England v Australia - Second Ashes Test - Lord's

Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Come now, all this bickering on such a momentous occasion? tsk tsk

Save your anger for when we make a proper balls up, or the umpires do.

Oh we're just oozing delight in this thread. :D ;)
Click to expand...

Okay that's a fair point - its not often we get the Aussies on the end of a beating so lets enjoy it while we can ;)
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
The word is that Brett Lee has told an Australian radio station that he will not be fit for the third test.
Click to expand...

A big blow to them if he misses another. The Aussies really need a lift at the moment, and Lee could provide one. There is still Stuart Clark to be considered though, and I'd be very surprised if he didn't come in.

Regards to England, my concern is that having won the 2nd Test, there will be a strong temptation to stick with the same team. For my money Bopara and Broad should be under pressure from Bell and Harmison respectively for Edgbaston.
 
Brad said:
And of course, it comes back to the weather. Only a prick who didn't really understand the situation would state the match result meant the follow on decision was spot on. Jopub being that prick on this (and most other) occasions. Had we lost just 2 sessions play from this game, and with heavy rain predicted Sunday and showers Monday that was very likely, a game England dominated and won by over a hundred runs may very well have been a draw. As it was the weather was much kinder than feared, and if you knew at the time there was virtually 3 full days of play left remaining, yes the follow on is a perfectly valid choice in that situation. But they didn't. So it wasn't

But credit England, they still produced the victory, and we're all bloody delighted about that
Click to expand...

I think the decission not enforce the follow on was due to Flintoff needing a rest and the lack of cloud cover on Saturday.

Strauss got it right, but its easy to say that in heinsight. Maybe there is no wrong or right here.

Australia could have made 511, but it was always going to be very, very unlikely.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
That said, the decision to bat again wasn't all things considered Strauss' one way ticket to the nut house, far from it. If there were errors they came afterward in fact [but it all worked out in the end].
Click to expand...

The error that Straus made was getting his bowlers to bowl short at the Australian tail on Saturday morning and not have a 3rd man in.
 
Brad said:
And of course, it comes back to the weather. Only a prick who didn't really understand the situation would state the match result meant the follow on decision was spot on. Jopub being that prick on this (and most other) occasions. Had we lost just 2 sessions play from this game, and with heavy rain predicted Sunday and showers Monday that was very likely, a game England dominated and won by over a hundred runs may very well have been a draw. As it was the weather was much kinder than feared, and if you knew at the time there was virtually 3 full days of play left remaining, yes the follow on is a perfectly valid choice in that situation. But they didn't. So it wasn't

But credit England, they still produced the victory, and we're all bloody delighted about that
Click to expand...

Why the unnecessary name calling? Jopub's right and England's decision has been proven right. Your whole basis for your argument is "Had England lost two sessions to rain..", there was no rain, they didn't lose any sessions and they won. Why do you feel the need to bitch about England in every thread about cricket?

The follow-on is not always the correct decision. What if Australia had taken the opportunity and put up 500 on the board? Entirely possible seeing that Ponting says the first innings total was well below par and they made too many mistakes.


And their second innings total of 406 was on a 4th day pitch, with 3 wrong decisions going England's way and with Freddie Flintoff bowling breaking his back in a 10 over spell which he surely wouldn't have done if Australia were 5 or 6 down and setting a target. He continued bowling because he knew it was time to wrap the match up and go home.

Considering all this, I can imagine them having got 500 or more comfortably with England requiring to chase 300 on a fifth day pitch. Pressure well and truly on.
 
zing said:
Why the unnecessary name calling? Jopub's right and England's decision has been proven right. Your whole basis for your argument is "Had England lost two sessions to rain..", there was no rain, they didn't lose any sessions and they won. Why do you feel the need to bitch about England in every thread about cricket?

The follow-on is not always the correct decision. What if Australia had taken the opportunity and put up 500 on the board? Entirely possible seeing that Ponting says the first innings total was well below par and they made too many mistakes.


And their second innings total of 406 was on a 4th day pitch, with 3 wrong decisions going England's way and with Freddie Flintoff bowling breaking his back in a 10 over spell which he surely wouldn't have done if Australia were 5 or 6 down and setting a target. He continued bowling because he knew it was time to wrap the match up and go home.

Considering all this, I can imagine them having got 500 or more comfortably with England requiring to chase 300 on a fifth day pitch. Pressure well and truly on.
Click to expand...

