England crushed in the first one day international by 10 wickets. 4 of the top 6 out for ducks and Number 7 dropped before scoring. England are still the current world champions .
I just wondered how he might go in this England set up. And positions 1-3 remains the biggest issue. Somewhat obscured by the success of the middle order. I think Pope at 3 is the right choice but time will tell. Similarly, Lees is going well at the moment.
Don't think it's a simple call but I just wonder.
AFZ
I am not convinced by any of the top 3 especially Pope.
You may be right. At the moment, I would give him a longer run. Bit you may be right.
Pope has been given 27 tests. He has scored 1,309 runs at an average of less than 30. His average has been boosted by 2 good scores.
If Root doesn't want to bat at 3, the obvious answer is to have your best 3 openers batting at 1, 2 and 3.
It's only an obvious answer if you have three good openers! At the moment it's not clear to me that England have even one good opener!
I specifically said, "best 3 openers"
Yes you did say that, but what I mean is that it is not a good or obvious solution unless the three openers are good. It's no better to have a bad opener at #3 than to have a bad middle-order batsman there!
I just wondered how he might go in this England set up. And positions 1-3 remains the biggest issue. Somewhat obscured by the success of the middle order. I think Pope at 3 is the right choice but time will tell. Similarly, Lees is going well at the moment.
Don't think it's a simple call but I just wonder.
AFZ
I am not convinced by any of the top 3 especially Pope.
You may be right. At the moment, I would give him a longer run. Bit you may be right.
Pope has been given 27 tests. He has scored 1,309 runs at an average of less than 30. His average has been boosted by 2 good scores.
If Root doesn't want to bat at 3, the obvious answer is to have your best 3 openers batting at 1, 2 and 3.
It's only an obvious answer if you have three good openers! At the moment it's not clear to me that England have even one good opener!
I specifically said, "best 3 openers"
Yes you did say that, but what I mean is that it is not a good or obvious solution unless the three openers are good. It's no better to have a bad opener at #3 than to have a bad middle-order batsman there!
We have plenty of openers who are good. However they are good, not great.
Not a Timeless Test but still cricket. Yesterday was the finals day in the T20 Blast. One of The main cricket days of the summer. 3 excellent games and a thrilling final in which Hampshire were deserving winners.
So to my Gripe. My team were denied 3 of their best players because they were in the England One day squad. Would it not be sensible to keep these ' friendly international games' well away from T20 Finals day so that all 4 Counties could choose from all their players ?
To be honest it took me by surprise. I didn't realise there was a Test match happening until yesterday! Looking at the SA team there are few names that are familiar to me. They dealt out a pretty severe walloping though.
England bowled out South Africa for a reasonable score but got bowled out cheaply twice. Many of the England team are not playing enough cricket. Some of them haven't played since the last test match on 5 July 2022.
I happy not happy with this 100 cricket. I can't really identify with any of the teams. Welsh fire don't appear to have any welsh players.
Match awarded by umpires. It happened in a test match a few years ago when Pakistan refused to play.
That's not a 5th result, it's a way of arriving at one of the usual 3. Pakistan forfeited the game because they refused to take the field. Whether they were justified in their anger is beside the point. Later the ICC changed the result from an England win to a draw. They then changed their mind a few years later and changed it again. At the time of writing, it is recorded as an England win.
A match is won, lost, drawn or tied. They have been two ties in the history of Tests.
Match awarded by umpires. It happened in a test match a few years ago when Pakistan refused to play.
That's not a 5th result, it's a way of arriving at one of the usual 3. Pakistan forfeited the game because they refused to take the field. Whether they were justified in their anger is beside the point. Later the ICC changed the result from an England win to a draw. They then changed their mind a few years later and changed it again. At the time of writing, it is recorded as an England win.
A match is won, lost, drawn or tied. They have been two ties in the history of Tests.
AFZ
I recommend that you study Law 16 of the Laws of Cricket. which deals with The Result.
Law 16.3 refers to umpires awarding a match.
Match awarded by umpires. It happened in a test match a few years ago when Pakistan refused to play.
That's not a 5th result, it's a way of arriving at one of the usual 3. Pakistan forfeited the game because they refused to take the field. Whether they were justified in their anger is beside the point. Later the ICC changed the result from an England win to a draw. They then changed their mind a few years later and changed it again. At the time of writing, it is recorded as an England win.
A match is won, lost, drawn or tied. They have been two ties in the history of Tests.
AFZ
I recommend that you study Law 16 of the Laws of Cricket. which deals with The Result.
Law 16.3 refers to umpires awarding a match.
16.3 Umpires awarding a match
Regardless of any agreement under Law 13.1.2 (Number of innings),
16.3.1 a match shall be lost by a side which
16.3.1.1 concedes defeat
16.3.1.2 in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play. If so, the umpires shall award the match to the other side.
OK, OK, I'll shut up, but no, I would not warm to a test where match abandoned was remotely likely after tea on the fifth, last, day.
Far too many tests recently have turned out to be one-sided apparent mismatches. Why?
