Just out of curiosity - whenever you buy tickets for a match that's expected to last several days, but it's won (or lost, depending on your viewpoint) after just one or two, do you get a refund?
Just out of curiosity - whenever you buy tickets for a match that's expected to last several days, but it's won (or lost, depending on your viewpoint) after just one or two, do you get a refund?
Asking as an ignorant foreigner ...
There was a refund today because the play didn't last very long
Just out of curiosity - whenever you buy tickets for a match that's expected to last several days, but it's won (or lost, depending on your viewpoint) after just one or two, do you get a refund?
Asking as an ignorant foreigner ...
Most tests sell 4 days in advance. They don't usually sell Day 5 tickets until the end of Day 4.
If there's no play (because the match has finished or there's rain) then you get a full refund. Then there's a sliding scale of refunds depending on how many of the scheduled overs were bowled.
Well no it's not but I think the modern game exacerbates small differences - there are fewer draws and a small edge can be made to pay. It's all about making the most of the times when your team has the advantage. I think it's good - Test cricket is probably more exciting as a game than it's ever been!
Well no it's not but I think the modern game exacerbates small differences - there are fewer draws and a small edge can be made to pay. It's all about making the most of the times when your team has the advantage. I think it's good - Test cricket is probably more exciting as a game than it's ever been!
I agree with your last sentence. Taking advantage of good situations is so key.
It's not meant to be exciting. Not in the way lesser sports are. It's meant to unfold over hours - days - with occasional pivotal events - a wicket, a dropped catch, a carefully curated half century...
I quite agree, which is why I prefer Test cricket to T20 or (heaven forfend) The 100.
Mind you, I can understand why some Americans laughed in incredulity when I explained, many years ago, that Test matches not only had lunch and tea intervals but also a day off in the middle.
I quite agree, which is why I prefer Test cricket to T20 or (heaven forfend) The 100.
Mind you, I can understand why some Americans laughed in incredulity when I explained, many years ago, that Test matches not only had lunch and tea intervals but also a day off in the middle.
Ach, they know nowt. They play rounders FGS. They can call it Baseball if they like but it's rounders.
I quite agree, which is why I prefer Test cricket to T20 or (heaven forfend) The 100.
Mind you, I can understand why some Americans laughed in incredulity when I explained, many years ago, that Test matches not only had lunch and tea intervals but also a day off in the middle.
Ach, they know nowt. They play rounders FGS. They can call it Baseball if they like but it's rounders.
Well no it's not but I think the modern game exacerbates small differences - there are fewer draws and a small edge can be made to pay. It's all about making the most of the times when your team has the advantage. I think it's good - Test cricket is probably more exciting as a game than it's ever been!
There is a lot of luck involved in batting. You might try to hit a ball outside the off stump and be lucky enough to miss it completely. On other occasions you might be unlucky enough to get a faint edge and be caught by the wicket keeper.
On other occasions you could be unlucky to be given out on the whim of an umpire.
We also have the Decision Review System. ( DRS )
A batter is given out lbw and asks for a review. The review shows that the ball would have just clipped the top of leg stump. The batter remains out.
However, if the batter is given not out and the fielding side asks for a review the identical review would mean that the batter remained not out.
Just back from Dutch tour, looking at several days off the sauce to stop my liver whimpering. I may provide fuller details of events later, if I get a mo but sufice to say that I've never started a match on one ground and finished it on another before, and I've also never been saved from being out caught by the presence of a stray dog!
Just back from Dutch tour, looking at several days off the sauce to stop my liver whimpering. I may provide fuller details of events later, if I get a mo but sufice to say that I've never started a match on one ground and finished it on another before, and I've also never been saved from being out caught by the presence of a stray dog!
Sounds like a great time. My best ever tours were in the Channel islands.
Optimism rules OK - but you're right. 553 is a huge score, the best Englad can hope for is a draw.
You are no doubt right but it may depend on how keen New Zealand are to win the game. If England get close to the New Zealand score, the onus will be on New Zealand to set a target. England need to bat for another 4 to 5 sessions.
Optimism rules OK - but you're right. 553 is a huge score, the best Englad can hope for is a draw.
You are no doubt right but it may depend on how keen New Zealand are to win the game. If England get close to the New Zealand score, the onus will be on New Zealand to set a target. England need to bat for another 4 to 5 sessions.
Judging by their recent performance, the England side needs at least that much extra to get anywhere near a winning total.
