ThePortForum.com

Posted: **13:45 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

The England lead is 400 and there's a break. Declare!

Posted: **13:45 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Ok, the skip's got 50 and the lead's enough. I'm waiting for a declaration now.

...and still they continue. Cook now probably thinking of getting a ton rather than the good of the team. If this ends up a draw it will be just what he deserves.

Posted: **13:46 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Ok, the skip's got 50 and the lead's enough. I'm waiting for a declaration now.
...and still they continue. Cook now probably thinking of getting a ton rather than the good of the team. If this ends up a draw it will be just what he deserves.

I very much doubt that. Whatever else his flaws he's not one to put his own stats before the team's cause.

Posted: **13:50 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Ok, the skip's got 50 and the lead's enough. I'm waiting for a declaration now.
...and still they continue. Cook now probably thinking of getting a ton rather than the good of the team. If this ends up a draw it will be just what he deserves.
I very much doubt that. Whatever else his flaws he's not one to put his own stats before the team's cause.

So why has he not declared? They are 400 runs in front and approaching the time when it is distinctly possible that India could bat out a draw. Selfish or stupid, you choose.

Posted: **13:52 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Stupid. India have four and a half sessions to bat, that's still a tall order I think, IF our bowlers can do what they did in the first innings. There is still plenty of time left.

Posted: **13:53 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

If anything he's probably more interested in Root getting 50 than getting a ton himself.

Posted: **13:57 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

I don't understand why they are not trying to smash every ball now. If Cook is going to declare at tea, then there are about 10 overs now where 8-10 runs/over would make the lead ridiculous.

Posted: **14:08 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Is Cook waiting for Root's 50, to get 200, or to get a ton himself? Answers please.

Posted: **14:10 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

The TMS scorer Andrew Samson wrote:The highest successful run chase in Test history was 418-7 by West Indies against Australia in Antigua in 2003.

Posted: **14:11 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Any of those are the wrong thing to do. He should be thinking of winning the game, not who scores what.

My money is on him thinking of himself.

Posted: **14:13 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

200 runs and still no declaration! This is, officially, madness!

Posted: **14:15 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Root out. DECLARE!!

Posted: **14:15 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

40 overs remain. Let's get this won!

Posted: **14:17 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

According to my iPhone app they have just declared with a 444 run lead.

How many overs are left today?

Posted: **14:17 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Our posts crossed.

4 wickets will fall today.

Posted: **14:23 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

LGTrotter wrote:Any thoughts on Buttler's keeping?

A butler is one of the most essential members of any household staff and a good butler is well worth keeping.

Is that what you were asking?

Good to see another failure from Cook. Assuming England win then shall we grumble about the nature of the win rather than his continued failure to win? Bell has stayed true to form - a ton if someone above him scores one first and not if no-one does. Nice to see some good and exciting play from Ballance and Root.

I predict India will be 3 down by close of play today.

Posted: **14:25 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

DRT wrote:4 wickets will fall today.

I'm assuming you mean Indian second-innings wickets and not 4 over the entire day - which is already wrong.

Posted: **16:32 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Who's laughing about Moeen Ali's bowling now? Like his batting too.

Posted: **16:40 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Sshhh. Boycott, I mean Derek needs something to grumble about!

Posted: **16:54 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Oh dear. If we get another wicket Derek will grumble that they're doing better than he expected.

Posted: **16:56 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

This looks great. Not top notch opposition but the team looks utterly transformed from Trent Bridge and Lord's. Even if somehow we let them draw this has been a very encouraging match. Now let's win the series.

Posted: **17:30 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Well the spot-fixer of Chesterfield triumphs again.

Posted: **17:31 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:This looks great. Not top notch opposition but the team looks utterly transformed from Trent Bridge and Lord's.

And it's all down to Cook's captaincy!

Posted: **17:32 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

I can't tell any more whether you're being sarcastic or not.

Posted: **18:13 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Have we thought about fielding a

XI ? I would like to think we could have some fun with that one, and maybe get some fixtures against some similarly stunning teams. There would of course be pork pies in the dressing room, and two taps on the bar (F85 and T85).

Any takers for 2015?

Posted: **18:49 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Have we thought about fielding a XI ? I would like to think we could have some fun with that one, and maybe get some fixtures against some similarly stunning teams. There would of course be pork pies in the dressing room, and two taps on the bar (F85 and T85).

