The Official Cricket Thread

[Big D]

I am still struggling to believe that England didn't get up and win this series. I have been banging on about it - but home advantage, 4 wins out of 4 for the toss - they should have been far and away.

They are definitely the better bowling and batting side - BUT - 18 catches dropped (Root and Stokes 6 each and JB 5) - drops which resulted in 401 extra runs being scored. I find this amazing considering the premium that Baz puts on fielding in matches.

The best thing to come out of this is that piers morgan has been crying up a storm to rival the rains of Manchester - of course simply highlighting his own pleadings of rain in the 2013 Ashes. Anything that brings him displeasure is my happy place.

The catches are the main issue. Australia had 4 of the top 10 batsmen in the world at the start of the series. Considering Jimmy has proven he isn't really a wicket taking threat, the pace bowlers have done pretty well through this series to limit Australia to going past 300 only twice with piss all help from the fielders.

Despite the noise over his innings and one very good catch, Bairstow hasn't justified his place ahead of Foakes. In the winter they really need their best keeper.

[Biffer]

Slightly underwhelming last over, end on 245/2

Italy all out for 90, Scotland win by 155. Scotland and Ireland both played three won three, this tournament is looking like as much of a forgone conclusion as everyone thought it would be.

[Sandstorm]

Slightly underwhelming last over, end on 245/2

Italy all out for 90, Scotland win by 155. Scotland and Ireland both played three won three, this tournament is looking like as much of a forgone conclusion as everyone thought it would be.

I know you only play the opposition put out in front of you, but..........do Scotland really have to play Italy to qualify? Surely that's waaay below their level these days?

[Biffer]

Slightly underwhelming last over, end on 245/2

Italy all out for 90, Scotland win by 155. Scotland and Ireland both played three won three, this tournament is looking like as much of a forgone conclusion as everyone thought it would be.

I know you only play the opposition put out in front of you, but..........do Scotland really have to play Italy to qualify? Surely that's waaay below their level these days?

The ICC has fucked around with the format. They decided instead of having a World T20 qualifier, which would likely have been a good competition similar to the recent 50 over world cup qualifier, that we would have regional qualifiers. So there's a European one, an Americas one an Asia one, and East Asian/Pacific one and an African one. They will all produce massive disparities and will result in pretty low ranked teams making the main T20 world cup.

At the time they said it'd give the qualifiers more focus and attention. So they scheduled the European one at the same time as the Ashes Series, you know, so it got attention and focus.

As I've said many times on this thread, the ICC don't give a fuck about associate nations.

Scotland haven't played the two lowest ranked teams in the Europe one yet (Austria and Denmark).

[Torquemada 1420]

Well, that was a criminal way to end a Test series. Time for cricket to bring back the reserve day.

{EDIT} Before I saw the beeb headlining the same!

[Thor Sedan]

Well, that was a criminal way to end a Test series. Time for cricket to bring back the reserve day.

{EDIT} Before I saw the beeb headlining the same!

I don't think it was. England knew that the likelihood of an interrupted weekend due to weather was on the cards - yet they still went long in their 1st innings. If they had come in with a lead of around 150 (Harry Brooks' wicket)then they would have had an extra 20+ overs to play with.

I can't help but think that England, in their desire to be the swashbuckling team we know they can be, make really poor strategy calls. Early declaration in the first test and a late declaration in the fourth. Aussie was there for the taking - and it appeared that they played for the weather.

Smart cricket v not so smart cricket.

[Paddington Bear]

Well, that was a criminal way to end a Test series. Time for cricket to bring back the reserve day.

{EDIT} Before I saw the beeb headlining the same!

I don't think it was. England knew that the likelihood of an interrupted weekend due to weather was on the cards - yet they still went long in their 1st innings. If they had come in with a lead of around 150 (Harry Brooks' wicket)then they would have had an extra 20+ overs to play with.

I can't help but think that England, in their desire to be the swashbuckling team we know they can be, make really poor strategy calls. Early declaration in the first test and a late declaration in the fourth. Aussie was there for the taking - and it appeared that they played for the weather.

Smart cricket v not so smart cricket.

We made a lot of poor calls in this series, don’t think that was one of them. Remember Australia batted for 70 overs in their second innings and still had plenty of batting to come. On that pitch only a capitulation could have produced a result inside 3.25 days.

