creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Worthy4England]

I guess if they want some batting practice, then why not.

See, I've been entertaining this very thought and have arrived, handily, at a question.

If we require batting practice then which offers the better option;

(a) Continue with the test against NZ, batting against a poor attack that's becoming more demoralised and less interested?

Or

(b) Get this game out of the way and get some serious nets sessions in against better bowlers, thus giving our bowlers more practice too?

Nothing quite like batting out in the middle, no matter how "serious" the net sessions are.

[BWFC_Insane]

Bairstow is showing Trott how to bat in these situations.

[thebish]

I guess if they want some batting practice, then why not.

See, I've been entertaining this very thought and have arrived, handily, at a question.

If we require batting practice then which is the better option;

(a) Continue with the test against NZ, batting against a poor attack that's becoming more demoralised and less interested?

Or

(b) Get this game out of the way and get some serious nets sessions in against better bowlers, thus giving our bowlers more practice too?

I'd say a)

also - it gave compton another chance to prove himself - and he didn't - so we have learned summat we wouldn't have done if we'd put them straight back in and skittled them...

[thebish]

Botham had it spot on yesterday when he said there was not one reason he could think of not to enforce the follow on.

there are plenty of reasons - don't be ridiculous Mr Botham!

one obvious one was to have another look at Compton (we did - and learned summat!)
another was to give Cook another innings to see if he could recover his batting form (he did!)

there's more than one way to skin a cat..

Botham was just tossing out the hyperbole - like you have...

[BWFC_Insane]

Botham had it spot on yesterday when he said there was not one reason he could think of not to enforce the follow on.

there are plenty of reasons - don't be ridiculous Mr Botham!

one obvious one was to have another look at Compton (we did - and learned summat!)
another was to give Cook another innings to see if he could recover his batting form (he did!)

there's more than one way to skin a cat..

Botham was just tossing out the hyperbole - like you have...

His opinion was shared though by the rest of the Sky commentary team.

Surely it should be about winning the game? Giving yourself the best chance. If the bowlers are tired then that's one thing, but they'd bowled just 40 odd overs.


New Zealand were fragile and definitely would not want to have been put back in.

Anyhow ultimately the result of the test is how the decision will be judged.

[Bruce Rioja]

Botham had it spot on yesterday when he said there was not one reason he could think of not to enforce the follow on.

there are plenty of reasons - don't be ridiculous Mr Botham!

one obvious one was to have another look at Compton (we did - and learned summat!)
another was to give Cook another innings to see if he could recover his batting form (he did!)

there's more than one way to skin a cat..

Botham was just tossing out the hyperbole - like you have...

Hmmm. Seems a rather elaborate way of testing two batsmen, risking a test victory.

[jaffka]

It's going to piss it down from lunchtime today, apparently. Another reason why we shouldv'e stuck 'em back in!

Exactly this. It's almost as if he made a TV & crowd pleasing decision rather than the sporting one of going or the jugular.

I think the TV and crowd wanted him to stick em back in.

Mind boggling, we are 429 ahead against a side that can't bat and seemingly will still bat on.

Pathetic.

wouldn't go THAT far!! and - wasn't it you who said our batting was "piss poor"? If that's the case - then you of all people should be applauding the decision to get as many batting hours as possible, surely???

You have to try and win the match. This is just tedious. How many balls did Trott take to make 9 runs last night?

If you're going back in to bat, make quick runs. Don't just hang around for 2 hours doing nowt.

It's going to rain, everybody knows it. New Zealand can't bat so we might have even wrapped this up by now, had we made them follow on.

How many runs do you think we need?

Botham had it spot on yesterday when he said there was not one reason he could think of not to enforce the follow on.

Yeah but Botham was playing cricket years ago.

[thebish]

Anyhow ultimately the result of the test is how the decision will be judged.

yet you appear to have judged it as "pathetic" before the outcome is known...

and - no - not winning a test match does not mean that every decision you made in that test match was therefore wrong... that would be ridhooculouse.

[thebish]

Botham had it spot on yesterday when he said there was not one reason he could think of not to enforce the follow on.

there are plenty of reasons - don't be ridiculous Mr Botham!

one obvious one was to have another look at Compton (we did - and learned summat!)
another was to give Cook another innings to see if he could recover his batting form (he did!)

there's more than one way to skin a cat..

Botham was just tossing out the hyperbole - like you have...

Hmmm. Seems a rather elaborate way of testing two batsmen, risking a test victory.

it's ultimately the only way to know... you wouldn't hesitate to say that in football "match fitness" is very different to training ground fitness..

the series is won - and let's not pretend that it was ever anything other than a warm up for the Ashes...

seems eminently sensible to me...

[thebish]

His opinion was shared though by the rest of the Sky commentary team.

not by Michael Vaughan on the proper BBC commentary!

