titan_uranus

That's right - the pitch was better for batting today than it was yesterday. And yet we still blew it with the bat. We would only have done worse by batting first. How? How would they have kept them under the hammer with a sub-200 score? This pitch is slow. On Day 1 the conditions suited the bowling, especially Anderson's bowling. We showed today that with good English bowling, we're still a weak batting side. Why would batting on Day 1 have changed that? Once again - we are losing this Test because of our batting. 100% because of our batting. Choosing to bowl first has no relevance except for the order in which we batted.

Big day tomorrow. If England bat well, the Test will be gone. Unless Lyon can stick around to help Haddin whittle the deficit, we'll be around 80 runs behind. We'll need to bowl them out for no more than 270 if we want to win, so we'll really need to do another good job with the ball. The way we've bowled and they've batted this series, that is certainly not out of the question. Nonetheless, if we're chasing 400, 350, even 250, our batting has to improve or it won't matter. Only Clarke and Harris were actually beaten by their deliveries. The rest weren't patient or couldn't deal with the pressure and got out to bad shots (Rogers, Warner, Watson, Smith, Bailey, Johnson, Siddle). What difference would batting first have made? We're batting ineptly in this Test, batting first wouldn't have changed it, and if anything, we'd have done worse given the conditions were better for bowling yesterday. The simple fact of the matter is that, if we lose this Test, it will be on the back of bad batting, not bad bowling, and not the fact we bowled first. The bowlers did their job. The batsmen didn't.

So you agree the batting conditions today are better than yesterday, yet you think we made the wrong decision? The issue in this Test is our batting. It's not good enough. If we'd batted first, we'd have been bowled out by stumps yesterday (at the rate we're going, having just lost Johnson) for a crap score (currently 151), giving England momentum and confidence. The way this Test is going, we'll be 50-100 behind on first innings, probably bowl them out for around 250-300 again, will have to chase something between 300 and 400, which will be too much for us unless we can rectify our awful batting. But that's the issue - our batting. Bowling a team out in the first innings for 255 is fine. Being bowled out for less than 200 afterwards is not. Edit: Having said that, Harris, Siddle and Lyon can all bat, and if one of them can stick around with Haddin, we can chip off a lot of this deficit. Harris does have a 50 in this series already.

Disagree. See above - this is the third time in four first innings this series we've been 5 or 6 down for not much.

Typical response from you. This has nothing to do with bowling first. In fact, today's conditions are more suited to batting than yesterday's were. The problem is not the bowling, or the fact that they made 255 (sub-par). Our batting has been iffy all series, and this is another instance of that. In our first innings we've been 6/132, 4/174 and 5/143. In each of those, Haddin and some others (e.g. Johnson, Smith) have made runs as the innings has gone on, to keep us either in the game or well ahead. If Johnson and Haddin can put on 100, we're still well in the game here, but that doesn't change the fact that our batting is just not good enough to get us where we want to be (number 1). Watson's not good enough, his Perth century notwithstanding. Rogers probably isn't good enough, he seems to be in every innings but can't get to 100. Bailey definitely isn't good enough and shouldn't be on the plane to South Africa (maybe shouldn't even play in Sydney). Smith and Warner need to develop consistency, whilst Clarke hasn't batted well since the first innings in Adelaide.

5/112. Rogers caught at mid-off. Doesn't help his career, and doesn't help our chances of winning this Test. England's using the same tactics we've used all summer - disciplined, tight bowling, building pressure and leading to bad shots. Smith and Rogers both got out through attacking shots when they've been defending all day. Of course, it doesn't help when Warner and Watson throw their wickets away (as per usual).

Oh yeah? Guess it makes sense to rest those injured/sore players and prepare for (most likely) Indy. OneHD doesn't just do CBS games though, they do Fox games too. I've seen Fox games on OneHD this year.