The unforgivable calls for me are:
Not picking our best keeper
Declaring on day 1 of the series
Keeping Root on for too long in the second innings at Edgbaston
The batting at Lords’ as we squandered an exceptionally positive position.

The swashbuckling calls were tempered down significantly as the series has progressed, no shock results have improved.

And I’ll be fair, I’d be pretty satisfied to retain the Ashes by any means so anything I say has to be filtered through that, however:
1) we essentially lost two full days of cricket. Even in Manchester that is very, very unusual
2) this match was an absolute pasting, and the Aussies knew it
3) this series is the first time in my adult life I’ve felt cricket has been having a national ‘moment’, and it was building to an almighty climax which we’ve been denied
4) rain rules are just dumb dumb dumb, with no common sense or respect for the fans. And I’m well aware that as the rainiest cricket playing nation we probably in the round stand to lose more than we gain by bringing in reserve days, continuing play past 18:30 to get in 90 overs etc, but we should so it anyway

[Biffer]

The decisions were fine. If they’d taken their catches, they would have won the first test. So they’d be 2-1 up.

Tactics are irrelevant if you can’t execute the basic skills.

[I like neeps]

Well, that was a criminal way to end a Test series. Time for cricket to bring back the reserve day.

{EDIT} Before I saw the beeb headlining the same!

I don't think it was. England knew that the likelihood of an interrupted weekend due to weather was on the cards - yet they still went long in their 1st innings. If they had come in with a lead of around 150 (Harry Brooks' wicket)then they would have had an extra 20+ overs to play with.

I can't help but think that England, in their desire to be the swashbuckling team we know they can be, make really poor strategy calls. Early declaration in the first test and a late declaration in the fourth. Aussie was there for the taking - and it appeared that they played for the weather.

Smart cricket v not so smart cricket.

We made a lot of poor calls in this series, don’t think that was one of them. Remember Australia batted for 70 overs in their second innings and still had plenty of batting to come. On that pitch only a capitulation could have produced a result inside 3.25 days.

The unforgivable calls for me are:
Not picking our best keeper
Declaring on day 1 of the series
Keeping Root on for too long in the second innings at Edgbaston
The batting at Lords’ as we squandered an exceptionally positive position.

The swashbuckling calls were tempered down significantly as the series has progressed, no shock results have improved.

And I’ll be fair, I’d be pretty satisfied to retain the Ashes by any means so anything I say has to be filtered through that, however:
1) we essentially lost two full days of cricket. Even in Manchester that is very, very unusual
2) this match was an absolute pasting, and the Aussies knew it
3) this series is the first time in my adult life I’ve felt cricket has been having a national ‘moment’, and it was building to an almighty climax which we’ve been denied
4) rain rules are just dumb dumb dumb, with no common sense or respect for the fans. And I’m well aware that as the rainiest cricket playing nation we probably in the round stand to lose more than we gain by bringing in reserve days, continuing play past 18:30 to get in 90 overs etc, but we should so it anyway

On 4 it was Vish @ Cricinfo who said it but why have even have alloted hours and not you have 90 overs per day 30 per session and you bowl those overs. Sorts out slow over rates too.

[Torquemada 1420]

Well, that was a criminal way to end a Test series. Time for cricket to bring back the reserve day.

{EDIT} Before I saw the beeb headlining the same!

I don't think it was. England knew that the likelihood of an interrupted weekend due to weather was on the cards - yet they still went long in their 1st innings. If they had come in with a lead of around 150 (Harry Brooks' wicket)then they would have had an extra 20+ overs to play with.

I can't help but think that England, in their desire to be the swashbuckling team we know they can be, make really poor strategy calls. Early declaration in the first test and a late declaration in the fourth. Aussie was there for the taking - and it appeared that they played for the weather.

Smart cricket v not so smart cricket.

I can't agree. Aus were only 60 odd behind. Had Eng declared earlier (they could not have score faster), Aus would most likely overhauled the lead and then every run is 2 as well as another ball used up.

[Mahoney]

England were scoring very fast - they went from 506 after 96 overs to 590 after 107, more than 7.5 an over. It's unlikely they'd score quite so fast at the start of an innings, particularly if they were chasing one of those 130-160 scores which are not a certainty. Decent argument that it was more efficient from a time perspective to score them when they did.