The last two tests in England have boiled down to how well the teams have performed in each game. After the first test, who would have predicted that the second test would be an Engl;and win and a mismatch ?
And, I notice that everyone else is only talking about details of the laws, and seem to be happy with the one-sided contests which I find uninteresting.
And, I notice that everyone else is only talking about details of the laws, and seem to be happy with the one-sided contests which I find uninteresting.
Personally, I want to see 5 days of good cricket, with a close result( ideally a England win) late on the last day.
Excuse my ignorance (again), but what's the difference between "drawn" and "tied"?
A drawn match is very common and happens when the innings are not completed at the end of 5 days* and so neither team has won. This can happen when one team is a very long way ahead.
E.g.
Team 1 scores 450 in their first innings.
Team 2 scores 300
Team 1 then gets 250
Team 2 then need 401 to win.
If at the end of 5 days, Team 2 is 300/5 then they are still 100 behind but are not All Out so the match is drawn.
The oddity in cricket is how teams a long way behind may still draw. I.e. in the above example, Team 2 needing 401 will draw the match if they are 110/9 at the close.
Draws are particularly common in rain-affected matches.
A tie simply means that the team batting in the forth innings is all out when the scores are level. In the Test in 1986, India needed 348 to win and were all out on 347.
For the purpose of series results etc., a tie counts the same as a draw.
AFZ
*5 days of 90 Overs is the current regulation for Tests. Regulations vary for different 2-innings matches. I.e. The County championship (English domestic) is played over 4 days.
And, I notice that everyone else is only talking about details of the laws, and seem to be happy with the one-sided contests which I find uninteresting.
Personally, I want to see 5 days of good cricket, with a close result( ideally a England win) late on the last day.
I do not mind a certain number of one-sided contests as long as I don't know in advance that they're going to be like that or which side will dominate. If all the matches are one-sided that of course is a bore.
Excuse my ignorance (again), but what's the difference between "drawn" and "tied"?
A drawn match is very common and happens when the innings are not completed at the end of 5 days* and so neither team has won. This can happen when one team is a very long way ahead.
E.g.
Team 1 scores 450 in their first innings.
Team 2 scores 300
Team 1 then gets 250
Team 2 then need 401 to win.
If at the end of 5 days, Team 2 is 300/5 then they are still 100 behind but are not All Out so the match is drawn.
The oddity in cricket is how teams a long way behind may still draw. I.e. in the above example, Team 2 needing 401 will draw the match if they are 110/9 at the close.
In league cricket they get round this by having a winning draw and a losing draw. 8 points for a winning draw( the best scoring rate) and 2 points for a losing draw. However if the side batting last do not achieve at least 75% of the runs of the other side they do not get any points for a draw and the other side gets all 10 points. Both sides can get batting and bowling points.
And, I notice that everyone else is only talking about details of the laws, and seem to be happy with the one-sided contests which I find uninteresting.
Personally, I want to see 5 days of good cricket, with a close result( ideally a England win) late on the last day.
I do not mind a certain number of one-sided contests as long as I don't know in advance that they're going to be like that or which side will dominate. If all the matches are one-sided that of course is a bore.
Between 1989 and 2004 England were not expected to win any Ashes Tests but they still played in front of full stadiums. Sometimes one is content to witness the skills of the very best players
Weather permitting England will win the test match tomorrow morning this will make it 6 wins out of 7 this summer. In this latest game all credit must go to the bowlers.
I am answering the urge to mention Darren Stevens who has played his last game for Kent CC todays in a Trophy winning side. A great servant to the game at the age of 46. My advice to players is to play on as long as they can. I stopped playing when I was 48 and started umpiring full time. It was a hobby with generous expenses but I never had the joy of being on the winning side.
In leagues where winning and losing draws are possible results, "match drawn with the scores level" (so the same number of runs, but with the team batting second not being all out) is technically a different result to both "match drawn" and "match tied".
It's not a tie, because the side batting second wasn't all out, but it's not a "normal" draw because the league points are divided equally between the teams.
Enjoyed the result between Lancs and Essex. At one point in the 2nd innings, Lancs were 7 for 6, but incredibly won the game. The scores are still available online.
In leagues where winning and losing draws are possible results, "match drawn with the scores level" (so the same number of runs, but with the team batting second not being all out) is technically a different result to both "match drawn" and "match tied".
It's not a tie, because the side batting second wasn't all out, but it's not a "normal" draw because the league points are divided equally between the teams.
All true but it's different when you get Duckworth Lewis involved
Enjoyed the result between Lancs and Essex. At one point in the 2nd innings, Lancs were 7 for 6, but incredibly won the game. The scores are still available online.
Amazing win by England! Good decision re their declaration – I doubted very much that they’d be able to bowl Pakistan out on such a favourable batting wicket, but I was wrong. Mind you, the pitch did seem to give the bowlers more help at time went on.
Amazing win by England! Good decision re their declaration – I doubted very much that they’d be able to bowl Pakistan out on such a favourable batting wicket, but I was wrong. Mind you, the pitch did seem to give the bowlers more help at time went on.
