Re: West Indies v England, 4th Test, Bridgetown - Feb 26-Mar 2

by JGK Mon 02 Mar 2009, 01:46

I reckon they're a chance. They only need to roll the Poms probably half an hour after tea to have a good shot at it.

Would be a good result too - with us about to concede another WR chase, it would be good for us to lose an unwanted record (ie highest "losing" innings). I think we currently have it with 586.

by Allan D Mon 02 Mar 2009, 02:11

Yes, but England only missed the target by 35 at Adelaide in 2006. Oz made 586 in the opening innings of the Ashes series of 1894-5 at the SCG - Gregory 201 and Giffen 161. England were forced to follow-on but left Oz 177 to win in the 4th innings but they finished 11 short thanks to 6-67 by slow left-armer Bobby Peel who, in the custom of those days, opened the bowling. 1st victory by a side following-on - a feat not achieved again until Headingley '81. One of the few 19th century Test records still standing.

by OP Tipping Mon 02 Mar 2009, 02:36

Predictably, I am hoping for the miracle win by Windies.

by Henry Mon 02 Mar 2009, 02:50

RIP bowlers.

Sidebottom is clearly unfit. I never thought i'd say it, but they should give Amjad a chance in the next test.

by OP Tipping Mon 02 Mar 2009, 03:10

Bring Vaughan back as "specialist captain"...

by horace Mon 02 Mar 2009, 04:34

and Fletch as special advisory coach to Tom Moody

by The One Mon 02 Mar 2009, 05:13

Dello wrote:As Tom (or Rachel) says, if you have to have referrals for LBW, they should just be to establish if the ball pitched outside leg-stump, if the ball hit the batsman in line and to check if there's a discernible inside edge.

thats how it is. the third ump cannot make any other judgement

by DJ_Smerk Mon 02 Mar 2009, 05:16

Maybe Rashid will actually get a game this series. Either that or give him a go when the Windies return in May.

OR, do a Pietersen and throw him in at Cardiff on July 8th.

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2009, 08:15

Damn. Hard to believe that after scoring 600-5, England have to work to save the match. Shades of Adelaide....

by freddled gruntbuggly Mon 02 Mar 2009, 08:47

If it's all the same to everyone else, if there's to be a major batting collapse tonight, I'd rather it happened in Johannesberg.

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2009, 09:12

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:If it's all the same to everyone else, if there's to be a major batting collapse tonight, I'd rather it happened in Johannesberg.

I think Aus will win comfortably. I've no faith that Jackie can get SA over the line. Maybe if Smith was still there....

by freddled gruntbuggly Mon 02 Mar 2009, 09:17

I can assure you Rob, that even if by some hitherto totally unforeseen miracle, Australia stumbles over the line tonight, there will be nothing comfortable about it. Not for those of us stuck here following the game.

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2009, 10:12

Looking forward to the Ashes? It might be like '85 - both sides struggling to get 20 wickets.

by freddled gruntbuggly Mon 02 Mar 2009, 10:14

The 'winner' will be whichever team manages to have a slightly less exact resemblance to the Keystone Kops.

by JKLever Mon 02 Mar 2009, 10:20

What's this trying to compare us to 1985 malarkey?

England are currently in a bad trot losing to everyone (albeit narrowly mostly) to everyone bar NZ & BANG.

Aus have only had 2 recent series losses (in Ind & home to SA) have a better attack (despite all the BS I hear about us having a better attack - oh really?) Aus will be BIG favourites for the series this summer.

by taipan Mon 02 Mar 2009, 10:20

Mack Sennett presents "THE ASHES"

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:03

JKLever wrote:

Aus have only had 2 recent series losses (in Ind & home to SA) have a better attack (despite all the BS I hear about us having a better attack - oh really?) Aus will be BIG favourites for the series this summer.

SiBo and Jimmy will be much more effective in England. I think a lot depends on whether Aus can get their Gump healthy.

by PeterCS Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:08

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:The 'winner' will be whichever team manages to have a slightly less exact resemblance to the Keystone Kops.

We may not have Charlie Chaplin, but we have King Charles II with the hilarious grumpy expressions.

by JGK Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:09

JKLever wrote:What's this trying to compare us to 1985 malarkey?

England are currently in a bad trot losing to everyone (albeit narrowly mostly) to everyone bar NZ & BANG.

Aus have only had 2 recent series losses (in Ind & home to SA) have a better attack (despite all the BS I hear about us having a better attack - oh really?) Aus will be BIG favourites for the series this summer.

Yeah but we have Ponting.

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:11

Hmmm, a brainy bloke with no bowlers vs. a dumbarse with no bowlers.

by Paul Keating Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:14

Sorry, but I'm not up-to-date on this referral system, but can the third umpire adjudicate if the ball is a no-ball due to either the front foot law or mandatory fielders within the circle?

by PeterCS Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:15

Mitchell Johnson is a bowler and a half.

by PeterCS Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:15

Re: PK.

I thought it was only on appeals?

by Paul Keating Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:18

That's what I mean. PCS.

Say a batsman is bowled, but the batsman notices a the bowler was outside the return crease that was not picked up by the umpire.

by PeterCS Mon 02 Mar 2009, 11:23

Ah, right. ..... Okay, I'll have to leave this to others who are better informed. (Personally I would doubt it. I had supposed the focus of the review is all on the crucial moment of out/not out. Not on all the surrounding cricket.)

by Sponsored content