enforce the follow-on then Pakistan have to bat for an awkward end-of-day session. They then have to start again in the morning, meanwhile the bowlers who haven't bowled that many overs anyway get, to rest overnight.

The weather may also come into play. It's really a quite absurd decision to bat again. I was thinking that under Bayliss and Farbrace Cook's captaincy had greatly improved, but I'm afraid this decision is one of the worst I have ever seen.

I'm pretty sure that the coach would have had some input regarding whether to enforce the follow-on, probably based on how many overs have been bowled. It must also have come into consideration that if Pakistan were to bat well on what is still a good wicket (we're at virtually 100-1 after all), we could be looking at a tricky chase of 150ish against Yasir on the 5th day when it's likely to be more difficult. Getting the extra runs in the bank now is easier.

I'm not saying it's the decision I'd have made (come on - a lead of essentially 400 and having just skittled most of the top order for 120...), but trying to show there is some logic to it.

I cant see why the criticism. If you dont back your bowlers to get out a side in five sessions at the end of a test match then you might as well not btoher turning up in the first place.

What they have acheived is heaping more workload on the under sized Pakistan seam troio, and smashed Yasirs confidence even further. Meanwhile the England seamers are given a rest between innings, in theory making it easier for them to bowl up to pace and less likely to get injured.

Theres also the opportuinity (potentially) for Vince to get some more time in the middle in a low pressure situation.

In the contest of the game its a nothing decision ...if it does make a difference then well frankly england would have to play so badly that its a lot more than just a decision we should worry about.
In context of the series its the sensible one.
Basic principles...always make the oppsoition do the hard work, never give them the best conditions.

England can have a lead of 600 and be declared by lunch. If they cant win the test from there then well we might as well rip up all the books and start writing them from scratch again.

guildfordbat wrote: I don't believe that Ali is a classically great spinner but he continues to be remarkably effective and that's probably what matters most.

Umm he avergaes over 40 in tests ...Im afarid he is far from remarkably effective. Hes only taken 6 wickets all summer at over 50 each even including yesterday. Sure hes not had the best pitches and been up against oopposition comfortable with spin but even so its a hell of a long way form his debut summer when he took 22 wickets against similar opposition on similar pitches.

Teams that even in situation like this....i.e lead by 400 runs in first inning......find a way to "even think" that there is a defeat scenario for them.....never make a real-top-side

This team not only thought, but acted on such a scenario

Gooseberry wrote:

guildfordbat wrote: I don't believe that Ali is a classically great spinner but he continues to be remarkably effective and that's probably what matters most.

Umm he avergaes over 40 in tests ...Im afarid he is far from remarkably effective. Hes only taken 6 wickets all summer at over 50 each even including yesterday. Sure hes not had the best pitches and been up against oopposition comfortable with spin but even so its a hell of a long way form his debut summer when he took 22 wickets against similar opposition on similar pitches.

Another two wickets yesterday in a short bowl and 70 now in just his 28th Test. That's why I say remarkably effective. Yes, his Test average is higher than we would like but still almost 30 below that of Rashid whom I see from other posts you continue to advance.

Gooseberry wrote:I cant see why the criticism. If you dont back your bowlers to get out a side in five sessions at the end of a test match then you might as well not btoher turning up in the first place.

What they have acheived is heaping more workload on the under sized Pakistan seam troio, and smashed Yasirs confidence even further. Meanwhile the England seamers are given a rest between innings, in theory making it easier for them to bowl up to pace and less likely to get injured.

Theres also the opportuinity (potentially) for Vince to get some more time in the middle in a low pressure situation.

In the contest of the game its a nothing decision ...if it does make a difference then well frankly england would have to play so badly that its a lot more than just a decision we should worry about.
In context of the series its the sensible one.
Basic principles...always make the oppsoition do the hard work, never give them the best conditions.

England can have a lead of 600 and be declared by lunch. If they cant win the test from there then well we might as well rip up all the books and start writing them from scratch again.

To my mind, there is an unreasonable obsession with resting our bowlers. It needs to be understood that bowling at Test level is and always has been hard work. It goes with the job. If you really believe five bowlers need a rest after bowling less than 64 overs between them over two days, then you might as well book them all into a retirement home now rather than send them out again onto a cricket field later today.

The basic principle is to win the Test.

Possible to justify that giving your bowlers an overnight rest makes them fresher and more able to tear in, thus giving you a better chance to win the test no?

This isn't a bad pitch, as we saw in the first innings.

guidfordbat wrote:To my mind, there is an unreasonable obsession with resting our bowlers. It needs to be understood that bowling at Test level is and always has been hard work. It goes with the job. If you really believe five bowlers need a rest after bowling less than 64 overs between them over two days, then you might as well book them all into a retirement home now rather than send them out again onto a cricket field later today.

The basic principle is to win the Test.

Tru Dat

Ah they are no less likely to win the test this way round. Arguably more

Ultimately England will win the test so the decision makes no difference either way - Cook has already enforced the follow on twice already this summer iirc? So obviously just a decision made this once - Farbrace justified their reasoning pretty well last night tbf

I think England will win and the follow on talk will be irrelevent. Pakistan will surely have to survive about 160 overs in cool and cloudy conditions. I can't see it happening, I don't think I would back any current Test team to pull it off

guildfordbat wrote:As regulars will know, electing to bat again is certainly not what I would have done. However, it was Cook's call and he was clearly entitled to do what he considered best. Regardless of what I might think, a win and his decision is justified. Questions, albeit serious ones, only fall to him if we don't. Leave it at that.

