[Thelomen Toblerone]

MWAHAHAHAHA 156-8!!!

Suck on that Aussies, we might actually win a Test against you. At Lords.

[MTS]

...homeground advantage

Even so...

[Cougar]

Lords is not homeground for England, it's the homeground for cricket, it's like playing Assoc. Footy at Wembely, the awe of playing at the home of the sport means the opposition raise their game and England just think: "meh we get to play here all the time"

It's interesting how they managed to get the Ponting decision right for completely the wrong reason. I've rarely seen a cricketer get booed off the field.

I suspect it will be too wet over the next 3 days to get a result.

[Slick Mongoose]

Thelomen Toblerone, on Jul 17 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

MWAHAHAHAHA 156-8!!!

Suck on that Aussies, we might actually win a Test against you. At Lords.

Hmmm. Do you watch England often? If there's a way to lose this test, we'll find it.

Cougar, on Jul 17 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

Lords is not homeground for England, it's the homeground for cricket, it's like playing Assoc. Footy at Wembely, the awe of playing at the home of the sport means the opposition raise their game and England just think: "meh we get to play here all the time"

Nah. That's just the excuse we use for being crap.

[MTS]

Cougar, on Jul 18 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

Lords is not homeground for England, it's the homeground for cricket, it's like playing Assoc. Footy at Wembely, the awe of playing at the home of the sport means the opposition raise their game and England just think: "meh we get to play here all the time"

It's interesting how they managed to get the Ponting decision right for completely the wrong reason. I've rarely seen a cricketer get booed off the field.

I suspect it will be too wet over the next 3 days to get a result.

Notice the tongue in cheek smiley Cougar? I was joking. England have done well, we haven't. Simple as that. Agree about Ponting and the rain, though. Now if only he could stifle his ego and get his head out of his ass...

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Oh Slick, if I was a Feng-shui expert I'd have a heart attack at your negative energy. Have some hope, man!

Or, more importantly, take the chance to mock the Aussies when it's possible.

[MTS]

Please TT, you can do that whenever. Just not with cricket. Maybe tennis, or soccer.

[Cougar]

I have smileys disabled: I object to them.

[MTS]

I see. I find them useful, when I'm too lazy to express emotion through writing. I'm lazy like that.

On topic though, I think that without any rain, you Poms are right favourites to win this. Barring some major collapse, we're looking at chasing a 500+ run total unless my tired morning brain has missed something.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 17 July 2009 - 09:59 PM

[Cougar]

Well if it's still cloudy tommorrow England will enforce the follow on and look to swing it off a length like they have been today.

[MTS]

*shrugs* that's true. But although the innings may be reversed, the run total we must make to even be in it remains roughly the same. The follow on precludes us batting for a draw if it doesn't rain, though.

[caladanbrood]

If England can enforce the follow-on, they have a good chance of winning. If not, I can see us throwing this away...

[Thelomen Toblerone]

9 wickets down and just a few runs left to avoid the follow-on, it's getting tense...

[Corporal Nobbs]

How's the weather over there.
Lots of rain clouds, I hope.

I wonder if a rain dance will work
Any thing to save us from the ignominy of losing at Lord's.

This post has been edited by Corporal Nobbs: 18 July 2009 - 11:13 AM

[Thelomen Toblerone]

And...we didn't enforce the follow on. WHY??!?!

It's going to piss down tomorrow now, I guarantee.

[Cougar]

I'll say this now, not enforcing the follow on is guttless cricket. When you have the enemy cornered and panicking you don't let him off.

In the entire 140 year history of test cricket a side following on has only won 3 times (according to cricinfo).

[Sir Thursday]

Right, but how many times has a side won when their opponents could have enforced the follow on but chose not to? Probably not very many (in fact, I'd be surprised if there were 3). The fact that people win so rarely when forced to follow on is primarily due to the fact that they've got to overcome a 200+ first innings deficit, remember.

I personally didn't see a problem with not enforcing the follow on here. The Australian bowling attack is supposedly depleted - Johnson out of form, Hauritz injured (although Hauritz taking two wickets would suggest that that line of thinking is a bit off, but that's hindsight talking), and if England can pile on the runs, they can put the game beyond all doubt. I'd prefer to see England spending 5 1/2 sessions trying to bowl Australia out than see England trying to chase 200 odd on a last day pitch.


Sir Thursday

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Thing is though, you know England will end today on about 200-8. Then it will rain all tomorrow. Australia will then come into bowl on the 5th day and take things slow, bat defensively when they get in, and close out the draw.

[Sir Thursday]

Is it definitely forecast to rain all day tomorrow?

[Cougar]

Yes but that pitch won't deteriorate, the same way other do, Lords pitches tend not to and the ball is moving a little bit so the claims it would be an entirely batsman freindly day 3 are spurious. It seems that Flintoff is nursing his knee a bit which I suspect is the main reason but I still think you bowl again.

The key thing for me is we could be fighting for time, depending on the weather. We are better off trying to rip them out for less than 200 straight away than wasting 5 sessions building a lead then watching the rain come down on all Monday.

It's guttless and England are risking leaving Australia a chasable target with 2 days to get it if they don't start performing in this innings. It a fucking stupid decision. It speaks volumes about Strauss as a captain.