I can understand what three results are: NZ win, England win or a draw. What's the fourth - match abandoned because they ran out of tea?
I'll fetch my own coat.
The 4th result is a Tie. That is the team batting last is All Out with the scores level. There have been exactly two ties in the history of Test Cricket. Both involved Australia and are good stories. https://sportzwiki.com/cricket/list-of-tied-test-matches
England's recent form may not be encouraging but it's only the beginning of Day 3. All 4 results are possible.
AFZ
Only a draw or NZ win feel likely thought.
Absolutely. But consider this hypothetical: England still batting this time tomorrow... Then England getting 650 becomes a possibility. They then have a position from which they can't lose so have a chance to be really aggressive and try to bowl out NZ cheaply...
Ok, not likely but... Root's due a double-ton right? And the pitch is flat...
Of course, to be serious, NZ are in a very good position. England have batted very well so far but still could easily fall to a big first innings deficit.
Root's scored 10 centuries since the start of '20 when he kept coming in with England 20/2. If the top 3 get runs, England have huge potential. Root's is incredibly good and there's a few others after him who can score very fast.
I'm not saying England's batting problems are solved yet, but I do think the case is proven: if your top 3 get runs, your total goes way up because the middle order will get a lot more if they have a platform and face tired bowlers.
Moreover, England's attack have spent the best part of a decade with insufficient rest between innings.
I think both Anderson and Broad have another Ashes in them. England still need a spinner but the batting remains priority 1 to fix.
Root's scored 10 centuries since the start of '20 when he kept coming in with England 20/2. If the top 3 get runs, England have huge potential. Root's is incredibly good and there's a few others after him who can score very fast.
I'm not saying England's batting problems are solved yet, but I do think the case is proven: if your top 3 get runs, your total goes way up because the middle order will get a lot more if they have a platform and face tired bowlers.
Moreover, England's attack have spent the best part of a decade with insufficient rest between innings.
I think both Anderson and Broad have another Ashes in them. England still need a spinner but the batting remains priority 1 to fix.
AFZ
Root's batting average was just as good a few years ago but his problem was converting 50s into 100s. He now appears to have solved that problem in the past 18 months or so.
When Graeme Swann retired Adil Rashid was available but was never really given a proper chance. He could still do as good a job in tests that he does in white ball cricket.
Assuming though they don’t get all the wickets tonight (unlikely), will NZ stick it out, almost definitely ensuring a draw unless England play a blinder of one-day cricket tomorrow? Or will they declare at 250 and hope to bowl England out? Test matches are much more interesting than limited over ones, strategically at least!
Assuming though they don’t get all the wickets tonight (unlikely), will NZ stick it out, almost definitely ensuring a draw unless England play a blinder of one-day cricket tomorrow? Or will they declare at 250 and hope to bowl England out? Test matches are much more interesting than limited over ones, strategically at least!
I think England believe they can chase 300-330. Whether they can is a different matter but they certainly seem to think so.
I almost think this morning's collapse might work in England's favour. Had they lasted into the afternoon they'd have saved themselves from losing, in all likelihood, at the cost of virtually guaranteeing a draw.
Going out when they did they have given themselves space to win - at the risk of losing. Of course they could have declared anyway but would they have taken the risk? Instead they've been forced into an exciting final day. Wish I could make it!
I almost think this morning's collapse might work in England's favour. Had they lasted into the afternoon they'd have saved themselves from losing, in all likelihood, at the cost of virtually guaranteeing a draw.
Going out when they did they have given themselves space to win - at the risk of losing. Of course they could have declared anyway but would they have taken the risk? Instead they've been forced into an exciting final day. Wish I could make it!
I disagree, if England had a 1st innings lead of 100, they could have gone all out attack with NZ under pressure. However, it's all perfectly poised now.
And well done to Nottinghamshire CCC for making entry free tomorrow!*
What should Mitchell be aiming to do though? Score fast with the tail in the hope of achieving an NZ win? Or try to bat for as long as possible? NZ's depleted bowling resources might suggest the latter, but the state of the series invites the former...
What should Mitchell be aiming to do though? Score fast with the tail in the hope of achieving an NZ win? Or try to bat for as long as possible? NZ's depleted bowling resources might suggest the latter, but the state of the series invites the former...
Comments
Asking as an ignorant foreigner ...
There was a refund today because the play didn't last very long
Most tests sell 4 days in advance. They don't usually sell Day 5 tickets until the end of Day 4.