Massive week. To think that Pittsburgh could be 0-4, then drop two in a row late to Baltimore and Miami (two teams they're competing with for the number 6 seed, which would seemingly kill their playoff chances), but still be alive going into Week 16, was incredible. To then have all the results go their way, including Buffalo beating Miami, is insane. I'm still backing the Dolphins to snare the number 6 seed, with a win at home against the Jets. It's no certainty, of course, but it's the most likely to happen I think. If it does happen, then they're in provided the Bengals beat the Ravens, and the Bengals are undefeated at home this year, so I'd back them in to get the job done. If the Dolphins drop their game, then that opens the door for the Chargers, who will know if their season is alive when they play as they're in the late slot. If Baltimore and Miami both lose their early games, the Chargers are in a 'win and in' situation at home against the Chiefs, who they already beat on the road this year. Could well get it done. Failing that, Pittsburgh will beat Cleveland, which means they're in if all three lose (wow!). As for the NFC, whilst the Cardinals are still alive, the Saints get the Bucs at home, which they just will not lose. I'm hoping against all hope the Rams can go into Seattle and win. They played the Seahawks so well on MNF the first time around, and the Seahawks are woefully out of form right now. But I don't think it'll happen, which means the 49ers will end up probably the 5th seed (I think we'll beat Arizona). I'm also barracking strongly for Chicago and Dallas. I do not want to have to go to Lambeau in the Wild Card round if Rodgers is back. I also don't want to have to go into Philadelphia, the way the Eagles are playing. I'm much more confident going into Chicago or Dallas, both of whom are average football clubs. I'll back my 49ers to win a road game against any of those sides, but Chicago/Dallas are much easier options. Agreed. Does anyone know how One chooses or comes to be given its NFL games? I don't have cable so I only get what's offered on One, and so often it's the same teams repeated (lots of Cowboys, Broncos, Giants and Steelers). 49ers had a good run, so that's not so bad, but at the same time there doesn't seem to be much logic or a pattern in what games are shown (e.g. it's not, for example, CBS and Fox's best games in each timeslot, nor is it rotating through teams or divisions, or anything like that). I don't think the Week 17 games for One have been released yet, but I'm hoping for Ravens-Bengals (huge playoff implications), 49ers-Cardinals, and/or Chiefs-Chargers.

It was great to be there yesterday for the world record crowd (only the official one though, there surely will have been 100,000+ crowds at Kolkata Tests). The roar after the anthems (how very AFL-esque) and again in the late overs of the day with Johnson streaming in was great for the game and would have been something rather novel for the English players. England's collapsing this morning, now 9/242. I thought we had the advantage overnight, though as has been said we need to see how we bat before knowing for sure whether 250-odd is acceptable. But to have them 6/220-odd at stumps on Day 1 is advantage us I think. They dug their own grave with ridiculously slow and timid batting from Root, Pietersen and Bell. There was no pressure on the bowlers or on Clarke's field settings, which allowed us to keep attacking. Harris and Johnson are in the kind of form whereby they are able to take wickets at any point, so you have to make runs when you can, and England didn't do that. They should have more on the board for 95 overs of batting than 242.

Woke up to see the SA-India result. Wow. Surely, even though SA did close up shop late to prevent losing wickets, you have to call that a 'win' to them and a 'loss' to India. They had 458 to defend and 132 overs to bowl them out, and could only manage 7 wickets. Then, when the game was on the table, with nothing but Tahir (can't bat) and Morkel (injured foot) to come, they put their fielders on the boundary when Philander was batting. Surely you'd be happier to be SA right now.

Which is why I think the Week 17 Sunday night game is sure to be Dallas-Philadelphia. As much as I'm sick of seeing NFC East teams, Dallas is near certain to beat Washington, which means their Week 17 match-up will determine the winner of the NFC East. Which may make the Bears-Eagles game this week a dud of a Sunday night game (NFL had no choice but to put it in there though, they needed to even up the split between flex games stolen from CBS and Fox, so that they had flexibility to pick any game in Week 17). Agreed. I have no idea who determines what games One gets, but so many times this year we've ended up with awful offerings. As Macca said, Saints-Panthers and Patriots-Ravens are two of the biggest games of the year, let alone this week.

You wouldn't have thought so, the Falcons are playing pretty miserable football. If we're going to hit a peak in 2013, it will surely be now. We've got our four linebackers starting, and we've got our receiving unit starting too (Boldin, Crabtree, Davis), so we're essentially hitting full-strength (though Bruce Miller, an important part of our offence, is out for the year). As a wild card, I'd take us at Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia or Dallas any day of the week. If we end up at Green Bay and Rodgers is back, then that might be a tough one.

Amazing to think that, if Carolina beats New Orleans this week, they'll almost certainly be the number 2 seed in the NFC. You would have been offered to write your own ticket on the odds of that happening before the season. Just need my 49ers to do the job against Atlanta at home this week, and with Seattle (surely) beating Arizona in Seattle, we should be home and hosed for the playoffs. If something goes wrong this week, we don't really want to be going to Arizona in Week 17 with our playoff spot on the line.

The Test did start on a Wednesday, which didn't help. I read some comments on Cricinfo suggesting there would be far more people on Friday/Saturday/Sunday.

I forgot to say earlier - how good has Haddin been! Fantastic batting, and equally fantastic keeping. Put Prior, and some others, to shame.

Sweet, sweet victory, and very well deserved.

