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.
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.
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.
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.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
There is nonsense....
Page 1 of 1
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.
Page 1 of 1