Playing times for today have changed due to yesterdays lost time (ha!) and Friday prayers. Play now due to end today at 12.35pm GMT.
I believe yesterday that play finished around 11.40 am GMT.......so having a playing time scheduled for an hour AFTER the umpires stopped play yesterday seems a little daft to me.
But then I've not spent thousands travelling to Pakistan, on match tickets and accommodation.
Yes it was flippant to suggest that Bairstow won't get straight back in but, if Brook scored big runs in this series, are England and someone like McCullum in particular going to readily dump a 23 year old who has had to bide his time and is the future in all forms available to him (with the implications of what is close to happening in world cricket and fear that England might lose him to that) or bring back the 33 year old in a blink of the eyelid?
They'll both play. Either Bairstow or Pope will keep. Foakes is simply more expendable.
This is not a criticism in any shape but Pope is not a Test wicket keeper. Keepers are not just defined by the great stumpings or catches they take but by the regimental ones they miss. And that is about concentration and when you don't do the job on a regular basis you simply do not build up the mental or physical strength that is needed to do it - you shouldn't be reacting to a ball that gets the slightest of knicks but expecting to take it.
Missing chances on a deck that is doing everything isn't as big an issue as doing so on a road because those chances don't come along like buses.
Yes it was flippant to suggest that Bairstow won't get straight back in but, if Brook scored big runs in this series, are England and someone like McCullum in particular going to readily dump a 23 year old who has had to bide his time and is the future in all forms available to him (with the implications of what is close to happening in world cricket and fear that England might lose him to that) or bring back the 33 year old in a blink of the eyelid?
They'll both play. Either Bairstow or Pope will keep. Foakes is simply more expendable.
OR IS HE
Bairstow is a far better keeper than Pope but Foakes would have to suffer a loss of form for that to happen. The 23 year old Brook, who might be taken away from England for the long term if they don't play him, had to carry the drinks for a long time before he got his chance and the 33 year old Bairstow, who is a long way down the IPL road anyway, might have to make the decision as to whether he is prepared to bide his time before he gets another opportunity for England or secure his retirement with a few highly remunerated years as the likes of ABV and Faf du Plessis have done.
I'm not writing Bairstow off at all as he proved last summer he is, when in form, one of the most destructive of batsmen around. The issue is more what is best for England in the long term and what is best for Bairstow in the short term. Which is why I suggested that his injury could not have come at a worst time - missing out on a WC winners medal and scoring a stack of Test runs on batter friendly decks.
This is not a criticism in any shape but Pope is not a Test wicket keeper. Keepers are not just defined by the great stumpings or catches they take but by the regimental ones they miss. And that is about concentration and when you don't do the job on a regular basis you simply do not build up the mental or physical strength that is needed to do it - you shouldn't be reacting to a ball that gets the slightest of knicks but expecting to take it.
Missing chances on a deck that is doing everything isn't as big an issue as doing so on a road because those chances don't come along like buses.
Which is why I was baffled yesterday why England took Billings to play in that pointless ODI series in Australia, but didn't take him to Pakistan. Keeping to spinners under a hot sun is really hard and tiring, it's not like keeping to seamers in June in England.
Not calling up Parkinson is baffling also. A perfect chance to test him out.
This is not a criticism in any shape but Pope is not a Test wicket keeper. Keepers are not just defined by the great stumpings or catches they take but by the regimental ones they miss. And that is about concentration and when you don't do the job on a regular basis you simply do not build up the mental or physical strength that is needed to do it - you shouldn't be reacting to a ball that gets the slightest of knicks but expecting to take it.
Missing chances on a deck that is doing everything isn't as big an issue as doing so on a road because those chances don't come along like buses.
Which is why I was baffled yesterday why England took Billings to play in that pointless ODI series in Australia, but didn't take him to Pakistan. Keeping to spinners under a hot sun is really hard and tiring, it's not like keeping to seamers in June in England.
