The Ashes & Hampshire Cricket Summer Thread

What on earth has Bresnan done there?!

 

Bresnan gone .

 

Oh dear. You bloody idiots. REVIEW you moron.

 

Or not, but he didn't review!!!

 

Why do England always put a night watchman in? It never works.

 

Trott comes in, one more wicket down. Brainless.

 

Doesn't always happen with QFs, and like you say it certainly won't happen this year. But don't be surprised if it does happen for Finals Day. KP and Bell were allowed to play for Hants and Warks respectively in the 2005 C&G Final, despite the Ashes not yet being over (albeit Australia didnt give Warne permission to play).

 

But would they risk injuries to key players as there is another Ashes series in a few months?

 

It's one day.

Sky will want them to play, the majority of fans will want them to play, many of the players themselves will no doubt want to play (especially those closely affiliated with their counties, who have maybe grown up with them). It is arguably the biggest day of the domestic calendar. Certainly the second biggest at the very least.

I really would be surprised if the ECB didn't make the appropriate players available. And remember, we are basically only talking about a maximum of three players - KP, Swann, Broad and Cook could be involved, but with Notts playing Essex not all of those last three would be. Onions is back with Durham already, and Tremlett only half counts (and besides, Surrey have basically not picked him in t20s this year).

Of course whether the counties would select them, if made available, is another thing.

 

Would be amusing if Australia were close to winning and rain curtailed play.

 

Match started at OT. Need to at least get close to Australia's score...admire them for being positive and not just batting on even though that would have guaranteed a draw. Tough ask for England...always easier to set a large target than to chase it. England have to play safety first (no run outs....a bug bear of mine) which may not suit their style (and definitely won't suit Pieterson).

 

My wish-list:

England score 80-0 to lunch and 100-1 in afternoon and evening sessions, closing on 332-4.

Day 4 - 90-1 before lunch (422/5)
100-2 to tea (522/7)
90-3 (612 AO) then Aus 10-1 at close, 75 behind.

Day 5 - Swan spins em out for 200 half an our after tea for 200.

England set 116 to win in 23 overs

 

Or a washout and a draw

 

Trouble is Devon, that would guarantee rain all day on Monday!

 

trott out.

 

Blimey Dev, I'm just hoping that we can avoid the follow on!

 

3 down. Not good.

 

I still say that we missed a trick by not selecting Monty and handed the initiative to the Aussies by selecting a 'safe' XI with the extra batsman.
There were only 2 wickets taken by seam in over 100 overs in their innings, i've no doubt that Monty would've taken wickets as his record at OT is very good.
Surrendering a big lead is twofold, it puts pressure on batsmen to get big runs and gives their bowlers a cushion to attack with aggressive field settings.
One thing for sure is that the great Aussie side of the 90s would've picked a team to win the test match and not just one to try and avoid defeat. (horses for courses)

 

I wanted Monty to play as well....love Monty. Although he has had occasional good spells, I suppose they thought his batting wasn't good enough. However, if the Aussies didn't have a massive lead, it may not have mattered. Wickets win matches.

 

But the England mentality is that runs save matches, the trouble is that at least one of them need to score a BIG hundred. If Monty had played i'm pretty sure that the Aussies wouldn't have made 500.