The Cricket Thread 2013

[PaulWinch again]

Looking back at the Test match I'm less bothered with not enforcing the follow on and have more of an issue with Compton and Trott preventing an earlier declaration. Also Trott said 'you can't dictate the game', actually you can and you should if you want to be the best team in the world.

[Villan For Life]

There seems to have been a move away from enforcing the follow on in test cricket in recent years.

At one time a side would almost always enforce the follow on. Now it's not so often. Maybe it's a mental disintegration thing. In the dark days of the 1990's England often batted through in a second innings to avoid an innings defeat, sometimes aided by the weather. Maybe the prospect of a minimum 200 + deficit is tougher to face. the side with the advantage scores quickly and the deficit is even larger.

Ultimately England won; moaning about the follow on is a bit like saying a certain goal scored on the 26th May 1982 went in off a shin therefore the victory was tarnished.

Which it did and it wasn't!

[Villan For Life]

Looking back at the Test match I'm less bothered with not enforcing the follow on and have more of an issue with Compton and Trott preventing an earlier declaration. Also Trott said 'you can't dictate the game', actually you can and you should if you want to be the best team in the world.

I agree to a point but given that Trott was batting with his Captain, I'm sure if it was an issue then Cook would have told him to speed up or take one for the team.

[PaulWinch again]

I agree, but Trott in particular needs to learn his lesson from this game. Compton is playing for his place so I can understand how the pressure got to him, it doesn't mean he should stay in the team but I can see the reason. Trott is an established member of the team and his play in the last hour or so of the 3rd day was really poor and not what the team needed.

[Villan For Life]

I agree, but Trott in particular needs to learn his lesson from this game. Compton is playing for his place so I can understand how the pressure got to him, it doesn't mean he should stay in the team but I can see the reason. Trott is an established member of the team and his play in the last hour or so of the 3rd day was really poor and not what the team needed.

Ultimately it didn't matter though did it?

[PaulWinch again]

No, but only due to some fortune with the weather. Plus just because you win doesn't mean you ignore the errors that were made. Top teams improve because they identify and improve on mistakes even when they're winning.

[Dave Cooper please]

There seems to have been a move away from enforcing the follow on in test cricket in recent years.

At one time a side would almost always enforce the follow on. Now it's not so often. Maybe it's a mental disintegration thing. In the dark days of the 1990's England often batted through in a second innings to avoid an innings defeat, sometimes aided by the weather. Maybe the prospect of a minimum 200 + deficit is tougher to face. the side with the advantage scores quickly and the deficit is even larger.

There's also not wanting to overtire the bowlers, enforce the follow-on and you could be subjecting them to two and a half days of continuous bowling, even with Swann twirling away at one end you can end up injuring one of your front line seamers if you're not careful.

[paul_e]

There seems to have been a move away from enforcing the follow on in test cricket in recent years.

At one time a side would almost always enforce the follow on. Now it's not so often. Maybe it's a mental disintegration thing. In the dark days of the 1990's England often batted through in a second innings to avoid an innings defeat, sometimes aided by the weather. Maybe the prospect of a minimum 200 + deficit is tougher to face. the side with the advantage scores quickly and the deficit is even larger.

There's also not wanting to overtire the bowlers, enforce the follow-on and you could be subjecting them to two and a half days of continuous bowling, even with Swann twirling away at one end you can end up injuring one of your front line seamers if you're not careful.

Not following-on isn't a problem, too many people have focused on that but it was a perfectly acceptable decision.  However it is a defensive move, the way you can make it positive is by having a plan to score quickly, get the game beyond them and then declare early, giving yourself as long a session as possible to force a result.

I firmly believe the plan should've been to declare around a lead of 400-450 with 10 overs to go to lunch.  You lose 2 for the change so that'd have been 8 over before lunch and then another 8-10 that we lost afterwards.

We were very lucky that the weather held, there had been light drizzle for a couple of overs before we got the last wicket and it never cleared up enough that we'd have been able to come back out so we were right on the cusp of having to settle for a draw.  When you've bowled as well as we did there shouldn't have been any chance for New Zealand to get away with anything.

[Chris Jameson]

Adil Rashid has just completed his third century in three matches, currently averages 252.00 in the county championship. A genuine all rounder, great fielder too.

[Villan For Life]

Six weeks before the start of the Ashes, if you listen very closely you can hear the sound of the bottom of an Aussie barrel being scraped:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/638372.html

Another Michael Beer perhaps? Strangely Warnie has been very quiet on this one!

[PaulWinch again]

Yes saw an article about this, it's not the biggest vote in confidence for Lyon is it.

[Steve R]

Enforcing the follow would have given New Zealand a chance of winning the game. The lead was only 180, a half decent batting performance could have left England looking at 170+ on a fourth innings pitch. Why ask for the slightest chance of trouble?

Given the reservations about keeping bowlers in the field for too long, and the amount of time left in the game Batting again was the right thing to do.

The turgid batting was a understandable to a degree, Cook personally wanted to push the score along, blocking up the other end to avoid losing early wickets wasn't such  bad idea.

It was the timing of the declaration that someone needs to answer for. England delayed far too long. Once you've got past a lead of 400 the only thing you realistically achieve is to occupy the crease and run down the clock on the opposition's behalf.

[PaulWinch again]

Finn and Broad out of first two games, that's a bit of a blow.

[paul_e]

Enforcing the follow would have given New Zealand a chance of winning the game. The lead was only 180, a half decent batting performance could have left England looking at 170+ on a fourth innings pitch. Why ask for the slightest chance of trouble?

Given the reservations about keeping bowlers in the field for too long, and the amount of time left in the game Batting again was the right thing to do.

The turgid batting was a understandable to a degree, Cook personally wanted to push the score along, blocking up the other end to avoid losing early wickets wasn't such  bad idea.

It was the timing of the declaration that someone needs to answer for. England delayed far too long. Once you've got past a lead of 400 the only thing you realistically achieve is to occupy the crease and run down the clock on the opposition's behalf.

Against a side who lost their best fast bowler after 2 overs and on a pitch that was as predictable as a car park at the time?

[PaulWinch again]

The slow batting from Trott on the 3rd day was not excusable in any way and hopefully that has been pointed out to him now.

Moving on if Bell has a good ODI series opening I think he's a potential option up there for the Ashes. Him and Cook have a good relationship in ODIs now.