I was responding in a similar manner that he spoke to me. In fact I was nicer to him

You see, it's the bit where you say "there was no rain" where you clearly haven't followed the logic of my argument

The West Indies test in February, where we eventually drew a game we had in the bag, shows precisely what can happen when you make the kind of decision we did. Now if we'd have taken that final wicket in that test, it wouldn't have proven me wrong, it just means we'd have got away with a bad decision. That time we didn't. This time, with some good bowling and some much kinder than expected weather, despite some stubborn Aussie resistance, we did

I'm afraid none of your 'imagining they'd get 500' really changes that zing. If we'd continued to play well enough to win the game, from the position of dominance we were in some 200+ runs ahead after 1st innings scores, we'd have been set a very achievable 4th innings target and won the test anyway

But as I've also said, given the weather was fine, if we had that knowledge at the time of the decision, then it's a fair call to me, I wouldn't have complained. I'm not anti ignoring the follow on full stop, just in certain situations. And with the information we had at the time, this was a situation to enforce. But we got lucky with the weather, we made the right decision thereafter to declare overnight before the 4th days play and scored quick runs the evening session before, and played well enough to beat them. We played well and deserved victory
 
I think me Brad and Mike Brearley are right. Not enforcing the follow on was the wrong call given the weather forecast at the time which meant at least two and possibly more sessions would be lost. In the event the rain stayed away and all was good but 80% of the time it wouldn't have and we probably wouldn't have converted a winning position.
 
Brad said:
... Put it this way, would you rather have to knock 200 runs off to win a test, or defend 200 runs taking 20 wickets before the opposition make that target? Absolutely no fecking brainer ...
Click to expand...

You would appear to be portraying the unfavoured alternative in an excessively negative light. Defending a 200 target to be achieved by the opposition over 2 innings is certainly not advisable - but I cannot find any of your opponents suggesting that anyone should be faced with this as the only alternative to having to make 200 in the 4th innings to win.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
You would appear to be portraying the unfavoured alternative in an excessively negative light. Defending a 200 target to be achieved by the opposition over 2 innings is certainly not advisable - but I cannot find any of your opponenets suggesting that anyone should be faced with this as the only alternative to having to make 200 in the 4th innings to win.
Click to expand...

Was a typo sorry, I of course meant 10 wickets
 
gaffs said:
I think the decission not enforce the follow on was due to Flintoff needing a rest and the lack of cloud cover on Saturday.

Strauss got it right, but its easy to say that in heinsight. Maybe there is no wrong or right here.

Australia could have made 511, but it was always going to be very, very unlikely.
Click to expand...

I think this was a large part of it tbh.

There are a number of factors to consider in debating the wisdom of (not) enforcing follow-ons...

Follow-ons are much harder work for the fielding side since the disappearance of the rest-day in tests. The fitness of your main strike bowlers becomes evenmore of an issue when they do not have a rest-day soon. This would also make weather forecasts potentially more reliable since the last day is likely to be closer to the decision date.

Pitch conditions over the next few days. Some make much of the fact that the weather could have been much worse and we could have struggled to get enough time to achieve the result. Yet we need to consider the expected effect on playing balance as well. Strauss decided to bat when conditions were probably at their best for batting. England respond well to swinging conditions - it looked unlikely to swing when we started our 2nd innings. Conversely, the prediction was for much more overcast conditions over the last 2 days - when batting for either side would have been expected to be more difficult. In fact the overhead conditions didn't really combine to aid England much, yet this meant that England had more overs to get the result.

Overall, therefore, not a ludicrous decision by Strauss at all - and, of course, it worked. (Napoleon would have approved - if he liked English cricket anyway.)
 
Brad said:
I was responding in a similar manner that he spoke to me. In fact I was nicer to him
Click to expand...

No you were not. You're never 'nice' - you're abusive and argumentative - perpetually (probably like that from birth)

You nearly always enter a thread with some form of abuse. It's what you're known for

I'll only ever treat you you way you treat others - so don't fking moan or expect any sympathy about it
________

You're slipping up a bit here though BB you should have given 'sama' some shit by now - he's waiting for it!
 
peterstorey said:
I think me Brad and Mike Brearley are right. Not enforcing the follow on was the wrong call given the weather forecast at the time which meant at least two and possibly more sessions would be lost. In the event the rain stayed away and all was good but 80% of the time it wouldn't have and we probably wouldn't have converted a winning position.
Click to expand...

I can see why they didn't enforce the follow on because there was feck all movement in the pitch at the time. I think it was pretty much a coin toss decision at the time.
 
samabachan said:
Hi Bradley, arguing as usual I see :angel:. So you still won't admit that the decision made was the right one?
Click to expand...

Any average joe can see it was blatantly the wrong one. 512 runs in two days. If not for poor umpiring decisions and questionable morals by Strauss, then it could have gone the other way.

Add to that the questionable weather, and Strauss nearly royally stuffed up. Australia got within 100 runs of that 512 total. That is close for a team that barely got 200 runs in the first innings.

Thankfully Brad unlike most bias englishmen can see what an idiotic mistake Strauss made. How long before his stupidity results in another English loss or a draw from an advantageous position?
 