Indeed, a fantastic performance of captaincy here by Stokes. He declared at a total he knew Pakistan would chase and relied on spin. Leach bowled really well but keeping the old ball that was reversing for his quicks was his best decision.
I felt sorry for Pakistan though to lose at home after playing really well.
Does anyone? It's cricket's offside rule. I know I need to look it up for when the ball pitches outside off. Unfortunately as a leggie it's not often I pitch it outside off and get it to turn back far enough to hit the pad, even when I get the googly right.
Would anyone like me to post an English translation?
I think the principle is that you cannot defend with your body only with your bat. To be given out, you have to stop the ball hitting the stumps with your body. The exception is if the ball first pitched
, (hit the ground) outside the line of the leg stump; then the batter is not out.
Ah no no no - there are other exceptions too - the off-side LBW law is even more complicated and can involve the umpire having to decide whether there was an intention to hit the ball with the bat. It is a very well-crafted rule though and I think has just about the right balance between bat and ball!
As others have said an astounding win by England and great captaincy by Stokes. I wish more people in the UK were still sufficiently interested in Test cricket to appreciate it!
Comments
Yes you did say that, but what I mean is that it is not a good or obvious solution unless the three openers are good. It's no better to have a bad opener at #3 than to have a bad middle-order batsman there!
We have plenty of openers who are good. However they are good, not great.
So to my Gripe. My team were denied 3 of their best players because they were in the England One day squad. Would it not be sensible to keep these ' friendly international games' well away from T20 Finals day so that all 4 Counties could choose from all their players ?
At Lord's, yet.
I happy not happy with this 100 cricket. I can't really identify with any of the teams. Welsh fire don't appear to have any welsh players.
That's not a 5th result, it's a way of arriving at one of the usual 3. Pakistan forfeited the game because they refused to take the field. Whether they were justified in their anger is beside the point. Later the ICC changed the result from an England win to a draw. They then changed their mind a few years later and changed it again. At the time of writing, it is recorded as an England win.
A match is won, lost, drawn or tied. They have been two ties in the history of Tests.
AFZ
I recommend that you study Law 16 of the Laws of Cricket. which deals with The Result.
Law 16.3 refers to umpires awarding a match.
Indeed.
Far too many tests recently have turned out to be one-sided apparent mismatches. Why?
The last two tests in England have boiled down to how well the teams have performed in each game. After the first test, who would have predicted that the second test would be an Engl;and win and a mismatch ?
Personally, I want to see 5 days of good cricket, with a close result( ideally a England win) late on the last day.
A drawn match is very common and happens when the innings are not completed at the end of 5 days* and so neither team has won. This can happen when one team is a very long way ahead.
E.g.
Team 1 scores 450 in their first innings.
Team 2 scores 300
Team 1 then gets 250
Team 2 then need 401 to win.
If at the end of 5 days, Team 2 is 300/5 then they are still 100 behind but are not All Out so the match is drawn.
The oddity in cricket is how teams a long way behind may still draw. I.e. in the above example, Team 2 needing 401 will draw the match if they are 110/9 at the close.
Draws are particularly common in rain-affected matches.
This is the last tied test:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-india-1986-87-61426/india-vs-australia-1st-test-63438/full-scorecard
A tie simply means that the team batting in the forth innings is all out when the scores are level. In the Test in 1986, India needed 348 to win and were all out on 347.
For the purpose of series results etc., a tie counts the same as a draw.
AFZ
*5 days of 90 Overs is the current regulation for Tests. Regulations vary for different 2-innings matches. I.e. The County championship (English domestic) is played over 4 days.
I do not mind a certain number of one-sided contests as long as I don't know in advance that they're going to be like that or which side will dominate. If all the matches are one-sided that of course is a bore.
Between 1989 and 2004 England were not expected to win any Ashes Tests but they still played in front of full stadiums. Sometimes one is content to witness the skills of the very best players
It's not a tie, because the side batting second wasn't all out, but it's not a "normal" draw because the league points are divided equally between the teams.
All true but it's different when you get Duckworth Lewis involved
I anticipate a pitch inspection.
Today they had to score at a much faster rate. Yesterday, they batted really well but only won with 3 balls to spare
In other news, December 2nd 2022 is the 90th anniversary of the opening of the Bodyline series.
Definitely a declaration that wouldn't have happened under previous captains.
England have just done number of overs they want to have a good chance of taking 10wkts.
We shall all see if it pays off.
AFZ
NZ coach and NZ born skipper. Interesting dynamic for Britannia rulz.
Barmy armeee!
I felt sorry for Pakistan though to lose at home after playing really well.
Does anyone? It's cricket's offside rule. I know I need to look it up for when the ball pitches outside off. Unfortunately as a leggie it's not often I pitch it outside off and get it to turn back far enough to hit the pad, even when I get the googly right.
Would anyone like me to post an English translation?
, (hit the ground) outside the line of the leg stump; then the batter is not out.
As others have said an astounding win by England and great captaincy by Stokes. I wish more people in the UK were still sufficiently interested in Test cricket to appreciate it!