*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[GIMH]

Quality Test, this

The cricket might not have been of the highest rank throughout the series but other than Lord's it's been gripping stuff really.

If we can bat through the first session in the morning then we'll win.

 

[Cooky Monster]

....

 

[GIMH]

He's a fantastic cricketer but he still gives a **** interview tbf

 

[Cooky Monster]

Last over. If England survive this then it has been a fine day.

It has been, about time to.

100 more at least tommorow and England are heavy favorites.

 

[Riggins]

i'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't matter at all what you score. it's all whether you can dismiss clarke. i guess a higher chase will mean more balls to get him with, i just hope we manage to protect him for the first 25 overs.

without the 40 odd overs of reverse swing that we've seen in the last few tests on off here, the new ball has proved extremely crucial. hopefully rogers manages to see it off again when we get another hit.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

It was more he "looked" a Test Batsman, which is more then he's done with even higher scores in this series. I would still send him back to his county, but I think the selectors will stick. Mind you if we lose that might be different.

If we lose he is gone for certain. Root might be moved down the order as well.

 

[Riggins]

hey poms (or anywhere it's not 3am)

talk to me!!

 

[Cooky Monster]

luckily any pro-cook sentiment dying with it

 

[Riggins]

If we lose he is gone for certain. Root might be moved down the order as well.

agree. he's got to go. and i think joe would be better served at 6 at least for the next 12-18 months, even if y'all see him as a long term opener.

 

[L Trumper]

i'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't matter at all what you score. it's all whether you can dismiss clarke. i guess a higher chase will mean more balls to get him with, i just hope we manage to protect him for the first 25 overs.

without the 40 odd overs of reverse swing that we've seen in the last few tests on off here, the new ball has proved extremely crucial. hopefully rogers manages to see it off again when we get another hit.

What about Warner? surely he is due

 

[Riggins]

What about Warner? surely he is due

i guess all of them are due, in the fact that they haven't scored any runs (for) ever. my general thinking on our score is that it will be double what clarke scores. if he makes 200 we might be able to chase 400, i guess. etc.

 

[greg]

I wonder if Watson will be fit enough to run between the wickets? (not that this is necessarily a handicap for him!)

Anyway just an excuse to post my view on the silly ban on runners introduced which i haven't heard expressed anywhere else.

When the rule was introduced it was justified partly on the grounds that "you can't replace an injured bowler, so why can you 'replace' an injured batsman"? The answer of course is simple:

Running is akin to fielding, batting is akin to bowling. If a bowler is injured you can't replace them, but then neither can you replace an injured batsman. However you can replace an injured fielder, so logically you should be able to replace the running portion of a batsman's job. I would even go so far as to suggest that debates about batsmen being allowed runners for cramp (the other thing cited in favour of the ban) is misguided as long as the rules on fielding substitutes are so lax.

And anyway, runners are always entertaining for the crowd.

 

[Riggins]

yeah, batting with a runner is seriously hard work.

obviously it was introduced to stop people getting runners who weren't really injured, but i think there are better ways to stamp that out than just banning them altogether.

 

[Furball]

Just seen the Harris lbw for the first time.

Words fail me.

 

[Furball]

I wonder if Watson will be fit enough to run between the wickets? (not that this is necessarily a handicap for him!)

Anyway just an excuse to post my view on the silly ban on runners introduced which i haven't heard expressed anywhere else.

When the rule was introduced it was justified partly on the grounds that "you can't replace an injured bowler, so why can you 'replace' an injured batsman"? The answer of course is simple:

Running is akin to fielding, batting is akin to bowling. If a bowler is injured you can't replace them, but then neither can you replace an injured batsman. However you can replace an injured fielder, so logically you should be able to replace the running portion of a batsman's job. I would even go so far as to suggest that debates about batsmen being allowed runners for cramp (the other thing cited in favour of the ban) is misguided as long as the rules on fielding substitutes are so lax.

And anyway, runners are always entertaining for the crowd.

Rubbish.

Running has everything to do with batting. What is it that batsmen score? Runs. The clue's in the ****i g name.

If you can't run then hit boundaries. Getting someone else to do the running for you is a ****ing joke.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ding Dong's always been a joy to watch and is finally putting the numbers up that do justice to his talent.

Think I'm right in saying Sydney was his first ton vesus the crims too; like waiting for a bus, etc.

Meanwhile, slightly worried about Harris's workload. He's a game old ****, but with his knee he needs more careful husbandry than he's getting, IMHO.

 

[Riggins]

yeah i think i would have rested him this game.

 

[Furball]

Ding Dong's always been a joy to watch and is finally putting the numbers up that do justice to his talent.

Think I'm right in saying Sydney was his first ton vesus the crims too; like waiting for a bus, etc.

Meanwhile, slightly worried about Harris's workload. He's a game old ****, but with his knee he needs more careful husbandry than he's getting, IMHO.

Us superheroes have no need for cartilage.

 

[BeeGee]

I've always hated runners and I'm glad they're gone.

Personally I kind of like the idea of substitute players (virtually every other team sport has them). Bloody hard to implement in test cricket though, so will probably never happen.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

I've always hated runners and I'm glad they're gone.

Personally I kind of like the idea of substitute players (virtually every other team sport has them). Bloody hard to implement in test cricket though, so will probably never happen.

If they were just for injuries it would be abused too much if a bowler was having a mare.