RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Key to this is scoring off Lyon- if he can be milked it gives Paine big problems as he can't just rotate the pace bowlers.

And they're doing it at 3 runs an over too which is spot on. I'm with Boycott on this, why hit the slow bowler out of the attack just so you get to face more pace bowling

well in a 4 man attack there is an obvious reason.....

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Key to this is scoring off Lyon- if he can be milked it gives Paine big problems as he can't just rotate the pace bowlers.

And they're doing it at 3 runs an over too which is spot on. I'm with Boycott on this, why hit the slow bowler out of the attack just so you get to face more pace bowling

Because during overs 60-80 the ball is soft and the quicks aren't as dangerous whilst tiring them out.

Pattinson is an injury waiting to happen. Get as many miles in him as possible.

bugger

Good grindage so far, not easy out there. Slow and turny.

Burns into the 80s, but it's a long way from being as good an innings as it sounds. He's edged streakily through the slips at least three times, incorrectly given not out to an LBW shout, loads of play and misses, inside edges somehow missing his stumps, and he didn't have a clue what was happening off Lyon's bowling early on.

Maybe he needs a run of luck to build confidence and unlock his potential. If so, he certainly won't get much luckier than he has today.

Puja

Puja wrote:Burns into the 80s, but it's a long way from being as good an innings as it sounds. He's edged streakily through the slips at least three times, incorrectly given not out to an LBW shout, loads of play and misses, inside edges somehow missing his stumps, and he didn't have a clue what was happening off Lyon's bowling early on.

Maybe he needs a run of luck to build confidence and unlock his potential. If so, he certainly won't get much luckier than he has today.

Puja

or, good for him, ballsy knock in challenging conditions, under a lot of pressure.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Key to this is scoring off Lyon- if he can be milked it gives Paine big problems as he can't just rotate the pace bowlers.

And they're doing it at 3 runs an over too which is spot on. I'm with Boycott on this, why hit the slow bowler out of the attack just so you get to face more pace bowling

well in a 4 man attack there is an obvious reason.....

How many times does it actually work Vs giving away some daft wickets? Unless you need to be scoring at 4+ then trundling along at 3 runs an over not taking extra risk is fine by me. Similar if a batsman is given the ball don't hit him out of the attack, it should be much easier to face Smith than Siddle so let them give Smith 7 overs if they're willing

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
And they're doing it at 3 runs an over too which is spot on. I'm with Boycott on this, why hit the slow bowler out of the attack just so you get to face more pace bowling

well in a 4 man attack there is an obvious reason.....

How many times does it actually work Vs giving away some daft wickets? Unless you need to be scoring at 4+ then trundling along at 3 runs an over not taking extra risk is fine by me. Similar if a batsman is given the ball don't hit him out of the attack, it should be much easier to face Smith than Siddle so let them give Smith 7 overs if they're willing

I'd think the risk for a quality batsman like Root is pretty minimal, and the reward pretty high if you want to get a big score; plus you can see that Paine was already uncomfortable with Lyon shipping over 3 an over. You saw how England suffered by having only 4 bowlers and Ali not able to tie an end down. I think the logic is quite compelling- if you have a champ like Warne, I'd agree that hitting him out of the attack is tricky (but then you'd probably rather face a seamer than him in his pomp).

Boycs was probably thinking about facing 4 West Indian quicks, plus an occasional spinner.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Burns into the 80s, but it's a long way from being as good an innings as it sounds. He's edged streakily through the slips at least three times, incorrectly given not out to an LBW shout, loads of play and misses, inside edges somehow missing his stumps, and he didn't have a clue what was happening off Lyon's bowling early on.

Maybe he needs a run of luck to build confidence and unlock his potential. If so, he certainly won't get much luckier than he has today.

Puja

or, good for him, ballsy knock in challenging conditions, under a lot of pressure.

True, and I'm hoping that it is a turning point for him. However, it feels more like his luck's changed than that he's settled into international cricket.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Burns into the 80s, but it's a long way from being as good an innings as it sounds. He's edged streakily through the slips at least three times, incorrectly given not out to an LBW shout, loads of play and misses, inside edges somehow missing his stumps, and he didn't have a clue what was happening off Lyon's bowling early on.

