creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

Sure it's a good recovery. But as Bumble and Botham said its a 450-500 first innings wicket and we are well short. Good thing is we can probably bowl better than Australia did today.

As for Bairstow he just doesn't look comfortable. But how he got out was not good at all. A part time leg spinner getting three wickets at the end of the day just shouldn't happen. We keep suffering collapses and it's not a good thing.

Went in the space of half an hour to being in control to firmly being Australia's day.

Hmmmmm........

Still true. Fact that today they've batter like a bunch of high school kids tanked up with fizzy pop and sweets doesn't make that any less true.

[TANGODANCER]

We keep suffering collapses and it's not a good thing.

If we're collapsing, what are Oz doing?

[TANGODANCER]

All gone for 128. Old Merv's moustache will be going round like a propellor. And they said Ricky Ponting was over the hill.

[BWFC_Insane]

Good god. What the hell was Pietersen doing there?

We just simply can't bat. No pressure at all and flashing at balls well outside off.

If we want to be the top test side in the world we need to sort out our batting.

[mrkint]

SAVED BY THE BELL

^ Tabloids, that's copyrighted.

[BWFC_Insane]

Anyhow good position for England. Some sensible batting tomorrow knock the lead above 400 and I reckon that's job done. What they mustn't do is get bowled out cheaply and give Australia the momentum back. Couple of good partnerships lead of 400 and we can have a bash then. But loads of time left just make sure we get there first!

[TANGODANCER]

Don't give any credit to Siddle so what you do Geoffrey.

Just watched it all again and what a crazy day's cricket. Oz got a couple of bad calls early on but our lads pressured them all day. Got to dig in and get the momentum back. Hope Bell and Prior can get us right back on track. Our star batting lads haven't really shown in this one, but as I said, credit to Siddle. He's a tough little character and a good bowler. Fantastic cricket to watch.

[BWFC_Insane]

Don't give any credit to Siddle so what you do Geoffrey.

Just watched it all again and what a crazy day's cricket. Oz got a couple of bad calls early on but our lads pressured them all day. Got to dig in and get the momentum back. Hope Bell and Prior can get us right back on track. Our star batting lads haven't really shown in this one, but as I said, credit to Siddle. He's a tough little character and a good bowler. Fantastic cricket to watch.

Trott's was a poor shot.

Pietersen's was terrible.

Siddle bowled well but KP had no need to go after that particular ball especially so early in his innings.

[TANGODANCER]

Trott's was a poor shot.

Pietersen's was terrible.

Siddle bowled well but KP had no need to go after that particular ball especially so early in his innings.

I want to be as good as you when I grow up.

[Bruce Rioja]

Sure it's a good recovery. But as Bumble and Botham said its a 450-500 first innings wicket and we are well short. Good thing is we can probably bowl better than Australia did today.

As for Bairstow he just doesn't look comfortable. But how he got out was not good at all. A part time leg spinner getting three wickets at the end of the day just shouldn't happen. We keep suffering collapses and it's not a good thing.

Went in the space of half an hour to being in control to firmly being Australia's day.

Hmmmmm........

Still true. Fact that today they've batter like a bunch of high school kids tanked up with fizzy pop and sweets doesn't make that any less true.

Sorry which part of that is actual fact and not simply opinion?

[Bruce Rioja]

Trott's was a poor shot.

Pietersen's was terrible.

Siddle bowled well but KP had no need to go after that particular ball especially so early in his innings.

Just seeing it for the first time and have to agree.

Thought Cook was out to a wonderful ball from Peter Siddle

Trott completely misjudged the length, initially stayed back, started to come out, fecked it up and paid the price.

Pietersen's? Well, I haven't the words as absolute shite doesn't even come close. And clearly it wasn't his first of the innings. Seemed not to know nor care that he'd already got away with two atrocious shots, and then surpassed them both.

[Dujon]

Didn't listen or watch last night. The score card looks awful though. Is the wicket doing something? Australia all out for 120 something and England 30 odd for 3 would seem to indicate that it is. Two days in, England with a more than respectable first innings score and yet the third innings is already underway with England looking shaky. Sheesh, what an odd series this is turning out to be.

Oh yes, I forgot. What's this I heard about this morning on the radio. I didn't get the full gist but was someone given LBW when he was hit in the midriff? Stranger and stranger.

[Prufrock]

My interest in cricket extends to the Ashes, and not a great deal further; however, I think that I can safely say that Pietersen is high. My school cricket experience was: enjoyed throwing it; didn't enjoy having it thrown at me; would generally shut my eyes have a swing and hope I either got a boundary or was out. I'd have lasted longer today!