Any takers for 2015?

I dread to think what that would look like.

Posted: **18:54 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Absolutely amazing. Is what that would look like.
Perhaps the Oporto Cricket Club could be persuaded..

Posted: **19:10 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Have we thought about fielding a XI ? I would like to think we could have some fun with that one, and maybe get some fixtures against some similarly stunning teams. There would of course be pork pies in the dressing room, and two taps on the bar (F85 and T85).

Any takers for 2015?

Jewesbury's been at the sauce again. That or too long in the sun. I should love to run around screaming dressed in white, but I could not answer to 'playing cricket'. Providing there's a defibrillator handy I don't anticipate any problems. The last cricket match I played in I had little effect on the scorecard but drew much praise for stealing the oppositions barrel of cider. Serves the cocky b******ds right for having team kit and a scorer. Since then I've realised everybody has something to contribute.

Back to the match, rather looks like a win for England.

Is Alex being deliberately deliberate in his comments? If so they are working.

Posted: **19:12 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Looks like you're opening the batting and keeping wicket Owen. Mike is delivering his devilish spin. Who else is in?

Posted: **20:01 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Looks like you're opening the batting and keeping wicket Owen. Mike is delivering his devilish spin. Who else is in?

I'll be the towel boy. Which means I get to stay in the locker room near the taps keeping it tidy while you boys are out baking in the sun.

Posted: **20:07 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Well, my concerns about not enforcing the follow-on have proved unfounded. Credit to Cook, it was exciting to watch them pile on some runs in the afternoon. And 4 wickets before close makes a victory look likely.

So how is the England rebuild faring? Some things look very positive:

Cook - dare I say it, but I think he is learning fast...his decisions in this match have been pretty good all round. He'll never be a Strauss type captain, but if he can keep improving his decisions as a captain and gain the confidence of the team as captain, his batting should come back and it could all be good.
Robson - disappointing. Not showing anything that suggests we have an opener for the next 7 or 8 years.
Ballance - looks like a success...gets runs, looks like a battler, no obvious weak points
Bell - unlike some others here, I think he is absolutely OK
Root - a success. Talented, gets runs, still learning so will improve
Ali - looks good. Can def bat. Somehow manages to get wickets with the ball too. Clearly not the solution for spin though, still need a frontline spinner
Buttler - everything looks very good. Excellent keeping, explosive batting. An English Gilchrist?
Woakes - work in progress, some way to go
Jordan - same
Anderson and Broad - still fine
Plunkett - bit one dimensional for me. Squad player.

Still on the to-do list then are:
- opener
- 2 second line bowlers
- frontline spinner

Posted: **20:08 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Glenn E. wrote:I'll be the towel boy.

The official designation would be twelfth man. And they have to play should one of the other eleven be indisposed, a racing certainty, especially when there are three, none too keen, players at the moment.

Posted: **20:24 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

An excellent summation from Mike, with just enough to get my teeth into.

Cooks captaincy looked better, but he hasn't had a lot to do. I think that Strauss is actually a good comparison here, Cook may achieve the stolidity of Strauss but will not be one of those fluid understanders of the game or people.
I think Moeen is a work in progress but I like what I see, he looks very composed in everything he does and thus far has done what has been asked of him with the ball. Admittedly this is scarcely the most formidable opposition.
Ballance, looks more like a battler, again he has done all that is asked of him but I wonder how he will fare against really quick bowling.
Robson, I quite agree.
Root, I agree.
I hear Trott has made some good runs so this could be a solution. It seemed to me that England batting came good when he got the number three slot.
Anderson and Broad I can't quite forgive for the shoddy bowling they have served up at key moments. They should know better.
Dunno what to make of the second string bowlers, I like Plunkett. Hoggard had a terrific record and didn't look that great so who knows?
Buttler could be a real find.

Posted: **21:42 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

LGTrotter wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:I'll be the towel boy.
The official designation would be twelfth man. And they have to play should one of the other eleven be indisposed, a racing certainty, especially when there are three, none too keen, players at the moment.

Appropriate designation for me, as I am a Seahawks fan.