Maybe he needs a run of luck to build confidence and unlock his potential. If so, he certainly won't get much luckier than he has today.

Puja

or, good for him, ballsy knock in challenging conditions, under a lot of pressure.

True, and I'm hoping that it is a turning point for him. However, it feels more like his luck's changed than that he's settled into international cricket.

Puja

Hope so. He has a very good county record.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: well in a 4 man attack there is an obvious reason.....

How many times does it actually work Vs giving away some daft wickets? Unless you need to be scoring at 4+ then trundling along at 3 runs an over not taking extra risk is fine by me. Similar if a batsman is given the ball don't hit him out of the attack, it should be much easier to face Smith than Siddle so let them give Smith 7 overs if they're willing

I'd think the risk for a quality batsman like Root is pretty minimal, and the reward pretty high if you want to get a big score; plus you can see that Paine was already uncomfortable with Lyon shipping over 3 an over. You saw how England suffered by having only 4 bowlers and Ali not able to tie an end down. I think the logic is quite compelling- if you have a champ like Warne, I'd agree that hitting him out of the attack is tricky (but then you'd probably rather face a seamer than him in his pomp).

Boycs was probably thinking about facing 4 West Indian quicks, plus an occasional spinner.

Teams get into trouble trying to hit Ali out of the attack, and Lyons whilst no Warne is a far better bowler then Moeen.

Also Is Paine that bothered with the runs off Lyons? How many less can he reasonably expect him to go for?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
How many times does it actually work Vs giving away some daft wickets? Unless you need to be scoring at 4+ then trundling along at 3 runs an over not taking extra risk is fine by me. Similar if a batsman is given the ball don't hit him out of the attack, it should be much easier to face Smith than Siddle so let them give Smith 7 overs if they're willing

I'd think the risk for a quality batsman like Root is pretty minimal, and the reward pretty high if you want to get a big score; plus you can see that Paine was already uncomfortable with Lyon shipping over 3 an over. You saw how England suffered by having only 4 bowlers and Ali not able to tie an end down. I think the logic is quite compelling- if you have a champ like Warne, I'd agree that hitting him out of the attack is tricky (but then you'd probably rather face a seamer than him in his pomp).

Boycs was probably thinking about facing 4 West Indian quicks, plus an occasional spinner.

Teams get into trouble trying to hit Ali out of the attack, and Lyons whilst no Warne is a far better bowler then Moeen.

Also Is Paine that bothered with the runs off Lyons? How many less can he reasonably expect him to go for?

He’s not exactly overbowling him. Mind he’s not bowling that well.

I think you need to open your mind to the concept that you don’t have to hit a bowler out of the attack- you can render him impotent and get him out of it, which you must agree would be a serious pain for Paine.

Change of ball made a big difference

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd think the risk for a quality batsman like Root is pretty minimal, and the reward pretty high if you want to get a big score; plus you can see that Paine was already uncomfortable with Lyon shipping over 3 an over. You saw how England suffered by having only 4 bowlers and Ali not able to tie an end down. I think the logic is quite compelling- if you have a champ like Warne, I'd agree that hitting him out of the attack is tricky (but then you'd probably rather face a seamer than him in his pomp).

Boycs was probably thinking about facing 4 West Indian quicks, plus an occasional spinner.

Teams get into trouble trying to hit Ali out of the attack, and Lyons whilst no Warne is a far better bowler then Moeen.

Also Is Paine that bothered with the runs off Lyons? How many less can he reasonably expect him to go for?

He’s not exactly overbowling him. Mind he’s not bowling that well.

I think you need to open your mind to the concept that you don’t have to hit a bowler out of the attack- you can render him impotent and get him out of it, which you must agree would be a serious pain for Paine.

Change of ball made a big difference

if England could have knocked another 15-20 runs of those Lyons overs without coughing up 1-2 wickets I'd be very happy, but I don't much trust our batsman. Spin takes longer to pick up wickets, 1st innings especially, so the more overs at 3 run an over the better

267 - 4, 17 adrift going into D3.
Eng. in the box seat - another 150+ a real possibility on this pitch & players to follow, then a blast in the evening maybe given the forecast.
The injuries to Archer, Anderson & Wood ( out for series ) have taken the gloss off things a bit.

