posted Dec 12, 2008

Cricketing_stargazer
Thats a bit hard for a news site to do though to be fair. They just have to make judgement on basis of what they perceive at time.

But your message is spot on for discussions like these.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 12, 2008

316 on a first day Chennai pitch is not praiseworthy at all. Sehwag scored 300 off 277 balls on a wicket playing not too different from how it was on d first day.
Having said that, England did bowl with discipline. KPs bowling changes worked wonders.
the pressure of having to chase seems to have played on India's mind as well. England have done well so far in chasing what they put on board.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 12, 2008

Vic Marks comment that due to shortage of time available on account of shift in venue, Indians were unable to stack the wicket in their favour is not understandable. What kind of wicket would favour only the Indians when both teams have a similar variety in attack in all dimensions? In fact England is in this good position because of this multidimensional attribute in their bowling, in contrast to what the Aussies had on offer.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 12, 2008

Arguably India's spinners are more accomplished though, and they have some part-timers. Plus, they believe they play spin better than other nations...

Its just a case of perhaps favouring India...more.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2008

Womble, the problem, for me, was the automatic assumption that England had done badly. I also saw people commenting on how dead the track was and that Strauss's century was okay, but on a very flat track (implication: he had it easy). As things have panned out, 316 has been a more than useful, possibly winning, score and Strauss and Cook's stand has been by far the largest in the match so far. There is a tendency to be too critical without seeing the context. If England had scored 316 and India had reached 250-2 then people would have had every right to ctiticise..

Anyway, my point is: a first innings score's value should never be judged until the other side has batted and finished its innings. Until then, step with great care! There is plenty of time to judge later.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2008

I agree with that, best to at least wait for both teams to bat before judging.

Strauss and Cook's first innings knock could indeed by very critical. As I speak, England are 3 down with Strauss still there. Nervy times.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2008

How long is it before the Ian Bell bubble bursts with the selectors? I'm sure I'm no stats expert, but I seem the see him failing in both innings on a regular basis and bearing in mind Collingwood is in at 5 and he's woefully short of form too, at what point do you say enough is enough and get them both out? Our middle order will be demolished by the Aussies in the summer at this rate and that's without a top rated bowling attack as of old.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2008

100% approval rating (limerick)

No pillow talk ever so moves
Me as much as the TMS crew’s-
As Frindle confirms
The minutest concerns
This listener completely approves!

Gareth Calway

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2008

Slow over rates are seemingly accepted by everyone as something that is inevitable. I think the only way to spped up over rates is to fine bowling teams by adding runs to the batting teams overnight score equal to the average run rate times by the number of overs missed. Everyteam could say there were injuries, sight screen delays etc, but if everyone knows what will happen at the beginning its up to the bowling team to do their job.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2008

Ian Botham got the replay to look at Ian Bell's dismissal and then corrected the earlier view of it being prodded off the bat. The ball bounced unexpectedly and reared up to take Ian Bell's glove. In the studio back at home Mark Butcher, Robert Croft were asked how could you play that ball and they shook their heads. You can't, was their verdict.
Oliver Brett in his report is sticking to the first view but Cricinfo have the ball hitting the glove. If a ball is unplayable - like the one Swann got - due to the pitch - then it's bad luck for Bell seeking runs but not his fault.
I think Oliver Brett is playing to the anti-Bell gallery. But he should check his facts.

add comment | complain about this comment