Test Match Day 2

In case anyone hasn’t heard:

https://www.kiaoval.com/statement-on-the-passing-of-her-majesty-the-queen/

A poor decision, but it would have likely been a washout anyway.

Vauxhall wrote:A poor decision, but it would have likely been a washout anyway.

Why a poor decision?

On a practical level, people will have made travel and hotel arrangements and so on. Now quite a few of those might think it right and proper for them to make a personal decision to write off their day at the Test and associated costs but even while doing so they might wonder why it isn't left to everyone to make their own personal decision rather than have it imposed upon them that they must react in such and such a way. The live text on sporting events on the BBC came to an abrupt halt with the announcement of the Queen's death. The Middlesex online forum on the High Performance Review also came to a stop. Why? What would have been disrespectful about these things carrying on on?

The last test does seem to be jinxed: COVID John caused the last-minute postponement of the Indian test in Manchester last year.

I wonder if the South Africans will be invited back for a decider next season, to avoid having to give everyone a refund? There is plenty of space in the calendar after the Ashes series finishes in July. They will just have to cancel a couple of Oval Invisibles games to free up the ground.

If I remember correctly, England’s test match still carried on after the tragic news of Ben Hollioake passing away. Many of the players playing would have known him personally.

The Queen is completely unrelated to cricket yet we see a last minute postponement.

The Duchy of Cornwall owns our ground. Prince Charles, sorry, King Charles is our patron. That alone makes it unthinkable that this test match can continue. Whether you or I personally want the right to go to cricket is frankly irrelevant.

Jackers wrote:The Duchy of Cornwall owns our ground. Prince Charles, sorry, King Charles is our patron. That alone makes it unthinkable that this test match can continue. Whether you or I personally want the right to go to cricket is frankly irrelevant.

I suspect that whether or not the Test is played tomorrow was the last thing on his mind. Why is it unthinkable to play on Friday but thinkable on Saturday to Monday?

Who said it was thinkable to play the rest of the match? We are in unchartered waters: the previous monarch died in February 1952 and his predecessor abdicated in December 1936, after the previous monarch had died in January 1936. None of them died during the cricket season.

Surrey will (in my view rightly) not be so presumptuous to assume that its patron would be happy to continue the match as the country enters the prescribed 10 days' national mourning. They will make the decision as a mark of deep respect

Jackers wrote:Who said it was thinkable to play the rest of the match? We are in unchartered waters: the previous monarch died in February 1952 and his predecessor abdicated in December 1936, after the previous monarch had died in January 1936. None of them died during the cricket season.

Surrey will (in my view rightly) not be so presumptuous to assume that it's patron would be happy to continue the match as the country enters the prescribed 10 days' national mourning. They will make the decision as a mark of deep respect

If it was truly unthinkable the announcement would have abandoned the whole match, not just Friday. Therefore it is thinkable.

Yes, these are uncharted waters but getting on with normal life does not imply lack of respect.

I can completely understand Friday being called off, but the first thing the Queen would want is for people to continue life as normal as possible. There is no logical reason to abandon the whole match indeed It should be played in memory and celebration of the life of Her Majesty in my opinion.

Looks like it could be finished in 2 days let alone 3!

17 wickets on a bowler friendly wicket. But not sure why England felt they had to slog themselves into a better position even in a 3 day game. Stokes was awful, Brooks, looks like another T20t slogger to me. Personally I don't really consider this Test cricket, but it just illustrates again what hit and giggle cricket has done to batting. And do we have to have two women commentating together?

Embarrassing innings from Stokes.

Hiding at number 6 and slogging to avoid trying to play a proper innings.

Vauxhall wrote:Embarrassing innings from Stokes.

Hiding at number 6 and slogging to avoid trying to play a proper innings.

‘Hiding’? That’s where he bats. ‍�

What sort of "Test" match is this? A heavily bowler favoured wicket, below par batting on both sides. Poor, maybe they should have cancelled the whole thing. Pitch inspector anyone?

Chinaman wrote:What sort of "Test" match is this? A heavily bowler favoured wicket, below par batting on both sides. Poor, maybe they should have cancelled the whole thing. Pitch inspector anyone?

Why would there need to be a pitch inspection in the same sentence as you admitting there has been poor batting on both sides??

As a spectator there yesterday I was very satisfied with my return for £75, but I hope Ollie isn’t overtaken by Crawley as top scorer in the match. His innings was excellent in the context of the match.

Also, Marco Jansen for an overseas stint at some point please.

However enthralling the Bairstow innings at Trent Bridge may have been, the pattern of 3-day test matches this summer is utterly depressing.

There has been little wrong with any of the pitches, and conditions have generally been very batsman-friendly. Yet neither England (unless Joe Root comes off) nor the touring teams seem to have batsmen capable of playing long innings.

I think we all know what the underlying reason is, though I am sure Strauss, KP and the rest will not accept that there is any correlation between the relentless drive towards more short-form cricket and an inability to produce batsmen who can play any other way.
.

Well, they had 3 days to try and get a result in. Not England's fault that South Africa can't bat for toffee either.

Also some of the bowling has been superb; Robinson's finally had that kick up the arse and it has beared fruit...

Glad I no longer waste silly amounts of money on this stuff anymore. Come on under two days, it's absurd.

Why don't September Test Matches start at 10:30?

Alex! wrote:Robinson's finally had that kick up the arse and it has beared fruit...

Good stuff.

Cee Gee wrote:

Vauxhall wrote:Embarrassing innings from Stokes.

Hiding at number 6 and slogging to avoid trying to play a proper innings.

‘Hiding’? That’s where he bats. ‍�

Exactly. He’s chosen to bat 6 after becoming captain.

Where did he bat before?