I agree, start with Harris and Johnson, then after 2 overs each move to Watson/Siddle/Lyon until the new ball is good to go, then back to Harris and Johnson. We have to break this partnership quickly (preferably by getting Stokes out). If we let these two settle and add another 80-100, bringing the deficit down under 200, the nerves will start to set in, and the English tail is renowned for pulling batting performances out of nowhere when there is something on the line. Broad will bat if they can push things to tea/beyond (i.e. if we take 3 quick wickets in the morning, he might not bother). We're certainly not home and hosed as some seem to think, though you'd clearly rather be in our shoes than theirs. The cracks really don't seem to be that menacing, despite their appearance. There weren't too many deliveries yesterday that went berzerk (though some started to keep low, troubling Bell). I wonder if maybe they're just not in the perfect position for us to exploit. Hopefully today it's better for us. I'm still nervous, even at 5 down. 250 runs in a day is not unheard of, despite it being Day 5, and England have everything to play for. There's this small part of me that recognises that, Brisbane and Adelaide aside, we've been awful this year, and yesterday was a combination of our worst bowling and possibly their best batting. We should be able to take 5 wickets (might only need 4 if we get a few early, but I think Broad will bat), and we should be able to wrap this up without too much fuss, but we'll need an early wicket. If they're still 5 down at lunch, we'll be in huge trouble.

Well, still a fair bit of work to do tomorrow, with 5 wickets still needed (maybe 4, given Broad didn't look great practicing in the nets). The evening session was definitely our worst bowling of the series. We didn't build the pressure we've been usually building, our lengths were also generally too short. If we keep bowling like that, we'll struggle to bowl them out. Nonetheless, they'll have to bat most of the day to make the remaining 253 runs, and you'd think we're good enough to take those wickets. I've seen stranger things happen, though, and with Bresnan still to come, you never know.

Huge moment, lucky it was close to the 80th over to encourage the use of the review from Clarke. Just need to keep chipping away; this pitch is cracking up, it's not going to be pleasant to bat on last.

I think this has to be the case. This article suggests that, where a sound on snicko comes in the frame or two after the ball passes the bat, it can still be the ball hitting the bat. Which is rather confusing, really. And if Hot Spot isn't reliable in the heat, or if there is tape on bats, or whatever, then it's not worth using. I think the doctrine used by Hill here was to not disturb the on-field umpire's decision unless the evidence goes conclusively against it, and that is a fair doctrine. In the end, Erasmus gave Root out, so the real beef should be with him as much as the DRS. The issue facing cricket, though, is that there is no point having the DRS if it can't get rid of bad decisions due to flawed technology. That appears to be the situation at the moment, which is far less than ideal. I don't think it's being misused anymore. In England it was; we continually used it to review LBW decisions where we thought there might have been a chance it was outside the line or missing the stumps, which is not what it's there for. However, I think that's been stopped now (case in point - in Adelaide, last ball of Day 2, Johnson hit Carberry on the pads, was given not out, we didn't review it because it looked like a decent enough call, but turns out if we had reviewed it it would have been out. Umpire thought it was going down the leg side, which was fair enough). Mind you, there haven't been many LBW appeals this series (one LBW wicket all series so far in fact), so it might heat up as we keep going.

On the Root DRS issue, if the lack of a hot spot and the lack of anything on real snicko is not considered conclusive evidence, then what is? What would have been required for the third umpire to overturn that decision? A visible gap between bat and ball? It seems that not out decisions are easier to overturn than out decisions (compare Smith with Root), which flies in the face of cricket's mantra that the benefit of the doubt rests with the batsman, doesn't it?

Interesting tactics from England. They've gone very slowly with their batting today, when they're still 200-odd runs behind and 2-0 down in the series. Maybe they're trying to force our bowlers to spend a long time in the heat, and at least get out with a draw, but if we can get Bell early tomorrow we'll put ourselves in a good position to have a decent lead before we bat again. As you say though, it's all Bell. If he gets in, we might be behind on first innings.

Our form in this series has masked the fact that we're carrying sub-standard batsmen, and Watson heads that list. That shot was awful, and was almost identical to his dismissal in Adelaide where he bunted it back to Anderson. Playing the big drive though the ball wasn't close to full enough for the shot. He's an immensely limited cricketer, his best isn't good enough, and whether we win this series or not, he's a weakness in our batting line up. Nonetheless, England's got two wickets but we've given them both away (Rogers' stupid running and Watson's stupid batting). Some calmness from Warner and Clarke, and we can still do alright, especially with 72 runs already on the board with 40 minutes before lunch.

Only the one change for England, with Bresnan replacing Panesar. We're unchanged, and Clarke's won the toss for the third time so we're batting first.

Also a shout out to Quinten de Kock who, in a three-match ODI series against India, hit three 100s.