creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Prufrock]

If I gave you £100 for draw, would you give me even £105 back??

[bwfcdan94]

This has draw written all over it Australia declared to late and now are going to have to bowl England out twice to win the game and I don't think they will have enough time to do that.

[Prufrock]

Sorry Ian.

[thebish]

This has draw written all over it Australia declared to late and now are going to have to bowl England out twice to win the game and I don't think they will have enough time to do that.

they would have to that to win just about ANY game from ANY position! that wasn't anything to do with the timing of the declaration!

[Bruce Rioja]

Well in, Pietersen. Your (well, our) country needed someone to step up. Well done.

[Montreal Wanderer]

This has draw written all over it Australia declared to late and now are going to have to bowl England out twice to win the game and I don't think they will have enough time to do that.

they would have to that to win just about ANY game from ANY position! that wasn't anything to do with the timing of the declaration!

And it could certainly be done in three and a bit days. I imagine it will depend on how much help the pitch gives to bowlers as time goes by. Still, they only need 80 odd to avoid the follow-on.

[bwfcdan94]

This has draw written all over it Australia declared to late and now are going to have to bowl England out twice to win the game and I don't think they will have enough time to do that.

they would have to that to win just about ANY game from ANY position! that wasn't anything to do with the timing of the declaration!

Yes but I think they declared 30 over to late and as a result will not go on to win the match. I may prove to be wrong but I think their bowling attack just is not good enough.

[thebish]

if they can't bowl us out twice in 3 and a bit days - then they aren't going to do it in 3 and a bit more days...

[Bruce Rioja]

Awful shot, Bairstow. How many times must we see our players caught out by wafting the bat at balls down off side?

[Prufrock]

Well in, Pietersen. Your (well, our) country needed someone to step up. Well done.

Aye (as I think you said) he owed us a good knock. At his best at the moment. Controlled, but bashing away the bad 'uns.

[thebish]

aaaaaaaaand out! I blame Bruce and Pru for premature congratulations!!

[Prufrock]

I'm sorry I've jinxed KP and Bell today! Interesting on KP tho, looked plumb but big sound on snickowhatsit, tiny hotspot and no bat on pad. Though as Kinty pointed out KP looked at Prior so didn't think he'd edged it.

[Prufrock]

He wasn't out. No way a human could see it, but thinest of thin edges. Is cricket not a sport that can be completely technology based?

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm sorry I've jinxed KP and Bell today! Interesting on KP tho, looked plumb but big sound on snickowhatsit, tiny hotspot and no bat on pad. Though as Kinty pointed out KP looked at Prior so didn't think he'd edged it.

When I watched the hotspot replay I was surprised that they didn't even mention, let alone question, what looked to me to be a tiny nick off of the bat. As such, I just put it down to me being a know-nowt, but then it's just showed the snickerty snick-o-metre and he did hit it.

[Bruce Rioja]

What's the follow-on set at BTW?

[thebish]

What's the follow-on set at BTW?

follow on is always 199 behind the other side's score - so that'd be 527-199 = 328

which leaves us another 34 to get with 3 wickets in hand..

of course - it's be good to knock off a few of the remaining 199 too!

[bobo the clown]

Interesting as Oz HAVE to win if they are going for winning the Ashes back (unlikely as that is). So if they can't make England follow-on they'll have to knock a few runs up, then put us in and hope to get 10 wickets. It's not impossible that they get that number wrong.

We can still win this ... c'mon England !!

[Bruce Rioja]

What's the follow-on set at BTW?

follow on is always 199 behind the other side's score - so that'd be 527-199 = 328

which leaves us another 34 to get with 3 wickets in hand..

of course - it's be good to knock off a few of the remaining 199 too!

You know, I didn't know that. It's a question that I've been meaning to ask for as far back as I can remember.

Cheers Bish.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What's the follow-on set at BTW?

follow on is always 199 behind the other side's score - so that'd be 527-199 = 328

which leaves us another 34 to get with 3 wickets in hand..

of course - it's be good to knock off a few of the remaining 199 too!

You know, I didn't know that. It's a question that I've been meaning to ask for as far back as I can remember.

Cheers Bish.

This looks confusing. To achieve 199 behind avoids the follow-on. See the laws of cricket.

Law 13 (The follow-on)
1. Lead on first innings
(a) In a two innings match of 5 days or more, the side which bats first and leads by at least 200 runs shall have the option of requiring the other side to follow their innings.

[thebish]

yes - the follow on target - 328 - is the amount England need to achieve to avoid the follow on - that's the point. that's 199 behind the Oz total. 200 behind (327) would be one too few.