Posted: **22:05 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

The Hoggard comparison is enlightening, for the reasons you cite. I think Ali's bowling is looking quite good, he's got 14 wickets so I'm not too concerned. There isn't another match-ready spinner out there, we should stick with him and let him grow in the team (he is already). The second row / part-time spinners can accompany him for now.

Cook made some intelligent bowling choices but once again, even whilst winning, he's reserved and on the back foot, leaving it far too long to declare. He's not seeing the game unfold in his mind.

Not sure about Buttler as a Gilchrist yet - bit early to say (cf all the 'new Bothams' over the years). But liked what I saw.

Anderson might be out for a game or two depending on the outcome of his hearing. Broad is tired. Neither is up to their top form, despite what Anderson did today. So the bowling, front and back row, is a big issue. Who can take advantage of the conditions you'd expect at Old Trafford? Haven't been there since they introduced covered stands, that must be luxurious!

Posted: **22:31 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

But Owen, you forgot to comment on Bell.

Posted: **22:51 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Daniel; I hear what you say about Broad and Anderson. Broad has always been inconsistent and Anderson is 32. So yes I hear you about the bowling. It does not feel like an immediate problem and there are still some old lags and newcomers on the county circuit.
Why is it that the batting is no longer a problem for the team which until this test hasn't scored 400 for a long while.
You're right about Cook.

flash_uk wrote:But Owen, you forgot to comment on Bell.

Bell has scored a ton of runs when it didn't really matter. As soon as Cook scored that 95 the scrutiny moved on, to Bell. Once again a career saving innings rather than a match winning one. I would rather he scored a gritty 50 when it counted, but he never will. I could carve a better man out of a banana, as somebody once said about someone else.

Posted: **22:52 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

Why do I always fall into the Bell trap? Like Cook prodding half forward and half back, oh well...

Posted: **23:28 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Looks like you're opening the batting and keeping wicket Owen. Mike is delivering his devilish spin. Who else is in?

Me.

Things for the selectors to consider:

My hand-eye co-ordination is not a strong point;
I throw like a girl. It's a hereditary shoulder problem;
Running might be problematic due to my less than optimal knee situation;
I think I would be quite good at sledging;
I would be the last man to leave the battle. I would never abandon a man on the field.

I am at your disposal.

Posted: **23:49 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Looks like you're opening the batting and keeping wicket Owen. Mike is delivering his devilish spin. Who else is in?
Me.

Things for the selectors to consider.

I thought you were the selectors.

All the other stuff about being generally useless I also suffer with, but not the last bit about leaving men on the battlefield. Exactly the place for them in my view, they should look slippy and leave with the rout if they didn't want to be left behind.

Posted: **23:53 Wed 30 Jul 2014**

LGTrotter wrote:All the other stuff about being generally useless I also suffer with, but not the last bit about leaving men on the battlefield. Exactly the place for them in my view, they should look slippy and leave with the rout if they didn't want to be left behind.

That is where you and I differ. My time in the parachute regiment left an itch that cannot be scratched. Never, and I mean never, leave a man behind.

Posted: **00:02 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

DRT wrote:4 wickets will fall

{smugness}

Posted: **00:17 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

DRT wrote:
DRT wrote:4 wickets will fall
{smugness}

Lucky officers, better than good ones.

Posted: **07:05 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

Derek, was your time in the Parachute Regiment not about two weeks? Did you have to leave many men in the field during that time?

Posted: **07:35 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Looks like you're opening the batting and keeping wicket Owen. Mike is delivering his devilish spin. Who else is in?

There is one simple question that will establish whether this Is a sound venture. Who, reading this and potentially available, can bowl?

Posted: **07:38 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

'Can bowl' is surely a subjective term. Derek is obviously pitching for a job as umpire - or scorer! He is relieved from playing duties. But I'm sure we have other members, perhaps not regularly frequenting this thread, who nonetheless have some ability. I 'can bowl', I just haven't for several years. That kind of part-time spin can be deadly. For whoever's standing at fourth slip.

Posted: **10:22 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

An early wicket!

Looking good now.

Posted: **11:21 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

Two wickets in one over for Ali suggests he's more than just a stopgap. That's 16 now in the series I think.

Posted: **11:22 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

(Post moved)

Posted: **11:24 Thu 31 Jul 2014**

Sorry, 13 wickets.

ThePortForum.com

It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket

Re: It's just not cricket