If there's no play (because the match has finished or there's rain) then you get a full refund. Then there's a sliding scale of refunds depending on how many of the scheduled overs were bowled.
Specific details for Lord's here: https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/england-v-new-zealand-refund-policy
AFZ
That probably means an innings defeat in the next match.
Well no it's not but I think the modern game exacerbates small differences - there are fewer draws and a small edge can be made to pay. It's all about making the most of the times when your team has the advantage. I think it's good - Test cricket is probably more exciting as a game than it's ever been!
I agree with your last sentence. Taking advantage of good situations is so key.
AFZ
Mind you, she does come from north of the Border.
Mind you, I can understand why some Americans laughed in incredulity when I explained, many years ago, that Test matches not only had lunch and tea intervals but also a day off in the middle.
Ach, they know nowt. They play rounders FGS. They can call it Baseball if they like but it's rounders.
Rounders with gloves to catch the ball
There is a lot of luck involved in batting. You might try to hit a ball outside the off stump and be lucky enough to miss it completely. On other occasions you might be unlucky enough to get a faint edge and be caught by the wicket keeper.
On other occasions you could be unlucky to be given out on the whim of an umpire.
We also have the Decision Review System. ( DRS )
A batter is given out lbw and asks for a review. The review shows that the ball would have just clipped the top of leg stump. The batter remains out.
However, if the batter is given not out and the fielding side asks for a review the identical review would mean that the batter remained not out.
My specialiity was hitting hard, high and seldom.
You are no doubt right but it may depend on how keen New Zealand are to win the game. If England get close to the New Zealand score, the onus will be on New Zealand to set a target. England need to bat for another 4 to 5 sessions.
Judging by their recent performance, the England side needs at least that much extra to get anywhere near a winning total.
AFZ
Only a draw or NZ win feel likely thought.
I'll fetch my own coat.
The 4th result is a Tie. That is the team batting last is All Out with the scores level. There have been exactly two ties in the history of Test Cricket. Both involved Australia and are good stories.
https://sportzwiki.com/cricket/list-of-tied-test-matches
Absolutely. But consider this hypothetical: England still batting this time tomorrow... Then England getting 650 becomes a possibility. They then have a position from which they can't lose so have a chance to be really aggressive and try to bowl out NZ cheaply...
Ok, not likely but... Root's due a double-ton right? And the pitch is flat...
AFZ
There are 5 possible results. Win, Lose, Draw. Tie and match awarded by Umpires. The 5th one occured a few years ago v Pakistan
Please do not remind us of that absolute farce!
Root's scored 10 centuries since the start of '20 when he kept coming in with England 20/2. If the top 3 get runs, England have huge potential. Root's is incredibly good and there's a few others after him who can score very fast.
I'm not saying England's batting problems are solved yet, but I do think the case is proven: if your top 3 get runs, your total goes way up because the middle order will get a lot more if they have a platform and face tired bowlers.
Moreover, England's attack have spent the best part of a decade with insufficient rest between innings.
I think both Anderson and Broad have another Ashes in them. England still need a spinner but the batting remains priority 1 to fix.
AFZ
Ah well; 400+ for 5 is a promising response. Keep it up...
Root's batting average was just as good a few years ago but his problem was converting 50s into 100s. He now appears to have solved that problem in the past 18 months or so.
When Graeme Swann retired Adil Rashid was available but was never really given a proper chance. He could still do as good a job in tests that he does in white ball cricket.
Assuming though they don’t get all the wickets tonight (unlikely), will NZ stick it out, almost definitely ensuring a draw unless England play a blinder of one-day cricket tomorrow? Or will they declare at 250 and hope to bowl England out? Test matches are much more interesting than limited over ones, strategically at least!
I think England believe they can chase 300-330. Whether they can is a different matter but they certainly seem to think so.
And yes, Test Cricket is the best.
AFZ
Going out when they did they have given themselves space to win - at the risk of losing. Of course they could have declared anyway but would they have taken the risk? Instead they've been forced into an exciting final day. Wish I could make it!
I disagree, if England had a 1st innings lead of 100, they could have gone all out attack with NZ under pressure. However, it's all perfectly poised now.
And well done to Nottinghamshire CCC for making entry free tomorrow!*
AFZ
*I can't go either...
A good summary.
I was just saying how I wasn't convinced Bairstow was good enough to be in the side as a batsman... oops.
A stunningly good innings.
Just brilliant
AFZ