...

Olly - that's what I said last night and I stand by it. It should tie in with your ''makes no difference either way'' comment. I was really posting this morning about Gooseberry's apparent obsession with rest and emphasising to him the most important principle of Test cricket.

I suspect there were two main reasons for batting again, and perhaps not what Farbrace had to say (though that dooes have a part to play in my rationale).

One reason I suspect was born out of fear. Fear of what could happen if Pakistan did get runs and they had to face Yasir on the last day.

Second reason born of the desire to really grind the Pakistan bowlers down. We know their batting can be fragile, and their bowling is the stronger suit so lets take on that stronger suit at a time suitable to us and possibly reap longer term gains.



Of course there could be a mundane reason driven by finances. ECB were terrified that Pakistan would capitulate and they would have to refund ticket holders for today.

guildfordbat wrote:...

To my mind, there is an unreasonable obsession with resting our bowlers. It needs to be understood that bowling at Test level is and always has been hard work. It goes with the job. If you really believe five bowlers need a rest after bowling less than 64 overs between them over two days, then you might as well book them all into a retirement home now rather than send them out again onto a cricket field later today.

The basic principle is to win the Test.

I'd go a bit further, and say that we should be looking to win in the most efficient way possible - it's said of motor racing that the best thing to do is to win the race in the slowest possible time, and I guess the cricket equivalent would be to win in the fewest overs (especially overs bowled).

I think actually the biggest negative of not enforcing the follow on s not to do with the state of the game (which we should win easily either way), but in the psychological message this seems to be sending to Pakistan, that even when 400 ahead we are worried. I'd have liked to see the follow-on enforced and the seamers coming charging in again and look to knock a couple over. Could have broken them psychologically for later in the series.

LondonTiger wrote:

Of course there could be a mundane reason driven by finances. ECB were terrified that Pakistan would capitulate and they would have to refund ticket holders for today.

That point is complete nonsense and an insult to the players/management and the seriousness with which they take the game.

We can argue all day long as to whther or not Ali is a remrakable spinner for taking 2 wickets in an innings (Ok its been remarked upon therefor I guess he is remarkable) or if Cook should have bowled on just to avoid criticism regardless of what he though was the correct decision and the knowledge of the players and conditions that he has that we dont.
But to bandy around conspiracy theories like that is just plain insulting. No doubt the organisers would prefer a fifth day, and so too most likley would the people who payed to watch it, but the idea that they are stringing out the game on purpose is almost as mad as suggesting that the Pakistanis might have bowled no balls deliberately just for money.....oh.

I guess I need to be more obvious when I am making a joke.

KP_fan wrote:Teams that even in situation like this....i.e lead by 400 runs in first inning......find a way to "even think" that there is a defeat  scenario for them.....never make a real-top-side

This team not only thought, but acted on such a scenario

So Australia in 2006 weren't a 'real top side' when they batted again after getting a lead of 445?

931035 wrote:If England enforce the follow-on then Pakistan have to bat for an awkward end-of-day session. They then have to start again in the morning, meanwhile the bowlers who haven't bowled that many overs anyway get, to rest overnight.

The weather may also come into play. It's really a quite absurd decision to bat again. I was thinking that under Bayliss and Farbrace Cook's captaincy had greatly improved, but I'm afraid this decision is one of the worst I have ever seen.

Hysterical over-reaction. Batting again is a luxury that England can afford.

LondonTiger wrote:I guess I need to be more obvious when I am making a joke.

I probably do too ..read it to the end!

Well thinking about it more I am very happy with the decision. Cricket to follow on a Monday and Tuesday at work - yes please

Well now...I admit I was a little surprised when the follow on wasn't enforced. But I don't think it is quite such a nonsense as some seem to think.

I doubt they were really too fearful of having a tricky fourth innings chase : by the time Pakistan had potentially batted long enough to set such a target , the match would likely have been over anyway. More likely there was some concern about bowler's workload : I take the point that they'd only bowled sixty odd overs ; but I suppose if Pakistan had then batted for five sessions they'd have ended up fielding for something like 190 overs altogether - which would have perhaps been a little more than optimal...
The counter argument is that with Pakistan having been thrown back in nearly 400 behind in fair bowling conditions it is more likely they'd have folded again - though we can't of course be sure.

Had the last two wickets not resisted so long I'm sure they would have bowled again. But I guess the ease with which a rabbit like Wahab was able to handle whatever Stokes and Woakes were sending at him suggested batting on this pitch was at its easiest ; and tipped the scales in favour of running the Pakistan players around in the field again for a while before sending them back in with an impossible mountain to climb. Seems likely the pitch will not get worse for bowling over the last couple of days ; and the bowlers will certainly be fresher.
As I say , I'm not sure I'd agree ; but I think you can mount an argument for the course of action chosen.

Anyway , it's done. As guildford said earlier - it only matters if they somehow fail to win. And I doubt that will happen unless there is a lot of time lost to the weather.