Not calling up Parkinson is baffling also. A perfect chance to test him out.
Some of the decisions being made appear to be political ones.
The omission of Billings was a strange one but, perhaps, it was one where they said to him that he would play in the ODIs against Australia but carry the drinks (yet again) in Pakistan. Parkinson not being picked, perhaps, not so much a surprise if they wanted to keep Livingstone in the overall England set up. As McCullum said, Stokes had to "coerce" him to play Test cricket and the fact that he hasn't been interested in playing a red ball game for over a year suggests that doing so isn't at the top of his list of priorities. So England are trying to make it one. Parkinson will still be around next summer because the IPL won't come calling for him. But they have for Livingstone and they might well wish to make playing for that franchise around the world more financially beneficial than doing so for England.
Jacks, Ahmed, Duckett and Brook are all being afforded this opportunity too for the same reason I suspect.
I look forward to watching the Masters from Augusta next year & for play to end with McIlroy walking up the 17th 1 behind Woods with the PGA saying to him..." sorry mate, it's too dark to play. Woods wins".
Whilst I applauded the ICC & ICB for proposing starting the game a day later due to illness I dont applaud them for setting the playing conditions that means players walk off 15 overs short of the MINIMUM that should be played in a day. I mean, what's the point of having floodlights. And I hope people who do the record books put today's play as the highest scoring EVER......because I bet the 509 that Sri Lanka made wasn't done in 75 overs !
PS. I know the match probably started before 11am today but the ICC must start looking at daylight hours on the sub continent & change the playing conditions to suit. Many times in India & Pakistan play finishes even before the scheduled time because of light. We might get "bad light stops play" in England but thats usually because of the weather, not because of the sun setting. Maybe we should try starting test matches in England at 1pm & try getting in 90 overs during September.
Got to feel sorry for all the fans who have been so desperately short-changed by the day's play.
That's not the point. The point is a Test match is over 5 days & every day you are supposed to bowl 90 overs (minus any overs lost due to change of innings). Today we lost 15 overs. Not just the odd one or two but 15. That is supposed to be an hours play. There were not (I dont think) and major disruptions (no head injuries that required the physio on) and only 4 wickets fell, so again not a lot of time lost due to players coming out. There were a couple of DRS reviews, but again not that many and not as many as some recent Test matches.
The venue has floodlights, so no reason why they couldn't keep playing on until it actually got dangerous. About the only time I have seen the playing conditions adhered to was Nassar's famous win IN PAKISTAN when the umpires stood firm and said the earlier timewasting would not work & Pakistan had to bowl the allotted overs. Today that would have been called off with England needing 15 to win.
181-0 at close tells us all we need to know. We have a far more experienced bowling attack that hasn't managed to get anything out of this wicket. Their weaker bowling unit and our "Bazball" attitude when batting differentiates the rate at which the runs have been scored at.
Whilst I applauded the ICC & ICB for proposing starting the game a day later due to illness I dont applaud them for setting the playing conditions that means players walk off 15 overs short of the MINIMUM that should be played in a day. I mean, what's the point of having floodlights. And I hope people who do the record books put today's play as the highest scoring EVER......because I bet the 509 that Sri Lanka made wasn't done in 75 overs !
PS. I know the match probably started before 11am today but the ICC must start looking at daylight hours on the sub continent & change the playing conditions to suit. Many times in India & Pakistan play finishes even before the scheduled time because of light. We might get "bad light stops play" in England but thats usually because of the weather, not because of the sun setting. Maybe we should try starting test matches in England at 1pm & try getting in 90 overs during September.
Got to feel sorry for all the fans who have been so desperately short-changed by the day's play.
That's not the point. The point is a Test match is over 5 days & every day you are supposed to bowl 90 overs (minus any overs lost due to change of innings). Today we lost 15 overs. Not just the odd one or two but 15. That is supposed to be an hours play. There were not (I dont think) and major disruptions (no head injuries that required the physio on) and only 4 wickets fell, so again not a lot of time lost due to players coming out. There were a couple of DRS reviews, but again not that many and not as many as some recent Test matches.
