Cook is going to be in deep trouble if rain saves Pakistan - however, there is no rain forecast for Manchester for next 3 days.Might only need 2 sessions tbh the way Pak played in first innings.
WTF? Is Cook on commission for ticket sales? He should be sacked as captain for not enforcing follow-on. Doesn't he know there is a tendency in Manchester for wet stuff to drop out of the sky?
Would you stick to the suggestion that we sack one of our most successful recent captains and highest run-scorer ever, even if we win?
To me, there are sound reasons for not enforcing the follow-on. 1. Giving the recently injured Jimmy Anderson more chance to recover between innings. 2. Giving the recently injured Ben Stokes more chance to recover between innings. 3. Avoiding batting fourth in the match. 4. Ensuring we bowl when the pitch is in the best condition for bowling. 5. Using match conditions to ensure batsmen are in the best possible form for the remaining matches. 6. Giving out-of-form batsmen (Hales, Vince, Ballance) another chance to cement their places. 7 And doing all this while still giving England two new balls (if needed) to take ten wickets.
The decision not to follow on is fine. We are likely to declare an hour before lunch with a lead in excess of 500. We will then have pretty much 2 days play to get 10 wickets.
Sometimes you have to accept that the bigger picture (i.e the return of 2 of our bowlers from injury). There is no point in burning them out and risking further injury if we can safely give them a days rest.
It doesn't matter how you win. If we win all will be forgiven, if we draw Cook will be hung out to dry. Personally I would have put them in to bat. But Cook seldom does this.
Its the modern way, not to enforce the follow-on. However, there WILL come a time, when rain will save the team batting 4th after not enforcing a follow on- lets hope its England eh? Coz if its Oz and its 1-1 in an Ashes series , then I would want that captain hung-drawn and quartered. I also don't get this 'giving the bowlers a rest' bit - especially when Pakistan didn't even get to 200 , we only bowled 60odd overs, and Jimmy,Broad etc only bowled just over 10 overs each in first innings. If it had been us bowling first instead of batting then its quite a possibility that we could have been bowling for circa 120 overs anyway.
Apparently , Joe just switch hit the bowler for 4 - be only the second player ever (that I can recall) to have ever done that in a Test match - in actual fact, did KP ever do it in a Test ?
Apparently , Joe just switch hit the bowler for 4 - be only the second player ever (that I can recall) to have ever done that in a Test match - in actual fact, did KP ever do it in a Test ?
Root did it quite a bit, in the 1st innings as well. I reckon KP did, but couldn't be 100% sure.
Apparently , Joe just switch hit the bowler for 4 - be only the second player ever (that I can recall) to have ever done that in a Test match - in actual fact, did KP ever do it in a Test ?
Root did it quite a bit, in the 1st innings as well. I reckon KP did, but couldn't be 100% sure.
I saw him do several reverse sweeps in first innings, but don't recall a switch hit (where he changes hand position and bats like a left-hander)? What a talent he is.
Apparently , Joe just switch hit the bowler for 4 - be only the second player ever (that I can recall) to have ever done that in a Test match - in actual fact, did KP ever do it in a Test ?
Root did it quite a bit, in the 1st innings as well. I reckon KP did, but couldn't be 100% sure.
I saw him do several reverse sweeps in first innings, but don't recall a switch hit (where he changes hand position and bats like a left-hander)? What a talent he is.
Always rely on Jimmy - what will we do when he decides to retire.
Actually, after seeing Sam Curran bowl recently, reckon we may well have a ready made (left arm) replacement (who is a better batter too). This reminds me of my comment the other day where we could have a bowling attack in a couple of years of Curran,Stokes,Woakes,Ali and Broad - I wonder who would bat 11? (I bet DickPlumb will say Ballance)
Comments
"Cook' decision has annoyed Piers Morgan immensely, so that probably means it was the right choice. "
To me, there are sound reasons for not enforcing the follow-on. 1. Giving the recently injured Jimmy Anderson more chance to recover between innings. 2. Giving the recently injured Ben Stokes more chance to recover between innings. 3. Avoiding batting fourth in the match. 4. Ensuring we bowl when the pitch is in the best condition for bowling. 5. Using match conditions to ensure batsmen are in the best possible form for the remaining matches. 6. Giving out-of-form batsmen (Hales, Vince, Ballance) another chance to cement their places. 7 And doing all this while still giving England two new balls (if needed) to take ten wickets.
Would you really sack him for this decision?
Sometimes you have to accept that the bigger picture (i.e the return of 2 of our bowlers from injury). There is no point in burning them out and risking further injury if we can safely give them a days rest.
There are a chance of a few showers over the two days, but I wouldn't take a chance & would definitely not bat after lunch today.
I also don't get this 'giving the bowlers a rest' bit - especially when Pakistan didn't even get to 200 , we only bowled 60odd overs, and Jimmy,Broad etc only bowled just over 10 overs each in first innings. If it had been us bowling first instead of batting then its quite a possibility that we could have been bowling for circa 120 overs anyway.
Pakistan need 565 to win and if they do that I'll get a tattoo of Alastair Cook on my arse.
Cooooook fantastic!
Pressmen and former players sniping on the fringes -booooooore off
What a talent he is.
7-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_hit
25-2
This reminds me of my comment the other day where we could have a bowling attack in a couple of years of Curran,Stokes,Woakes,Ali and Broad - I wonder who would bat 11? (I bet DickPlumb will say Ballance)