Yoss Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 301/3 at close, well played England. WI pulled it back pretty well there, took three wickets and had them pinned down before Pietersen and Collingwood had a late flurry against the new ball. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Will they beat the 301/3 they made on Day 1 at St. Johns? Whodathunkit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 England clearly have the wrong team. They needed two spinners, they won't get twenty wickets and you can pretty much write this test off as a draw now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's unfortunate that Prior has gone out at the same time as Flintoff. With him to bat at six they might well have gone with the extra bowler. As it is I agree with jim, they'll struggle to take twenty wickets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) It's unfortunate that Prior has gone out at the same time as Flintoff. With him to bat at six they might well have gone with the extra bowler. As it is I agree with jim, they'll struggle to take twenty wickets. Again I find myself oddly agreeing with Boycott. England should have had faith in having five batsman, a wicket keeper and a couple of semi-useful bowlers who can bat to get the runs on that flat track, and included an extra bowler, probably a spinner, in the side. Yet again they go for the conservative option. This game could play out just like the last test. If Ambrose happens to make a few runs, Prior could be out of the side for a while, and he only has himself to blame. Edited to change the name of the wicket keeper to something slightly less delicious. Edited February 26, 2009 by Jim Pansy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's Ambrose not Mustard (easy to lose track given the number of 'keepers they've used in recent years) but yeah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Big day today. I agree that England should have gone with 5 bowlers. There batsman are making runs.To win a test...20 wickets.They are going to have to bowl very very well,and take every chance that comes their way. Good day 1 though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 122.6 Harris to Johnson, SIX, oh my word, he's just going better and better! Harris keeps it flat and wide but Johnson waltzes down and clubs it across the line, off the middle of the bat for a six over long-on and out of the stadium 122.5 Harris to Johnson, SIX, he's going the distance! This one's a dinger, rows back over mid-on 122.4 Harris to Johnson, no run, fuller of off stump and this time he leaves it alone 122.3 Harris to Johnson, SIX, even better! Its maximum! Johnson goes down and slogs this one over midwicket for six, man he's targeting Harris And that is Mitchell J's personal Test best. 122.2 Harris to Johnson, FOUR, down he skips, whipping a flatter delivery off his pads over midwicket 122.1 Harris to Johnson, FOUR, kneels down and slog-sweeps this one behind square leg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Johnson is left on 96 not out as the last two wickets fall in consecutive balls at the other end; not bad for a number nine. Somebody called Marcus North (one of three debutants in the team) scored 117 to take Aus to 466 all out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kullibino Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Johnson is left on 96 not out as the last two wickets fall in consecutive balls at the other end; not bad for a number nine. Somebody called Marcus North (one of three debutants in the team) scored 117 to take Aus to 466 all out. North's been floating round the county circut for years. He's a handy player but it's a bit of a sign of the times at Oz are having to pick the likes of him and McDonald. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Oh him? Yeah, I've seen the name here and about, hadn't made the connection. They're on top at the moment anyway, scratch side or no; Smith went in the first over and Amla in the second to leave SA 2/2. (Now 17/2.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 SA 85/3 at close. Caps doffed for Jacques Kallis who passed 10,000 Test runs today to go with his 250 wickets, a combination no one else is anywhere close to (though Sobers 8,000 and 235 was achieved off somewhat fewer Tests). He only needs another four wickets to reach the same double-milestone in one day internationals too. One of the greats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Tame draw on the cards in Barbados unless WI lose concentration. Anderson bowled well but they might as well pain a dotted white line down the middle of the pitch. Much better game in Joburg, i don't think anyone can doubt Johnson's a proper all rounder, he must be absolutely fuming at being stranded on 96*. I still don't think the Australian attack is that great, albeit they're missing Lee and Clark, so it'll be interesting to see if SA can scrap their way back into it like they did before Xmas or whether the old failings will return and they'll collapse in a heap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 the old failings will return and they'll collapse in a heap. Good knock by ABDV, 104* out of 220. Johnson 4/25, he's metaphorically on fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yeah, fine innings under pressure. Aus haven't enforced the follow-on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Lunch - Day 3 England 600/6d West Indies 163/3 (50 ov) West Indies trail by 437 runs with 7 wickets remaining in the 1st innings Chanderpaul & Sarwan to save the match? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 What does everybody think of the referral system? I tend to like it, and would suggest today's Windies scorecard is a bit of a fluke - everybody out LBW for the five wickets that have fallen. The West Indies backroom staff are not best pleased. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kullibino Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 What does everybody think of the referral system? I tend to like it, and would suggest today's Windies scorecard is a bit of a fluke - everybody out LBW for the five wickets that have fallen. The West Indies backroom staff are not best pleased. It'd work a bit better if the players understood what they can use it for, the number of marginal LBW's that get appealed against that can't (or shouldn't, as we saw with Sarwan in the 1st test the umpires don't seem to understand it either) be reversed is amazing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 What does everybody think of the referral system? I tend to like it, and would suggest today's Windies scorecard is a bit of a fluke - everybody out LBW for the five wickets that have fallen. The West Indies backroom staff are not best pleased. It needs refined, that much is clear. I think we should trust the technology more, use snicko and hotspot- snicko would have cleared up that Boucher one yesterday. Agree that too many people are referring them for LBWs where it's never going to get overturned, batsmen should only really be referring them if they have hit it and been given LB, or where they are 100% sure the ball pitched outside leg / hit them outside the line, not because they think it might have missed leg stump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) The thinking behind the referral systym was to give the on- field Umpire the benefit of the doubt - so although the Smith decision was close the TV Umpire was correct to stick with the original decision, Chanderpaul was even more unlucky (apparently the TV Umpire didn't have access to Hawkeye) but Nash was different as the referral was made by England and by the same logic unless he was clearly and undeniably out the original decision should have stood. Edited March 1, 2009 by btb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.