(Of course it does raise the question why the same argument doesn't stand at Edgbaston with Root seeing it like a football and Robinson batting perfectly well...)

[dpedin]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

[Paddington Bear]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

I even included the last point in my post, but don’t let that stop you doing your Anglophobe routine yet again

[Torquemada 1420]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

This isn't an English thing. I don't support England (usually the reverse). This is a Test cricket thing. Test cricket is on its knees and to have its most historic contest concluded in this damp squib (literally) manner is simply shooting itself in the foot. This series should have gone to a decider and down in the annals of the game as a bona fide classic.

The 3 days rest is only a problem because of the demands to shoehorn in a load of pyjama nonsense (not even intl pyjama nonsense FFS): all of which will have been forgotten 5 minutes after each game has been concluded. Each Test from the 3rd onwards should have had a reserve day and the ODI schedule shrunk to accommodate it (or the club games made do without their intl players just as happens in EVERY other sport).

I see the Torygraph as a good article on this here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/202 ... ia-retain/

[Biffer]

Scotland knocking it around against Austria this morning. 113/1 off 9, Munsey 82 from 37 balls.

[Thor Sedan]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

This isn't an English thing. I don't support England (usually the reverse). This is a Test cricket thing. Test cricket is on its knees and to have its most historic contest concluded in this damp squib (literally) manner is simply shooting itself in the foot. This series should have gone to a decider and down in the annals of the game as a bona fide classic.

The 3 days rest is only a problem because of the demands to shoehorn in a load of pyjama nonsense (not even intl pyjama nonsense FFS): all of which will have been forgotten 5 minutes after each game has been concluded. Each Test from the 3rd onwards should have had a reserve day and the ODI schedule shrunk to accommodate it (or the club games made do without their intl players just as happens in EVERY other sport).

I see the Torygraph as a good article on this here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/202 ... ia-retain/

So what happens if there are 2 days lost to rain - or 3 days? Do we just run the test until we get the full 5 days?

Unless clubs are going to invest millions - possibly tens of millions into covered stadiums for cricket then weather is always going to be an issue.

[Biffer]

Scotland knocking it around against Austria this morning. 113/1 off 9, Munsey 82 from 37 balls.

Munsey gets his ton from 50 balls. Scotland 142-1 in the 14th over.

[Torquemada 1420]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

This isn't an English thing. I don't support England (usually the reverse). This is a Test cricket thing. Test cricket is on its knees and to have its most historic contest concluded in this damp squib (literally) manner is simply shooting itself in the foot. This series should have gone to a decider and down in the annals of the game as a bona fide classic.

The 3 days rest is only a problem because of the demands to shoehorn in a load of pyjama nonsense (not even intl pyjama nonsense FFS): all of which will have been forgotten 5 minutes after each game has been concluded. Each Test from the 3rd onwards should have had a reserve day and the ODI schedule shrunk to accommodate it (or the club games made do without their intl players just as happens in EVERY other sport).

I see the Torygraph as a good article on this here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/202 ... ia-retain/

So what happens if there are 2 days lost to rain - or 3 days? Do we just run the test until we get the full 5 days?

Unless clubs are going to invest millions - possibly tens of millions into covered stadiums for cricket then weather is always going to be an issue.

Of course not. I would bet statistically that 1 day would cover the vast majority of ruined cases. Where games have lost that amount of time due to the weather, the prospect of a result is already gone in most cases and so I don't think anyone would be feeling dissatisfied at a draw in respect of that single game. It's an interesting question where it's an Ashes decider and here, I guess it's down to how much you value a decider: the Test Champions was obviously valued highly enough to make such a provision.

And this doesn't cover (ahem) other actions that could have been taken.
- if you've been sitting on your arses in the clubhouse waiting a gap for play, then taking lunch or tea is a friggin' nonsense.
- light permitting, start the damned days earlier immediately there has been lost time that has not already been made up by extending play.

[Mahoney]

It's a bit of an over-reaction because of disappointment, I think pretty much everyone would like this to have gone to a decider. We've actually had precious few draws due to rain in England in the last few seasons.

