...and then there is the claptrap that Agnew has been waffling about in his column...
"It was obvious that England were anxious about the flak they would face for potentially throwing away an easy victory, and were desperate to get out there and finish New Zealand off.
Team director Andy Flower was out in the middle remonstrating with the officials to get the covers off and the players and training staff were warming up on the outfield long before the announcement that play would begin."
What utter rubbish. I can't help but think that this is just Agnew bitter that NZ didn't draw the game. I bet he would have loved that after his criticism of Englands tactics.
Plain facts are the following -:
1) England won the game - and by a huge number of runs
2) Andy Flower was perfectly in his rights to be cajoling the officials - too many times in the past spectators have been sat around bemused whilst umpires stroll on and off the field with sunshine blaring down on them, and there seems to be no sensible justification for there being no play taking place
3) Why would England not be on the outfield warming up? Wouldn't there be a reason needed for them NOT being on the outfield prior to a session where they could win the game getting as much practice as they possibly could
Now let me state here and now i probably would have declared when we had a 400-run lead - but possibly Cook may have been waiting to get a definite feel for when he thought his bowlers and the rest of the team were ready to get stuck in. It amazes me why the team is copping so much flack for winning a series 2-0. Bizarre. When will we learn to back our team???!
There is nonsense....
posted on 30/5/13
but possibly Cook may have been waiting to get a definite feel for when he thought his bowlers and the rest of the team were ready to get stuck in.
.................
He said well before the last day that he felt the pitch was still pretty flat and runs could be made on it.
Would 400 have been enough, hell yes, but when you are 1-0 up in a two test series, why would you tempt fate.
Agnew is a di ck head by the way, not much of a player and not much of a pundit.
Another former player whose views on captaincy I will not listen to is Beef. He has one of the worst records as an England captain ever.
posted on 30/5/13
these guys are talking absolute rubbish, we won the series 2-0 and all they are asking is, oh so what about Trott on the 3rd evening, what about the follow on. If anything Flower and Cook should be telling them what mugs they are, for going on about the decision and then proving them wrong with a 247 run win.
posted on 31/5/13
I disagree - I think the pundits have a point.
Yes, measured in runs it was a comfortable victory - but measured in time it was probably about 20 minutes from a draw - and TBH we were lucky to get as much play as we did. Looking at teh met office website teh evening before no play at all seemed to be the odds-on bet.
IMHO their are only two valid reasons to not enforce the follow-on:
1) Your bowlers are exhausted from their 1st innings effort.
2) You have some special reason to believe the pitch will be a stinker on the 5th day.
In this case, if memory serves, the bowlers took less than two sessions to dismiss NZ, and having lost the entire first day 5th day wear wasn't even a consideration.
My personal suspicion is the England management decided to use a test match as batting practice with more than one eye on the coming ashes series.
If I'm right it has backfired badly. Confidence-wise most batsmen must be lower after that turgid second innings than they would have been if we'd just enforced the follow on.
posted on 31/5/13
Wideboy
The one factor you are not taking into consideration is that England were already 1-0 up.
Had they not have been they may well have enforced the follow on.
As it happened they didn't have to enforse it and took the option to bat NZ out of the test.
Spot on decision IMO.