creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Bruce Rioja]

Would help if we could catch.

Burns put him down twice. Just not good enough. If you are in the slips you’ve got to do better.

Harsh. You're criticising a second slip for putting down a third slip catch.

[BWFC_Insane]

Would help if we could catch.

Burns put him down twice. Just not good enough. If you are in the slips you’ve got to do better.

Harsh. You're criticising a second slip for putting down a third slip catch.

He lost one and dropped a pretty tricky one. But that’s 6 drops this match. Don’t like him but can hear old Boycott saying you won’t win if you have to get them out three times.

[Worthy4England]

Would help if we could catch.

Burns put him down twice. Just not good enough. If you are in the slips you’ve got to do better.

Last 18 months or so, felt like all the cordon from wk round have dropped more than their fair share...

Yeah. In effect 19-1 now. So lead has at best given us a 1 wicket advantage.

Well yes, but we might have been 62-5...looking at 40 to make them bat again. Who knows? You'd still take 100 first innings lead. Rohit hasn't been rushed once, yet (mind Pujara hasn't either)

[Worthy4England]

Would help if we could catch.

Burns put him down twice. Just not good enough. If you are in the slips you’ve got to do better.

Harsh. You're criticising a second slip for putting down a third slip catch.

He lost one and dropped a pretty tricky one. But that’s 6 drops this match. Don’t like him but can hear old Boycott saying you won’t win if you have to get them out three times.

You'd hope to catch today's a lot more often than not. In goalkeeping terms, a decent height and not really flying off the pitch.

[TANGODANCER]

We need a break-though about now. It's getting away from us. Come on lads....

[Worthy4England]

Great ton by Rohit. Looked largely effortless. So much time to play his strokes.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah. Pitch has nothing in it. We will be chasing 300 plus. Which is gettable on this surface. But we still messed up with the choice to put them in. When you can’t bat don’t opt to bat last.

[TANGODANCER]

Yeah. Pitch has nothing in it. We will be chasing 300 plus. Which is gettable on this surface. But we still messed up with the choice to put them in. When you can’t bat don’t opt to bat last.

Make that 400 unless we get a wicket soon.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah. Pitch has nothing in it. We will be chasing 300 plus. Which is gettable on this surface. But we still messed up with the choice to put them in. When you can’t bat don’t opt to bat last.

We bowled them out for under 200 and got 100 lead. Other way around, with our frailty under pressure, today might have looked totally different. Just because the 2nd best Test team, currently are showing their class, doesn't make it a wrong decision.

[TANGODANCER]

Must have different light than us; it's broad daylight here.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah. Pitch has nothing in it. We will be chasing 300 plus. Which is gettable on this surface. But we still messed up with the choice to put them in. When you can’t bat don’t opt to bat last.

We bowled them out for under 200 and got 100 lead. Other way around, with our frailty under pressure, today might have looked totally different. Just because the 2nd best Test team, currently are showing their class, doesn't make it a wrong decision.

I mean I read this after day one. You could see what was going to happen. The pitch was going to be premium to bat on day 3. Whilst bowling them out cheaply and getting a lead justifies to some extent putting them in you can’t look at the lead without considering the conditions. On day 1 100 lead is match over. But as the pitch has slowed and flattened it’s nothing and doesn’t compensate for having last use of the surface.

Lots of very successful captains will tell you that you always bat first barring a pitch that looks like a minefield. I can see the logic of putting them in but I think to do that we needed our first bat to be absolutely huge. And it wasn’t.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah. Pitch has nothing in it. We will be chasing 300 plus. Which is gettable on this surface. But we still messed up with the choice to put them in. When you can’t bat don’t opt to bat last.

We bowled them out for under 200 and got 100 lead. Other way around, with our frailty under pressure, today might have looked totally different. Just because the 2nd best Test team, currently are showing their class, doesn't make it a wrong decision.

I mean I read this after day one. You could see what was going to happen. The pitch was going to be premium to bat on day 3. Whilst bowling them out cheaply and getting a lead justifies to some extent putting them in you can’t look at the lead without considering the conditions. On day 1 100 lead is match over. But as the pitch has slowed and flattened it’s nothing and doesn’t compensate for having last use of the surface.

Lots of very successful captains will tell you that you always bat first barring a pitch that looks like a minefield. I can see the logic of putting them in but I think to do that we needed our first bat to be absolutely huge. And it wasn’t.

How many runs would you have backed England to make, batting third?

[Bruce Rioja]

Cracking the flags in that London today apparently. That'll be a good batting day then?!

[Worthy4England]

Cracking the flags in that London today apparently. That'll be a good batting day then?!

Probably for most of it.

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure I see the point of bad light affecting seamers but not spin? I mean it's either light enough to play cricket or it isn't, especially on floodlit grounds. Taking into effect safety, only strengthens the point.

[Worthy4England]

Not sure I see the point of bad light affecting seamers but not spin? I mean it's either light enough to play cricket or it isn't, especially on floodlit grounds. Taking into effect safety, only strengthens the point.

One hurtles a projectile at maybe 50 miles an hour the other at maybe 80-85. Much easier to try and pick the one coming at 50.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah. Pitch has nothing in it. We will be chasing 300 plus. Which is gettable on this surface. But we still messed up with the choice to put them in. When you can’t bat don’t opt to bat last.

We bowled them out for under 200 and got 100 lead. Other way around, with our frailty under pressure, today might have looked totally different. Just because the 2nd best Test team, currently are showing their class, doesn't make it a wrong decision.

I mean I read this after day one. You could see what was going to happen. The pitch was going to be premium to bat on day 3. Whilst bowling them out cheaply and getting a lead justifies to some extent putting them in you can’t look at the lead without considering the conditions. On day 1 100 lead is match over. But as the pitch has slowed and flattened it’s nothing and doesn’t compensate for having last use of the surface.

Lots of very successful captains will tell you that you always bat first barring a pitch that looks like a minefield. I can see the logic of putting them in but I think to do that we needed our first bat to be absolutely huge. And it wasn’t.

How many runs would you have backed England to make, batting third?

In these conditions? More than we will batting last under scoreboard pressure. End of the day if you put a side in your best route to a win is to only bat once or at least bat once big. We had chances to have put ourselves in that position but didn’t. As it transpired a low score game transformed into something different as pitch calmed down and well here we are.

If the argument is that India are just a better team than us then yes I agree. But how many times would you play a good team like that and let them bat first? Historically how many even with the favourable conditions would say that’s a good idea?

[Prufrock]

God love Chris Woakes.

[Worthy4England]

How many times has the team batting first got less than 200 and won? How many times has the team batting first got less than 200, conceded a 100 lead and won? I suspect we're not talking large numbers.

1980-2014, the team batting first won 32%, and the team batting second won 36%.

There's some stats to suggest this is much more weighted towards the team batting first between 2014-18, but still batting second is around 30%...that suggests to me you still take your pick based on what you see.

[BWFC_Insane]

How many times has the team batting first got less than 200 and won? How many times has the team batting first got less than 200, conceded a 100 lead and won? I suspect we're not talking large numbers.

1980-2014, the team batting first won 32%, and the team batting second won 36%.

There's some stats to suggest this is much more weighted towards the team batting first between 2014-18, but still batting second is around 30%...that suggests to me you still take your pick based on what you see.

As they’ve just said on sky if you put a side into bowl you have to fancy batting last. And the pitch is good for batting. So I guess England have to be confident to chase the total down. And if it’s under 300 which perhaps now has a sneak at happening you could argue game plan has worked because that’s a winning position.