[Bruce Rioja]

it's ultimately the only way to know... you wouldn't hesitate to say that in football "match fitness" is very different to training ground fitness..

the series is won - and let's not pretend that it was ever anything other than a warm up for the Ashes...

seems eminently sensible to me...

Good points, but I'm still struggling with the idea of being in a position to force the follow-on and not doing.

[TANGODANCER]

Some really excellent cricket out there today. I thought there was a decidedly "throwing" look about Williamson's ball that got Cooke out. We're comfortably in the driving seat and should wrap it up pretty quick.

[Bruce Rioja]

Some really excellent cricket out there today. I thought there was a decidedly "throwing" look about Williamson's ball that got Cooke out. We're comfortably in the driving seat and should wrap it up pretty quick.

Well, if they get the weather over there tomorrow that we've had today then maybe not.

[Montreal Wanderer]

it's ultimately the only way to know... you wouldn't hesitate to say that in football "match fitness" is very different to training ground fitness..

the series is won - and let's not pretend that it was ever anything other than a warm up for the Ashes...

seems eminently sensible to me...

Good points, but I'm still struggling with the idea of being in a position to force the follow-on and not doing.

It has certainly happened with some frequency, though rarely I agree. Long ago when I watched cricket the Headingley pitch was notorious for collapsing and making batting very difficult on the final day. I'm sure that had nothing to do with yesterday's decision. Although as I noted some pages back before the follow on decision was made that it seemed likely that England would bat again similar to have match practice.

[Montreal Wanderer]

A quick internet check reveal it was at Headingley during the 1981 Ashes that England became on the second team to win a test after being made to follow on.

Before the third Test at Headingley, the inspirational Mike Brearley was reinstated as England captain, replacing Ian Botham, whose 12-Test tenure as captain had been winless and whose previously excellent form with both bat and ball had fallen away (he had made a pair in the second Test at Lord's).

A galvanised Botham took 6 for 95 in Australia's first innings and scored 50 in England's, but Australia nonetheless compiled 401 for 9 declared (John Dyson scoring 102) and bowled England out for 174, thus forcing England to follow on 227 runs in arrears. Despite a stubborn 46 from Geoff Boycott, in the second innings Botham came to the crease with England on 105 for 5, still requiring 122 runs to avoid an innings defeat. He played an outstanding innings of 149 not out, sharing partnerships of 117 with Graham Dilley for the eighth wicket, 67 with Chris Old for the ninth and 37 with Bob Willis for the tenth, to set Australia a target of 130. Australia then reached 56 for 1, seemingly well set, before Brearley switched Willis' bowling end to allow him to bowl down the slope. Willis bowled a superb spell of 8 for 43 to dismiss Australia for 111; England became only the second team in Test Match history to win a match after being made to follow on.

[BWFC_Insane]

Anyhow ultimately the result of the test is how the decision will be judged.

yet you appear to have judged it as "pathetic" before the outcome is known...

and - no - not winning a test match does not mean that every decision you made in that test match was therefore wrong... that would be ridhooculouse.

I just think we'd have won the test by now if we'd made them bat on. We may well still win it but we are at the mercy of tomorrow's weather.

I still can't really see a valid reason not to try our very best to win the game. Even after batting again we've batted on so long that we are praying on a weather forecast. I just don't get it. And if I'd paid to go and watch I'd be disappointed that England let the game drift along for so long.

[thebish]

it's ultimately the only way to know... you wouldn't hesitate to say that in football "match fitness" is very different to training ground fitness..

the series is won - and let's not pretend that it was ever anything other than a warm up for the Ashes...

seems eminently sensible to me...

Good points, but I'm still struggling with the idea of being in a position to force the follow-on and not doing.

I just don't think it's as big a no-brainer as some seem to think. Had they followed on - maybe the game would have been over quicker - but how does that benefit us given this is the last serious competitive action before the Ashes.. do we really want a 3-day test as the second of only two??

I think there was a reasonable chance we could get some more batting out in the middle and STILL win the series 2-0 - for compton - give him one more chance - now we have more data to go on for the Ashes - and it hasn't harmed us for Cook to get a morale/confidence-boosting 130 runs when he's been a bit scratchy.. nothing is certain - he might have got a duck - but I'm not sure how not enforcing the follow-on disadvantages us...

sides don't always enforce follow-ons... more than one way to skin a cat... as Vaughan pointed out - were we one up in the series against the Aussies and this was the last game - in the the same situation - we wouldn't be enforcing the follow-on - we'd be back in trying to bat them into the dust...

[Worthy4England]

A couple of pages ago, our batting was "piss poor". In certain areas, I can agree with the sentiment. Compton was and is having a bit of a mare, and I'm sure, given how piss poor our batting is, they'd have appreciated the extra time out on a proper track. At first, I thought the test was due to finish today, so was very surprised by the follow on.

I'm less surprised about it now I know the test still has a day to run, but would still be a pi$$er to get done over by the weather for a draw. That said, weather forecast for tomorrow at Headingley is around 40% precipitation, but through most of the day and getting heavier through the cricketing day...

