• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

3rd test - Headingley

Fleagle said:
Even in Australia no ground that was built for cricket or is used for test cricket has a roof. The only ground with one used for cricket of any consequence is Melbourne Docklands where one of the BBL franchises play.
Click to expand...
Thought the new WACA did too.

But obviously point stands even more. The amount of rain Sydney gets and no roof.
 

Binxy said:
So potentially cost us 8 wickets and countless runs.

If foakes was playing we'd be 2-0 up.
Click to expand...
I agree with the big picture point being made (and also clearly recall two regulation missed stumpings on day 2 at Edgbaston not one).

But Foakes doesn’t necessarily (or even probably) have that transformative cameo on day 1 at Edgbaston. Which resets the whole series. Not least as even Stokes probably doesn’t declare.

(Pedantic aside this is not as some have suggested earlier the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Classical causality can deal perfectly well with the concepts surrounding the ifs in this series).
 
Binxy said:
So potentially cost us 8 wickets and countless runs.

If foakes was playing we'd be 2-0 up.
Click to expand...
Bairstow was been so bad with the gloves its hard to believe tbh. However at Edgbaston the only realistic way of winning that match on a flat pitch with weather around was scoring 400 very quickly in the first innings and getting them in. We could only do that because of Bairstow scoring a run a ball 78. If Foakes had played we couldn't possibly have won that match imo.

We wouldn't have lost it though
 
mackembhoy said:
Thought the new WACA did too.

But obviously point stands even more. The amount of rain Sydney gets and no roof.
Click to expand...
Don’t believe so but even if it does it still supports the point you made really.

Is it even legal to play test cricket indoors? And if not, should it be?
rentaghost said:
Bairstow was been so bad with the gloves its hard to believe tbh. However at Edgbaston the only realistic way of winning that match on a flat pitch with weather around was scoring 400 very quickly in the first innings and getting them in. We could only do that because of Bairstow scoring a run a ball 78. If Foakes had played we couldn't possibly have won that match imo.

We wouldn't have lost it though
Click to expand...
I assume you mean hard not to believe. But it’s still a good point about his batting. That bit of his selection worked. Without it we bat on at least to the close and probably into day 2.

OTOH I think we still have a chance of bowling theM out more quickly if we don’t miss the 3/4 he misses on day 2. Obvs, you’re playing percentages. As you must. You’d be a poor card player if you only bet on hands that couldn’t lose. But I do think the percentages England chose this series by playing Bairstow as keeper have misfired.
 
Last edited:
It’s f***ing stupid that they sit inside whilst it’s not raining.

I understand that the pitch needs to be playable etc, but saying “it’s not raining now but we’ll hang on half an hour before we start”.
 
DonaldDownTheWing said:
It’s f***ing stupid that they sit inside whilst it’s not raining.

I understand that the pitch needs to be playable etc, but saying “it’s not raining now but we’ll hang on half an hour before we start”.
Click to expand...
They can't exactly warm up with a fag and a couple of minutes of lunges these days like
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top