The Ashes
-
That was a pearler by Anderson and so so close. The ball two deliveries later was a great one to that had Smith in no mans land.
-
So... anyone think the bullshit about not enforcing the follow on is just crap?
So VVS made mincemeat of you 20 years ago ... in India... on a road ...
... and you're rested ... on a cool evening ... with a pink ball at night ....
Dumb.
As dumb Joe Root electing to bowl.
-
Can someone clarify for me? Why was the first Smith LBW not an umpires call with the pitch of the ball given part of the ball was in line with leg?
Are there different rules for that because it isn't a prediction of the balls path rather a record of it's actual pitch? -
Can someone clarify for me? Why was the first Smith LBW not an umpires call with the pitch of the ball given part of the ball was in line with leg?
Are there different rules for that because it isn't a prediction of the balls path rather a record of it's actual pitch?Can someone clarify for me? Why was the first Smith LBW not an umpires call with the pitch of the ball given part of the ball was in line with leg?
Are there different rules for that because it isn't a prediction of the balls path rather a record of it's actual pitch?I think it's the proportion of the ball that is judged to be in line with whatever.
-
So... anyone think the bullshit about not enforcing the follow on is just crap?
So VVS made mincemeat of you 20 years ago ... in India... on a road ...
... and you're rested ... on a cool evening ... with a pink ball at night ....
Dumb.
As dumb Joe Root electing to bowl.
So... anyone think the bullshit about not enforcing the follow on is just crap?
So VVS made mincemeat of you 20 years ago ... in India... on a road ...
... and you're rested ... on a cool evening ... with a pink ball at night ....
Dumb.
As dumb Joe Root electing to bowl.
Ha! Was just logging in to post that. Was surprised when Oz didn’t enforce the follow on under lights, and unsurprised to wake up to 53/4.
Maybe one day Oz will get over 2001...
-
The non enforcement of the follow on isn't dumb because the Aussies already have enough runs to win.
Another 50 from here makes the game safe.Best 4th innings there is 233 in 2003 pre ground development.
At this stage oz are miles in front of the test. The follow on thing ain't that relevant in my opinion
-
The problem with enforcing the follow-on is if the other team bats well you find yourself batting last in the most difficult conditions, under all sorts of pressure. In this case it made sense given the new ball under lights, but I can see why teams are more reluctant nowadays given the way pitches can flatten out during the middle stages of a test.
-
Hindsight is a marvellous thing. Smith would obviously regret not enforcing, like Root would regret not batting first.
But that analysis is too simple. England bowled beautifully last night. Only a handful of loose deliveries in 27 overs. If they'd bowled like that on the first morning we'd have a very different game.
Australia could have had England 4-50. Or they could be a bit ragged and let England get to 1-80. On a flattish pitch they set us 150, which we have to chase... under lights.
Root's decision to bowl was negated by his own bowlers, much like Smith's decision to bat was negated by his fragile top order.
First hour is critical. We get through with only 1-2 down then we can push the lead out to 300+, but there's a chance we're skittled quickly and then it's game on.