A good day but work to do.
Ball still newish and the Aussie quicks will come back refreshed tomorrow morning. You'd hope for a lead in excess of 100 but it wont be easy.
Could be another absorbing days cricket.

Galfon wrote:267 - 4, 17 adrift going into D3.
Eng. in the box seat - another 150+ a real possibility on this pitch & players to follow, then a blast in the evening maybe given the forecast.

That's what really ought to happen. What will happen is that Burns will get out without adding to his overnight score and we'll collapse for 292 all out.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:267 - 4, 17 adrift going into D3.
Eng. in the box seat - another 150+ a real possibility on this pitch & players to follow, then a blast in the evening maybe given the forecast.

That's what really ought to happen. What will happen is that Burns will get out without adding to his overnight score and we'll collapse for 292 all out.

Puja

292?!?! Seems overly optimistic.

Let's try and be positive here..the Burnley Lara is bringing up the rear; he can knock up 25 on one leg on a good day. and hard on the heels of the Taunton Tendulkar too!

I hope one of Bairstow or Ali get a few. Or both!

Would be good to pile on 400ish.

Did well there considering. Rode our luck quite a few times. I lost count of the number of deliveries that came within a gnat's whisker of catching an edge.

Chuffed for Burns. Just hope he and Stokes can see out a couple of sessions, then Bairstow can come in a smash a quick 50 before the tail add a few dozen.

Pretty much in the bag now

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Teams get into trouble trying to hit Ali out of the attack, and Lyons whilst no Warne is a far better bowler then Moeen.

Also Is Paine that bothered with the runs off Lyons? How many less can he reasonably expect him to go for?

He’s not exactly overbowling him. Mind he’s not bowling that well.

I think you need to open your mind to the concept that you don’t have to hit a bowler out of the attack- you can render him impotent and get him out of it, which you must agree would be a serious pain for Paine.

Change of ball made a big difference

if England could have knocked another 15-20 runs of those Lyons overs without coughing up 1-2 wickets I'd be very happy, but I don't much trust our batsman. Spin takes longer to pick up wickets, 1st innings especially, so the more overs at 3 run an over the better

so it’s our batsmen you don’t trust, rather than the principle being wrong?

Burns out first over he faces on day 3.

It's not happened yet, just saving time by typing it now.

Puja


ETA. Fair play, survived two half overs without aimlessly dangling his bat outside off stump. I stand corrected. Keep at it lad!

You'll have to pay a penance if guilty of harbingering doom without consequence...the Judge may be called upon.!
In the Brum area today..travelled through New St earlier.
conditions are sultry ..may be some movement in the air
for the better bowlers.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: He’s not exactly overbowling him. Mind he’s not bowling that well.

I think you need to open your mind to the concept that you don’t have to hit a bowler out of the attack- you can render him impotent and get him out of it, which you must agree would be a serious pain for Paine.

Change of ball made a big difference

if England could have knocked another 15-20 runs of those Lyons overs without coughing up 1-2 wickets I'd be very happy, but I don't much trust our batsman. Spin takes longer to pick up wickets, 1st innings especially, so the more overs at 3 run an over the better

so it’s our batsmen you don’t trust, rather than the principle being wrong?

I see both your points. Hitting a slow bowler out of the attack does bring the fast bowlers in, but it has the massive advantage of not letting the fielding captain have what they want. The slow bowler is easier in the short run, but knacker out the fast bowlers by not giving them rest and you end up with a much easier game all round.

However, the point that our batsmen can't reliably be trusted to do such a thing is very, very valid. As such, we're better off milking a spinner and saving our wickets, even if it is giving the oppo fast bowlers respite.

Puja

Galfon wrote:You'll have to pay a penance if guilty of harbingering doom without consequence...the Judge may be called upon.!
In the Brum area today..travelled through New St earlier.
conditions are sultry ..may be some movement in the air
for the better bowlers.

Still hasn't added to his overnight score though, so my previous gloom-laden prediction is still viable. Ugh, and just played and missed again. Come on Rory!

Puja

ETA. Yes! A mighty single to get him off 125. Now let's set eyes on the 150.