Nevertheless, couldn't believe it when I walked into the pub to find England 14-0 (bearing in mind, last time I saw it, last night, England were also batting). Mini-collapse makes it more interesting, but if they don't win from here they still want shooting. It poses an interesting dilemma though: is it better to batter the Ausies, or pip them to a close, tense series? Both have their attractions.

[bobo the clown]

Pru, it's a fair question you ask but one which those of us old enough to have seen the Aussie's rip us new ones, dance on us and then take the piss will have no hesitation in answering that a 5-0 thrashing and then unmitigated bad mouthing of them will barely suffice.

They invented being bad winners. This is lovely to see.

Onto the cricket ... entertaining but, in technixal terms, bloody awful stuff, from both sides.

[Worthy4England]

Pru, it's a fair question you ask but one which those of us old enough to have seen the Aussie's rip us new ones, dance on us and then take the piss will have no hesitation in answering that a 5-0 thrashing and then unmitigated bad mouthing of them will barely suffice.

They invented being bad winners. This is lovely to see.

Onto the cricket ... entertaining but, in technixal terms, bloody awful stuff, from both sides.

Yes please, I'll have two of them.

I can sort of understand (generally) the "don't make them follow-on" bit. Tired bowlers, hot conditions, they go in and bat better, you might have a tricky 4th innings to get 150-200 on a deteriorating wicket. But, they hit a hundred and twenty fecking six, following on from their 117-9 - and yes I spotted they turned that into 280-odd, in the first test, but that isn't happening every innings. The reality is they haven't bagged more than 300 yet and they were already 230 behind. I'd have stuck them back in, I think.

[bobo the clown]

I was the same regarding the follow on, though every single person on Test Match Special said not to. I assume they have a clue but, for me, 220 behind and demoralised I'd have turned them right back round.

I do wonder if it was medua influenced to be honest.

[Worthy4England]

I was the same regarding the follow on, though every single person on Test Match Special said not to. I assume they have a clue but, for me, 220 behind and demoralised I'd have turned them right back round.

I do wonder if it was medua influenced to be honest.

I think it's more "the common vogue" and urban myth. The rationale is pretty much as I mentioned above, and I might be able to see it, if we'd hit 650 and they'd hit 450 - neither bad scores, just that one team has done even better than a pretty good 450. Both sides can obviously bat on that track. That's not what happened. They hit 126 and were probably lucky to get that many. They could've been out for about the same total in the first test.

It smacks of not backing your bowlers and not backing your batsman (to hit 200 maybe in the the fourth) - it's a very cautious approach. If I was one of their batsmen, I'd be delighted not to have to go straight back in and have chance to compose myself a bit more.

From a bowling perspective, they're probably expecting that they're chasing 4-500 in the fourth. Anything better than that and they'll start to think our batting is as shakey as theirs - can only encourage them.

[BWFC_Insane]

You have to take the conditions into account. You've won the toss and the big advantage is not having to bat last. On this wicket that looks like it will spin more as time goes on why give up that advantage?

I think batting again was the only real decision to take here. If we had two front line spinners it might be different but Swann had a sore arm from when he was hit and a big ask for him to bowl through. And when you only pick four bowlers enforcing the follow on in hot conditions is always going to be tough.

[Worthy4England]

You have to take the conditions into account. You've won the toss and the big advantage is not having to bat last. On this wicket that looks like it will spin more as time goes on why give up that advantage?

I think batting again was the only real decision to take here. If we had two front line spinners it might be different but Swann had a sore arm from when he was hit and a big ask for him to bowl through. And when you only pick four bowlers enforcing the follow on in hot conditions is always going to be tough.

No shit Sherlock. The conditions are that we've just lobbed them out for 126. The intent of the follow-on, is not to bat again, or only chasing a very low total.

[BWFC_Insane]

You have to take the conditions into account. You've won the toss and the big advantage is not having to bat last. On this wicket that looks like it will spin more as time goes on why give up that advantage?

I think batting again was the only real decision to take here. If we had two front line spinners it might be different but Swann had a sore arm from when he was hit and a big ask for him to bowl through. And when you only pick four bowlers enforcing the follow on in hot conditions is always going to be tough.

No shit Sherlock. The conditions are that we've just lobbed them out for 126. The intent of the follow-on, is not to bat again, or only chasing a very low total.

But the danger is you get set 180 or sommat on a turning pitch and its a struggle.

With so much time in the game left I can't really see a reason to enforce it.

Even Botham who usually frothes at the mouth when England dont stick a side back in thought they should bat again.