It's a shame that it comes across as sour grapes, because quite independent of this series I do think that Test cricket ought to be much more focussed on the spectators seeing as much cricket as possible. Specifically:

* Start at 10:30 to improve the chances of getting the overs in inside the day.
* Specify sunset as the hard close of play. Play continues until the 90 overs are bowled (including any lost on previous days) or sunset, whichever is first.
* If there are floodlights, no leaving the field for bad light before sunset, nor restricting who can bowl. More controversial, but I just don't think that it ever gets that dangerous when the lights are on.
* More generally a presumption in favour of playing rather than not playing. I want to see umpires reluctant to take players off and keen to get them back on if at all possible. No "inspection in 45 minutes, then we'll take lunch, then mooch about having another look, and 2 hours later ooh, look, it's started to rain again...". It often feels like umpires hate Test cricket and are keen for as little play to happen as possible.

[Torquemada 1420]

It's a bit of an over-reaction because of disappointment, I think pretty much everyone would like this to have gone to a decider. We've actually had precious few draws due to rain in England in the last few seasons.

It's a shame that it comes across as sour grapes, because quite independent of this series I do think that Test cricket ought to be much more focussed on the spectators seeing as much cricket as possible. Specifically:

* Start at 10:30 to improve the chances of getting the overs in inside the day.
* Specify sunset as the hard close of play. Play continues until the 90 overs are bowled (including any lost on previous days) or sunset, whichever is first.
* If there are floodlights, no leaving the field for bad light before sunset, nor restricting who can bowl. More controversial, but I just don't think that it ever gets that dangerous when the lights are on.
* More generally a presumption in favour of playing rather than not playing. I want to see umpires reluctant to take players off and keen to get them back on if at all possible. No "inspection in 45 minutes, then we'll take lunch, then mooch about having another look, and 2 hours later ooh, look, it's started to rain again...". It often feels like umpires hate Test cricket and are keen for as little play to happen as possible.

Amen to all of that. And, because it's my hobby horse, in respect of the bit in red, the modern game has been massively altered already in favour of the batsmen. They have all the protection they need. And they are quite happy to play pyjama under the lights, so why not Tests?

I loved this from the Torygraph article linked earlier

In Manchester in late July, the sun rises around 5.10am and sets at 9.20pm. At this very ground on July 28, 1971, a one-day match between Lancashire and Gloucestershire ended at almost 9pm, without floodlights. When David Lloyd, the home side’s opening batsman, raised the issue of fading light with the officials, umpire Arthur Jepson pointed skywards and asked: “What’s that up there?” “The moon,” a befuddled Lloyd replied. “Well, how far do you want to see then?” Jepson huffed.

[Biffer]

Scotland finish on 231/2. Munsey out for 132 from 61 balls. Berrington 40 no off 19 at the end.

See if the weather holds for the Austria Innings.

Munsey's 132 is the highest score in a T20I by anyone from Britain or Ireland.

[JM2K6]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

You went blissfully quiet when England won a game and were giving the Aussies a pasting in this one after your anti-English ranting at 0-2. Just because Deepsouth has made an arse of himself, doesn't mean you have to as well.

Also we haven't lost the Ashes, and Australia haven't won them. We can't regain them, but they weren't ours to lose in the first place. Australia have a chance to win them outright but if they lose the final Test then they retain them by default on a draw, which isn't quite the same thing.

I would also love to know what irony has to do with any of this.

[Biffer]

Austria all out for 66, Scotland win by 166 runs.

The pointlessness of this qualifying format grows ever more apparent.

What it alos means, of course, is that Ireland and Scotland get no meaningful, testing T20 cricket in advance of the World Cup next year, which is what the ICC/BCCI want.

[TedMaul]

The lad is a natural!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66305208

[dpedin]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

You went blissfully quiet when England won a game and were giving the Aussies a pasting in this one after your anti-English ranting at 0-2. Just because Deepsouth has made an arse of himself, doesn't mean you have to as well.

Also we haven't lost the Ashes, and Australia haven't won them. We can't regain them, but they weren't ours to lose in the first place. Australia have a chance to win them outright but if they lose the final Test then they retain them by default on a draw, which isn't quite the same thing.

I would also love to know what irony has to do with any of this.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

[Ymx]

Even as a neutral, it’s a shame. One of the few meaningful test series to finish like this is disappointing. So deflating.
But that is test cricket. It has been like it for a long time.

If this is a catalyst to change it to allow for an extra day, to get through the required overs, then so be it.

It would be great in that both I think it would drastically improve test cricket, but also an equally as important it would provide a life time of ammo to tease the English about getting the rules change when they lose.