Jopub said:
No you were not. You're never 'nice' - you're abusive and argumentative - perpetually (probably like that from birth)

You nearly always enter a thread with some form of abuse. It's what you're known for

I'll only ever treat you you way you treat others - so don't fking moan or expect any sympathy about it
________

You're slipping up a bit here though BB you should have given 'sama' some shit by now - he's waiting for it!
Click to expand...

Seems you're a hypocrite now too

I actually only seem to have issue with certain posters, and it's always because they don't like that I've called them up on something stupid. You were being a dick and campaigning for your manager Wenger to be sacked, and since then you've constantly give it this 'Bradley bollocks' nonsense

Now, back to the cricket. If people are saying the result shows the follow on decision was correct, no it doesn't and they've missed the point. If they thought at the time the decision Strauss took was correct, fine. I disagree with them, and I've argued that point with conviction in this thread. Many people agree with me, both in this thread, and also experts of the game. Which means those like you attempting to question my credibility to comment about such things end up looking really fecking stupid
 
Brad said:
Seems you're a hypocrite now too

I actually only seem to have issue with certain posters, and it's always because they don't like that I've called them up on something stupid. You were being a dick and campaigning for your manager Wenger to be sacked, and since then you've constantly give it this 'Bradley bollocks' nonsense
Click to expand...

Naa, you're always handing out abuse. If you disagree with anybody they're 'cvnts' - not 'I think you're wrong' or 'I have a different opinion' etc and you hardly ever back anything up when put to the test - you just throw out another load of shite at somebody

Somebody else else remarked the very same thing about you in another thread recently - so its hardly just me is it.

As for 'Bradley Bollocks' it sums you up perfectly - that's all you ever talk.

I think I've named you quite well there


...............and now as John Arlott used to say "lets get back to Edgbaston where the pidgeons are gathering by the long off boundary where Bradley Bollocks is entertaining the crowd"
 
Jopub said:
Naa, you're always handing out abuse. If you disagree with anybody they're 'cvnts' - not 'I think you're wrong' or 'I have a different opinion' etc and you hardly ever back anything up when put to the test - you just throw out another load of shite at somebody

Somebody else else remarked the very same thing about you in another thread recently - so its hardly just me is it.

As for 'Bradley Bollocks' it sums you up perfectly - that's all you ever talk.

I think I've named you quite well there


...............and now as John Arlott used to say "lets get back to Edgbaston where the pidgeons are gathering by the long off boundary where Bradley Bollocks is entertaining the crowd"
Click to expand...

Mate I think you're forgetting I'm a well respected poster on this site, while most folk think you're a goon, especially after all that Wenger Out bollocks you came up with. Many seem to have thought so before that but that was the first time I noticed you to be honest

You're also forgetting a lot of people on here actually know me in real life, and know I'm anything but abusive. If someone gives me stick, I'll give it back though. You've been giving me grief for a while, so I treat you with the contempt you deserve, see how it works? That goes for a few other posters, but it's a small group thankfully
 
marchi-91 said:
Any average joe can see it was blatantly the wrong one. 512 runs in two days. If not for poor umpiring decisions and questionable morals by Strauss, then it could have gone the other way.
Click to expand...
That could apply to any part or portion of any cricket match on any day in the world

marchi-91 said:
Add to that the questionable weather, ......
Click to expand...
That could apply to any part or portion of any cricket match on any day played especially in this country

marchi-91 said:
....... can see what an idiotic mistake Strauss made. How long before his stupidity results in another English loss or a draw from an advantageous position?
Click to expand...

How would you have felt had we been chasing 26/70 on the last day? and got skittled out for 200 (a distinct possibility)
 
Brad said:
Mate I think you're forgetting I'm a well respected poster on this site, while most folk think you're a goon, especially after all that Wenger Out bollocks you came up with. Many seem to have thought so before that but that was the first time I noticed you to be honest

You're also forgetting a lot of people on here actually know me in real life, and know I'm anything but abusive. If someone gives me stick, I'll give it back though. You've been giving me grief for a while, so I treat you with the contempt you deserve, see how it works? That goes for a few other posters, but it's a small group thankfully
Click to expand...

Do fkoff

If anyone in 'real life' said to me that you were not abusive then they're either nuts or lying

If somebody "gives you stick" - lol you are funny - sorry but trawl through your own posts to find out who starts giving out the stick - its always you %100 every time - you nearly always just come steaming in with a load of abusive bollocks from the first moment, which is why I treat you like the brainless oaf you are

There's a few people on here, who from what I've seen, think you're a bit of a cvnt ....yep "well respected" :lol:

....now lets get back to Edgbaston and the 2nd innings being played by Bradley Bollocks. As you can see he's technically deficient although well respected in some quarters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.