Don't think England would be too unhappy with a 1-0 win in the series (assuming the New Zealanders don't hit another 300 tomorrow)

[BWFC_Insane]

it's ultimately the only way to know... you wouldn't hesitate to say that in football "match fitness" is very different to training ground fitness..

the series is won - and let's not pretend that it was ever anything other than a warm up for the Ashes...

seems eminently sensible to me...

Good points, but I'm still struggling with the idea of being in a position to force the follow-on and not doing.

I just don't think it's as big a no-brainer as some seem to think. Had they followed on - maybe the game would have been over quicker - but how does that benefit us given this is the last serious competitive action before the Ashes.. do we really want a 3-day test as the second of only two??

I think there was a reasonable chance we could get some more batting out in the middle and STILL win the series 2-0 - for compton - give him one more chance - now we have more data to go on for the Ashes - and it hasn't harmed us for Cook to get a morale/confidence-boosting 130 runs when he's been a bit scratchy.. nothing is certain - he might have got a duck - but I'm not sure how not enforcing the follow-on disadvantages us...

sides don't always enforce follow-ons... more than one way to skin a cat... as Vaughan pointed out - were we one up in the series against the Aussies and this was the last game - in the the same situation - we wouldn't be enforcing the follow-on - we'd be back in trying to bat them into the dust...

Bish I think they are very valid points.

I don't think saying that we are looking ahead to the Ashes is the right way to think though. Not in terms of getting batsmen time in the middle. Shows a disrespect to New Zealand and the fans who paid money for tickets THIS test. I accept it may have played a part, but for me it shouldn't.

As for the rest I agree, enforcing the follow on is not always the right thing. But you have to play the match situation. A final day washout has been predicted by the weather people all week. Chances are now there might be enough time to win the game tomorrow. But I guess we are at the fate of the heavens. Now, in different circumstances, say where we had bowled 90 overs in hot conditions, and the bowlers need a rest I can see why we might opt to bat next. But in this test, you and I know that we'd have more than likely wrapped up a 2-0 win already had we made them follow on. The pitch was spinning, we had their batsmen on the ropes mentally.....

It probably was to give Cook and co some batting practice. But fundamentally I think that was the wrong motive. Winning the test should have been what we wanted to do above that.

And I find it hard to think this gave us a better chance of doing that.

[thebish]

it's ultimately the only way to know... you wouldn't hesitate to say that in football "match fitness" is very different to training ground fitness..

the series is won - and let's not pretend that it was ever anything other than a warm up for the Ashes...

seems eminently sensible to me...

Good points, but I'm still struggling with the idea of being in a position to force the follow-on and not doing.

I just don't think it's as big a no-brainer as some seem to think. Had they followed on - maybe the game would have been over quicker - but how does that benefit us given this is the last serious competitive action before the Ashes.. do we really want a 3-day test as the second of only two??

I think there was a reasonable chance we could get some more batting out in the middle and STILL win the series 2-0 - for compton - give him one more chance - now we have more data to go on for the Ashes - and it hasn't harmed us for Cook to get a morale/confidence-boosting 130 runs when he's been a bit scratchy.. nothing is certain - he might have got a duck - but I'm not sure how not enforcing the follow-on disadvantages us...

sides don't always enforce follow-ons... more than one way to skin a cat... as Vaughan pointed out - were we one up in the series against the Aussies and this was the last game - in the the same situation - we wouldn't be enforcing the follow-on - we'd be back in trying to bat them into the dust...

Bish I think they are very valid points.

I don't think saying that we are looking ahead to the Ashes is the right way to think though. Not in terms of getting batsmen time in the middle. Shows a disrespect to New Zealand and the fans who paid money for tickets THIS test. I accept it may have played a part, but for me it shouldn't.

As for the rest I agree, enforcing the follow on is not always the right thing. But you have to play the match situation. A final day washout has been predicted by the weather people all week. Chances are now there might be enough time to win the game tomorrow. But I guess we are at the fate of the heavens. Now, in different circumstances, say where we had bowled 90 overs in hot conditions, and the bowlers need a rest I can see why we might opt to bat next. But in this test, you and I know that we'd have more than likely wrapped up a 2-0 win already had we made them follow on. The pitch was spinning, we had their batsmen on the ropes mentally.....

It probably was to give Cook and co some batting practice. But fundamentally I think that was the wrong motive. Winning the test should have been what we wanted to do above that.

And I find it hard to think this gave us a better chance of doing that.

surely goal number one is winning the series... are you seriously suggesting that you'd argue that if we were one up against the Aussies and it was the last match of the series and we had the chance to pretty much guarantee we could not lose it by batting on and grinding them into the dust - that we should take the riskier option of going for the quick win???

I don't see how it disrespects the New Zealanders to deny them any chance of winning - and if you are suggesting we should be LESS cautious against NZ - then maybe it is you who is being disrespectful??