[Lisbon Nick]

England unchanged for the last test. Anderson a very lucky boy.

[JM2K6]

I just love the delicious irony of England cricket supporters complaining about damp English weather ruining their chances of a win and losing the Ashes. The weather wasn't really to blame, it was losing the first two tests that was their downfall due to poor selection and poor wickets. Reserve days etc are just too difficult given the need for 3 seats days between tests minimum, TV schedules and demands, sponsors requirements, etc. It is what it is I am afraid and I am sure there wouldn't have been the same outcry if England won the game/series because of the weather!

You went blissfully quiet when England won a game and were giving the Aussies a pasting in this one after your anti-English ranting at 0-2. Just because Deepsouth has made an arse of himself, doesn't mean you have to as well.

Also we haven't lost the Ashes, and Australia haven't won them. We can't regain them, but they weren't ours to lose in the first place. Australia have a chance to win them outright but if they lose the final Test then they retain them by default on a draw, which isn't quite the same thing.

I would also love to know what irony has to do with any of this.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Great stuff, thanks for your contribution

[Mahoney]

I think the idea of a reserve day for all tests is a pipe dream. Not remotely financially viable. Tests are under pressure to drop to 4 days already.

[JM2K6]

I think the idea of a reserve day for all tests is a pipe dream. Not remotely financially viable. Tests are under pressure to drop to 4 days already.

Yup. And full day washouts are rare enough that it's not worth it.

Over rates and playing times are far more useful to discuss.

[Torquemada 1420]

I think the idea of a reserve day for all tests is a pipe dream. Not remotely financially viable. Tests are under pressure to drop to 4 days already.

Yup. And full day washouts are rare enough that it's not worth it.

Over rates and playing times are far more useful to discuss.

I assume you mean cumulatively full day washouts?

Whilst I'm not buying the "not financially viable" argument, I agree that playing times should be addressed first and see where we go from there.

I'm not convinced by the over rate one though. All we'll see is sides bowling "wides" 6 balls an over which is pretty much where we got to this series (both teams guilty when it suited them).

[JM2K6]

I think the idea of a reserve day for all tests is a pipe dream. Not remotely financially viable. Tests are under pressure to drop to 4 days already.

Yup. And full day washouts are rare enough that it's not worth it.

Over rates and playing times are far more useful to discuss.

I assume you mean cumulatively full day washouts?

Whilst I'm not buying the "not financially viable" argument, I agree that playing times should be addressed first and see where we go from there.

I'm not convinced by the over rate one though. All we'll see is sides bowling "wides" 6 balls an over which is pretty much where we got to this series (both teams guilty when it suited them).

I mean the loss of a full day, as in something that couldn't have been at least partially mitigated by earlier starts/later finishes if necessary.

Absolutely nothing wrong with teams bowling to a plan. Bowling much wider to Stokes was the correct approach; it made it very hard for him to hit boundaries, and he wasn't physically up to the task of constantly running twos. I don't see the problem, and to be honest I don't really understand the relation to lost play. If bowling wide all the time was an effective strategy at all times then it'd be more common - as it is, it takes two forms of dismissal out of the equation and flirts with danger constantly.

[Torquemada 1420]

I mean the loss of a full day, as in something that couldn't have been at least partially mitigated by earlier starts/later finishes if necessary.

Absolutely nothing wrong with teams bowling to a plan. Bowling much wider to Stokes was the correct approach; it made it very hard for him to hit boundaries, and he wasn't physically up to the task of constantly running twos. I don't see the problem, and to be honest I don't really understand the relation to lost play. If bowling wide all the time was an effective strategy at all times then it'd be more common - as it is, it takes two forms of dismissal out of the equation and flirts with danger constantly.

Ultimately, this is all about
- getting to a Test result
- where both sides are trying to win

Of course, cricket has always been anomalous amongst sports in a draw often being the actual objective but we should not be rewarding teams achieving this by time wasting i.e. deliberately batting for 5 days is not the same thing as spending 5 days preventing the batsmen being able to reasonably apply bat to ball.

The latter was a common tactic of Eng sides of the 70s and 80s (Chris Old etc) where it was "more common". Eng weren't trying to take wickets in the truest sense: they were trying not to lose and if the batsmen got out in frustration, that was a bonus (taking 2 forms of dismissal out was not relevant). BTW, this is one of the reasons ODI has killed Test cricket: the laymen had no interest in watching this negative sh*t.