The venue has floodlights, so no reason why they couldn't keep playing on until it actually got dangerous. About the only time I have seen the playing conditions adhered to was Nassar's famous win IN PAKISTAN when the umpires stood firm and said the earlier timewasting would not work & Pakistan had to bowl the allotted overs. Today that would have been called off with England needing 15 to win.
How long is the ball actually "in play"?
Maybe we need some sort of "stop clock"? ;-)
In a scheduled Test match - 90 overs of 6 legitimate balls.
It is the first time in the history of Test cricket that there have been two opening stands of 200 in the match. Both Shafique and Imam-Ul-Haq have reached their tons and this is the first time that both sets of openers have reached a hundred in a Test too.
Wicket has got even slower and lower than it was in the first two days!
I've seen everything now. Robinson is coming on to bowl. Root removes Leach's cap and uses the sweat from Leach's head to shine the ball. Leach then promptly walks off the pitch having served his purpose!
To give an idea of how slow and low this wicket now is, Pope is standing up to Robinson.
Comments
576-7
I believe yesterday that play finished around 11.40 am GMT.......so having a playing time scheduled for an hour AFTER the umpires stopped play yesterday seems a little daft to me.
But then I've not spent thousands travelling to Pakistan, on match tickets and accommodation.
Missing chances on a deck that is doing everything isn't as big an issue as doing so on a road because those chances don't come along like buses.
Bairstow is a far better keeper than Pope but Foakes would have to suffer a loss of form for that to happen. The 23 year old Brook, who might be taken away from England for the long term if they don't play him, had to carry the drinks for a long time before he got his chance and the 33 year old Bairstow, who is a long way down the IPL road anyway, might have to make the decision as to whether he is prepared to bide his time before he gets another opportunity for England or secure his retirement with a few highly remunerated years as the likes of ABV and Faf du Plessis have done.
I'm not writing Bairstow off at all as he proved last summer he is, when in form, one of the most destructive of batsmen around. The issue is more what is best for England in the long term and what is best for Bairstow in the short term. Which is why I suggested that his injury could not have come at a worst time - missing out on a WC winners medal and scoring a stack of Test runs on batter friendly decks.
Not calling up Parkinson is baffling also. A perfect chance to test him out.
The omission of Billings was a strange one but, perhaps, it was one where they said to him that he would play in the ODIs against Australia but carry the drinks (yet again) in Pakistan. Parkinson not being picked, perhaps, not so much a surprise if they wanted to keep Livingstone in the overall England set up. As McCullum said, Stokes had to "coerce" him to play Test cricket and the fact that he hasn't been interested in playing a red ball game for over a year suggests that doing so isn't at the top of his list of priorities. So England are trying to make it one. Parkinson will still be around next summer because the IPL won't come calling for him. But they have for Livingstone and they might well wish to make playing for that franchise around the world more financially beneficial than doing so for England.
Jacks, Ahmed, Duckett and Brook are all being afforded this opportunity too for the same reason I suspect.
75 overs yesterday
78 today if you include 2 lost for change of innings.
Added up over the 5 days that is almost a whole day lost. But no one is seemingly bothered.
Either start earlier or play elsewhere.
Maybe we need some sort of "stop clock"?
;-)
But wickets like this makes it hard to defend.
It is the first time in the history of Test cricket that there have been two opening stands of 200 in the match. Both Shafique and Imam-Ul-Haq have reached their tons and this is the first time that both sets of openers have reached a hundred in a Test too.
Wicket has got even slower and lower than it was in the first two days!
225-1
I would like to say that a collapse is imminent!
245-2
To give an idea of how slow and low this wicket now is, Pope is standing up to Robinson.
290-3