Archer might be 'fit' .. but when did he last bowl 20+ overs a day in 3 or 4 spells for 2 or 3 days on the trot ? .. the only way to get him 'match fit' is to select him and then bowl and bowl him
How is he going to unless he gets the chance to do so. We have enough bowlers to let him have short spells.
Archer might be 'fit' .. but when did he last bowl 20+ overs a day in 3 or 4 spells for 2 or 3 days on the trot ? .. the only way to get him 'match fit' is to select him and then bowl and bowl him
How is he going to unless he gets the chance to do so. We have enough bowlers to let him have short spells.
lol .. isn't that the gist of what I originally typed .. short spells of 5/6 overs all add up ?
Disappointing morning but I love these ebb and flow test matches. If the rest of the series measures up to Edgbaston I'm not going to be doing much gardening this summer 😀
Archer might be 'fit' .. but when did he last bowl 20+ overs a day in 3 or 4 spells for 2 or 3 days on the trot ? .. the only way to get him 'match fit' is to select him and then bowl and bowl him
How is he going to unless he gets the chance to do so. We have enough bowlers to let him have short spells.
lol .. isn't that the gist of what I originally typed .. short spells of 5/6 overs all add up ?
Yes but when you have 5+ bowlers you can take a risk on one IMO. Just did so with Anderson, it didn’t work out but we wasn’t massively affected either.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such condescending and smug fashion.
Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such condescending and smug fashion.
Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such condescending and smug fashion.
Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.
Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.
It's not limited to cricket threads, once you forget what he is actually saying, the effort he goes to to actual spin what your saying is actually quite impressive. Like I said before he must put in a full working week trying to be a WUM. It's either admirable or sad, I am not sure which.
Anyway back to the cricket. I would like to think I wouldn't have got myself in this mess in the first place, but having picked this team I would pick the same one for Lords, all other things being equal.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10 minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?
If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise. But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10 minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?
If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise. But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood.
I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion.
I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
It has been a recurring theme on cricket threads that you post in such condescending and smug fashion.
Have been thinking this for a while, but it really is getting tiresome.
Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.
Glad it's not just me that thinks that. Trolling level has hit new heights in the last few months. I try my best not to read the condescending trolling anymore.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10 minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?
If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise. But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood.
I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion.
I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed.
If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.
For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler. Five is too high for an all-rounder.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10 minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?
If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise. But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood.
I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion.
I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed.
If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.
For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler. Five is too high for an all-rounder.
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10 minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?
If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise. But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood.
I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion.
I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed.
If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.
For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler. Five is too high for an all-rounder.
Anderson was bowling flat out in practice earlier today. I'm hoping he'll bowl as normal or close to normal.
I said yesterday we needed a 100 lead and I'll stick with that. We're nearly there. So much of their batting can depend on Smith & Warner to a lesser extent.
Loved that when Steve Smith came on to bowl, the crowd were singing He's got the sandpaper in he's hands, to the tune of He's got the whole world in he's hands
We still have a second innings but my team for second test would be: Burns, Denly, Root, Roy, Stokes, Buttler, Foakes, Woakes, Archer, Broad, Anderson.
Tough one if Anderson can’t play, would probably go Curran.
You'd go in to a test with two unfit strike bowlers, no spinner, move Denly to open when he failed at four, change the plan for Roy, drop the wicket keeper who is outplaying his opposite number, move Stokes when he's just made a fifty at six, go in with a weakened batting line up and drop the third-leading current England wicket taker at Lord's? And you have decided all that before we are half-way through the first match?
Interesting. Bold. And some other adjectives, too..!
Who are the unfit strike bowlers? Quite clearly eluded to the fitness of Anderson being checked. I think Archer will be fit.
Roy failed at opening aswell, so what damage would be done swapping them? Roy is talented and although I don’t think either will ever pull up any trees opening, Denly makes more sense in my opinion with Roy more likely to score runs down the order.
Buttler stayed in for about the time I had a shit. Stokes scored a 50 at 6 but do you not think he could do that same job he did yesterday at 5 coming in 10 minutes earlier.
Third leading wicket taker? Means nothing when your playing so poorly. Gooch had a couple of decent innings there maybe we should bring him in?
Out of interest, what are your other adjectives?
If my criticism of your selection was too strong for you, then I apologise. But, if this is a forum in which opinions can be shared and challenged, I think its only fair that I do so.
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
I haven’t once said you aren’t entitled to your opinion, nor did I say you werent welcome to challenge mine. Hence why I responded to some of your questions. I just did so without being rude or patronising so that’s why you might not have understood.
I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion.
I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed.
If you point out something rude I've posted, I will make sure I don't repeat it.
For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler. Five is too high for an all-rounder.
Tell that to Jacques Kallis.
And Botham in his pomp.
Your points that the two best all-rounders that ever lived could bat in the top five at the peak of their abilities is a good one. I don't think Stokes is in that category.
Comments
The unfit strike bowlers are Anderson (only able to bowl four overs so far) and Archer (still having to prove his fitness through a number of white-ball games). So I would suggest it's unwise to pick them both, until they've both proved their fitness. You didn't "allude" to the fitness of both of them in that post - had you done so, I would have recognised that.
The "damage" of swapping players within the top order is only that players prepare for the position in which they're picked. Stability brings consistency and that encourages confidence. If the top order batting line-up can be changed less than half-way through the first match of the series, then no-one has that stability, consistency or confidence.
Buttler failed - but I would strongly discourage anyone being dropped on the strength of one failure. So, I am glad to see that you haven't. Although I would also suggest that, on the strength of one failure, he shouldn't be moved in the order.
The reference to the third leading wicket taker was with regard to current players. Gooch isn't a current player. You've picked Woakes for Lord's which is absolutely right. But you've only picked two of the three current players who have taken more wickets than him (for England) at Lord's. I think that's a mistake.
Let me ask you a question - you've posted what you think the team should be for the next Test, but is it ok (in your opinion) for others to disagree?
I wouldn’t drop Buttler, but I think Stokes is more suited to 5 with Buttler at 6. I have always thought that and the innings so far has only strengthened that opinion.
I agree about consistency but no point in trying to create that if the decisions were wrong in the first place. I just feel Denly opening and Roy at 4 scores more runs then if they are reversed.
Now let's try and get a 1st innings lead of 100.
Trolling level has hit new heights in the last few months.
I try my best not to read the condescending trolling anymore.
For what it's worth, I totally disagree with the idea or, in fact, point, of swapping Stokes and Buttler. Five is too high for an all-rounder.
Looking forward to watching us bowl.
Chasing anything over 200 makes Australia favourites for me although Lyon would need to bowl a lot better to have an impact.
I'm hoping he'll bowl as normal or close to normal.
I said yesterday we needed a 100 lead and I'll stick with that. We're nearly there.
So much of their batting can depend on Smith & Warner to a lesser extent.