One reason Glenn McGrath would be in my all time XI is no other bowler had such a high % of balls the batsman had to play at.

[JM2K6]

I mean the loss of a full day, as in something that couldn't have been at least partially mitigated by earlier starts/later finishes if necessary.

Absolutely nothing wrong with teams bowling to a plan. Bowling much wider to Stokes was the correct approach; it made it very hard for him to hit boundaries, and he wasn't physically up to the task of constantly running twos. I don't see the problem, and to be honest I don't really understand the relation to lost play. If bowling wide all the time was an effective strategy at all times then it'd be more common - as it is, it takes two forms of dismissal out of the equation and flirts with danger constantly.

Ultimately, this is all about
- getting to a Test result
- where both sides are trying to win

Of course, cricket has always been anomalous amongst sports in a draw often being the actual objective but we should not be rewarding teams achieving this by time wasting i.e. deliberately batting for 5 days is not the same thing as spending 5 days preventing the batsmen being able to reasonably apply bat to ball.

The latter was a common tactic of Eng sides of the 70s and 80s (Chris Old etc) where it was "more common". Eng weren't trying to take wickets in the truest sense: they were trying not to lose and if the batsmen got out in frustration, that was a bonus (taking 2 forms of dismissal out was not relevant). BTW, this is one of the reasons ODI has killed Test cricket: the laymen had no interest in watching this negative sh*t.

One reason Glenn McGrath would be in my all time XI is no other bowler had such a high % of balls the batsman had to play at.

I think this is all rather confused, sorry. A draw is a valid result to a Test. It's quite an important part of Test cricket. What people are trying to fix is the problem of being robbed of a contest by the weather, with some added "they never bowl as many overs as they're supposed to" chucked in. Bowling wide doesn't guarantee you a draw, it doesn't rob anyone of a contest, it's not any sort of dark pattern. A good batsman is going to be able to punish that sort of bowling almosty every time. Otherwise it'd be a much more common tactic. It seems like you just want to complain about negative play, which is fine but I don't think it's particularly relevant.

As for the ODIs killing Test cricket - erm, ODIs are probably the ugly duckling of cricket at this point.

[I like neeps]

Very funny dismissal... Should've called him back though this isn't the spirit of cricket/why the rule was designed....

[Biffer]

Very funny dismissal... Should've called him back though this isn't the spirit of cricket/why the rule was designed....

I count that as part of the stroke. No way I'm calling him back for that one.

[Mahoney]

Yes, I'd be in the "your fault you dopey twat" group on that.

Speaking as someone who has been stumped after a not out LBW call batting out of his crease who held the pose for a little too long. Like about 10 seconds too long before it occurred to the keeper that he could take the bails off.

[Biffer]

Yes, I'd be in the "your fault you dopey twat" group on that.

Speaking as someone who has been stumped after a not out LBW call batting out of his crease who held the pose for a little too long. Like about 10 seconds too long before it occurred to the keeper that he could take the bails off.

I loved it when people held the pose, or when they were so overconfident that they didn't come back into their crease when I came up to the stumps. That and the folk who thought on the line is in.

[tabascoboy]

One for the serious stattos, in the current County Championship, Middlesex scored 199 all out and the four bowlers used by Warwick each conceded 49 runs.

Not only that but a quite remarkable symmetry in the bowling figures

Hannon-Dalby 14.1- 0- 49- 3, rr 3.46
Hamza 13.0- 3- 49- 3, rr 3.77
Barnard 13.0- 4- 49- 3, rr 3.77
H Brookes 12.0- 3- 49- 1, rr4.08

[Paddington Bear]

Very funny dismissal... Should've called him back though this isn't the spirit of cricket/why the rule was designed....

My current sporting status:
England rugby - plumbing new depths, on for a group stage loss to Argentina
England cricket - threw away an eminently winnable Ashes series
My touch rugby team - lost our best player as he broke his nose going arse over tit and landing on his face whilst scoring a try, 15 minutes after declaring 'no one needs studs today'
My cricket club - in a relegation scrap courtesy of averaging six dropped catches a game
Middlesex - lost 10 t20s on the trot and now losing wickets having hit the ball for six.

Should have taken up music at school...