England's batting in this match has made Zak Crawley look like Alastair Cook.
It is rather reminiscent of us in the Ashes at times. If we do that again against the Aussies or India then we will be on the wrong end of those series.
Another brain dead shit. Last ball before tea. Smith had wrestled the match back to 50/50 and then slaps one to mid wicket.
How about just letting it go or patting it back to the bowler.
202 ahead. 2 wickets left. Might leave them 220 to chase, but wouldn't bet against all out in the first over back. Hull's batting record is that of a rabbit.
Another brain dead shit. Last ball before tea. Smith had wrestled the match back to 50/50 and then slaps one to mid wicket.
How about just letting it go or patting it back to the bowler.
202 ahead. 2 wickets left. Might leave them 220 to chase, but wouldn't bet against all out in the first over back. Hull's batting record is that of a rabbit.
Sri Lanka needing 219 are 47-1. Bloody annoying. Whatever the result ends up I doubt there will be much more than a session / session and a half tomorrow and I have tickets
England played like it was a 20/20 match and are now rueing that decision. Having got Sri Lanka all out this morning & having a 62 run lead we really should have gone on to get at least 250-300 in our 2nd innings.
Nothing worse than throwing a Test match away when you are on top. And its not as if time was a factor.
Sri Lanka needing 219 are 47-1. Bloody annoying. Whatever the result ends up I doubt there will be much more than a session / session and a half tomorrow and I have tickets
Same here. 50% refund 15.1 to 30 overs. 100% refund up to 15 overs.
Last summer, we had Moeen, Stokes, Bairstow, Anderson, Wood and Broad in the side. Of those, only Stokes and Wood should be going forward but that's 665 worth of Tests missing from our current side. That sort of experience really isn't easy to replace, especially not in one go and it's going have to be a super fast learning curve for many of our replacements.
Sri Lanka needing 219 are 47-1. Bloody annoying. Whatever the result ends up I doubt there will be much more than a session / session and a half tomorrow and I have tickets
I'd only ever buy tickets up to day 3 (well in advance) and tbh only ever buy for days 1 & 2.
If Jacks is Surrey's number one spinner then they don't really have a frontline spinner at all because he's taken 7 wickets this season and has, at the age of 25 (some 9 years older than Farhan Ahmed), just 44 wickets from 54 matches to his name. Bashir has 47 wickets and he's five years younger at 20 and has only played 18 matches. But I agree that, as he can't bat, Surrey probably isn't the place for Bashir and it was probably the best thing that could have happened to him when Surrey dropped him. He would probably have ended up like Moriarty or Virdi and going nowhere fast. Presumably, Bashir was let go not just because of Jacks, Moriarty and Virdi but because they also had in the same age group as Bashir, Tommy Ealham, who is still at Surrey but can't get near the red ball side.
7 wickets in two games to be fair to the guy.
With all 7 wickets in one game on a bunsen burner. If that one match were the criteria for success than 16 year old Farhan would be selected for England ahead of him. The telling stats are 44 wickets from 54 matches (37 wickets in his previous 53 games) at 42.61 at the age of almost 26. He's not a frontline red ball spinner on two fronts - one because he rarely plays red ball and two because when he does play, he simply does not regularly take wickets.
I'm not arguing that he is a frontline spinner nor am I arguing that he is international quality or even first class quality as a spinner. But 3 posts in a row you at best twisted facts to try and make your point, calling Cam Steel surreys one spinner, discounting Jacks wickets when comparing to the bowling of 2 opposition spinners and then presenting Jacks wickets in 2 matches as figures for the season. Its misleading when it doesn't need to be. Your point isn't wrong so no need to misrepresent to make it.
I called Steel Surrey's number one spinner in the first post only because that's what I thought he was. I was prepared to accept your argument that he isn't because you pointed out that he doesn't play when Jacks does though that appears to have only happened once this season and statistically, that really is a moot point - Steel has 23 wickets at 27.65 and Jacks has 7 wickets at 26.85 this season and in their careers Steel has 60 wickets at 32.21 and Jacks has 44 wickets at 42.61. All 7 of Jacks' wickets were taken on a track where the ball was turning square. Joe Root could have done that.
You also say that I'm "presenting Jacks wickets in 2 matches as figures for the season" but that is all I have for this season and is a small representation which is why I looked at his career, one where he is averaging less than one wicket a match. That is awful for someone who is meant to be a county number one spinner. In fact, Jacks has less wickets in the last four seasons (37 in total) than Dawson has taken this year. Which is why I concluded that Surrey do not have a number one spinner in the true sense. They play a batsman that can bowl spin which is why they pick the likes of Jacks and Steel and often, even when Jacks isn't available, don't bother with playing a spinner at all.
So we are both agreed. Surrey have stifled the careers of both Moriarty and Virid and had Bashir not been shown the door, he would be no way near the first team simply because, as you confirmed, Surrey wouldn't have played him due to his lack of ability with the bat. Which is why I concluded that as Bashir needs to leave Somerset (who already have a proper spinner) there would be absolutely no point him going back to them. In fact, Tommy Ealham should go back to Kent because he would get a game there and probably never will at Surrey unless he starts to average 50 plus with the bat in their 2s.
And when Surrey need a spinner to bowl on a bunsen burner at Taunton, they look no further than Shakib Al Hasan. Just for that one game mind.
I see us losing this test which will be very disappointing.
We know the bowlers in this match are inexperienced at test level so even more reason to bat properly and set a meaningful target on the road that is The Oval.
I see us losing this test which will be very disappointing.
We know the bowlers in this match are inexperienced at test level so even more reason to bat properly and set a meaningful target on the road that is The Oval.
Should've got 400 easily in that first innings. But we inexplicably batted like we had a 150 run first innings lead anyway. Has been a very frustrating watch post day 1.
The last day of the Test summer, and weather wise it feels it too. Still got the Australia white ball series to come, the 2 evening T20 matches this week will be freezing!
Comments
Feels like anyone we have nowadays that bowls genuine 90mph+ spends half their career with various injuries from the excertions of fast bowling.
In such overcast conditions you'd have expected most of the wickets to have been nicks to the keeper and slips.
I take it the players do know we have another 2 days after today.
100% agree. I'm all for bazball but perhaps when you are only leading by 100 its not the time to start teeing off without being set.
I know Winviz doesn't agree but anything less than a 200 run lead I can see this Test being lost quite easily.
Forget Winviz. The true chances of winning are reflected by the current odds available - England 45% & Sri Lanka 55%
How about just letting it go or patting it back to the bowler.
202 ahead. 2 wickets left. Might leave them 220 to chase, but wouldn't bet against all out in the first over back. Hull's batting record is that of a rabbit.
Nothing worse than throwing a Test match away when you are on top. And its not as if time was a factor.
No use going into an Ashes series without any prior experience of adversity at this level.
We know the bowlers in this match are inexperienced at test level so even more reason to bat properly and set a meaningful target on the road that is The Oval.