Pakistan v England, 1st Test, Abu Dhabi, 13-17 October, 2015

Brass Monkey wrote:Hmmm. 159/6. Not sure it was a good decision to keep batting this morning. I doubt we could chase down 120

When we declared wouldn't have made much difference really, we'd either need the runs from this morning or later, but we needed to score quicker runs towards the end of our innings. If England were playing brave new attacking cricket then we might have been in with a small chance.

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Hmmm. 159/6. Not sure it was a good decision to keep batting this morning. I doubt we could chase down 120

When we declared wouldn't have made much difference really, we'd either need the runs from this morning or later, but we needed to score quicker runs towards the end of our innings. If England were playing brave new attacking cricket then we might have been in with a small chance.

Better batsmen chasing the runs 2nd time round - we were scoring at 3's this morning. No use to man nor beast. 

Fock! Awesome catch by Jimmy

Jimmy A has always been an excellent fielder - doesn't miss many chances. It's an aspect of his game that is underrated IMO. I reckon that's why he is such an arsey bugger when the slips spill so many regulation catches off him.

We could have been in a winning position now if Belf had held even one of the two sitters he shelled in the Pak first innings.

9 down. 98 lead. 20 overs to go. Doubtful we'll chase whatever is posted

99 to win. 5fer for Rashid... Well done to him

Brass Monkey wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Hmmm. 159/6. Not sure it was a good decision to keep batting this morning. I doubt we could chase down 120

When we declared wouldn't have made much difference really, we'd either need the runs from this morning or later, but we needed to score quicker runs towards the end of our innings. If England were playing brave new attacking cricket then we might have been in with a small chance.

Better batsmen chasing the runs 2nd time round - we were scoring at 3's this morning. No use to man nor beast. 

Fock! Awesome catch by Jimmy

Wasn't really disagreeing with you, just saying the run rate was the issue, if we had been smashing it at 6 an over this morning it wouldn't have mattered, but yes, considering the rate we were scoring an earlier declaration would have been better, but then we probably wouldn't have got the 10 wickets if we'd declared earlier.

We aren't scoring quick enough, probably need more like 10 runs an over due to the light. Judging from what happened at the Oval in 2013 the umpires don't care about test cricket enough to do everything they can do get a result.

I hope Stokes is in next.

Think Stokes is our best chance to get the runs if he stays at the crease, vilks. If he goes, I think we'll shut up shop.

I'm not watching the game - what's the pitch like? Can we possibly fall in a heap in the time remaining ?

Growler wrote:Think Stokes is our best chance to get the runs if he stays at the crease, vilks. If he goes, I think we'll shut up shop.

I'm not watching the game - what's the pitch like? Can we possibly fall in a heap in the time remaining ?

No chance of losing, light is the only issue. We won't get anywhere near 13 overs.

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Hmmm. 159/6. Not sure it was a good decision to keep batting this morning. I doubt we could chase down 120

When we declared wouldn't have made much difference really, we'd either need the runs from this morning or later, but we needed to score quicker runs towards the end of our innings. If England were playing brave new attacking cricket then we might have been in with a small chance.

Better batsmen chasing the runs 2nd time round - we were scoring at 3's this morning. No use to man nor beast. 

Fock! Awesome catch by Jimmy

Wasn't really disagreeing with you, just saying the run rate was the issue, if we had been smashing it at 6 an over this morning it wouldn't have mattered, but yes, considering the rate we were scoring an earlier declaration would have been better, but then we probably wouldn't have got the 10 wickets if we'd declared earlier.

We aren't scoring quick enough, probably need more like 10 runs an over due to the light. Judging from what happened at the Oval in 2013 the umpires don't care about test cricket enough to do everything they can do get a result.

I hope Stokes is in next.

Yeah, it looks like we've shot ourselves in the foot a bit - still, it was outstanding bowling - we wouldn't be talking about it if Rashid and Ali hadn't gotten us into this position. Got to take it as a real positive, considering Shah will be back in the next game

Stokes done. I think we'll keep going until 5 are down

Suddenly the game came alive!

Bairstow is a disgraceful human.

Really annoying face.

10 minutes left I reckon. Draw.

I know it's ancient history now, but I know one person who would have given us a serious chance in this situation...

If he does that every ball we might have a chance but that's the only chance we've got at this point.

England closing in here.

Red wrote:England closing in here.

There's not enough time. It's the oval 2013 again, we will fall about 20 runs shorts.

Decided to get one of my mates to watch the end of this in an attempt to show him why cricket is good. He is pissing himself that they are going off for light despite having floodlights.

"Woo for cricket" he just texted me.

Can't disagree with him, it's no surprise that text cricket is dying when this sort of shit happens.

"Sick game. Really glad I watched that. I learnt that this game was designed by old spastics"

Yay cricket.

Farcical end. The light rule needs reviewing

Brilliant effort by England - that's what I like to see - really gave it a good go. May be our best chance at a victory on this tour, unfortunately

tricycle wrote:Farcical end. The light rule needs reviewing

I do agree that it needs reviewing - but it didn't look great out there

Brass Monkey wrote:

tricycle wrote:Farcical end. The light rule needs reviewing

I do agree that it needs reviewing - but it didn't look great out there

Yes, it wasn't great, but the current rule does allow for the fielding side to waste time.

Great effort by England. Shame it was a draw.

tricycle wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

tricycle wrote:Farcical end. The light rule needs reviewing

I do agree that it needs reviewing - but it didn't look great out there

Yes, it wasn't great, but the current rule does allow for the fielding side to waste time.

Yeah definitely - 11 overs per hour is a shocker, especially given the fact that it was mainly spin being bowled