Lancashire (A) - 6-9 Apr (Sky Sports)

One brings two!

Badges wrote:I predict they will be 150 short with 7 or 8 down.We batted far too long.The last time anyone got 400 in the last innings at OT to win a game was 1910.

I think you are optimistic with regards to the number of wickets we will get Badges. Think this an awful cricket pitch with so little in it for the bowlers.

The only saving grace is we still have a new ball to come, but CT Steel 12-1-50-0 not standing up in the seat in the way we probably needed on this wicket.

When Rory Burns is bowling you know we're slightly out of ideas.

Another crap wicket that gets flater and flaterand flater.... Why can't anyone produce a decent 4 day pitch?

A fine batting display to save the game?

A poor bowling performance?

Or a terrible pitch.

I’m going with the latter.

A little bit of all three. Roach and Abbott in particular have bowled very well, as has Clark in the second innings. Steel and Worrall not so much although Steel has not bowled well at all, with match figures of 1-121 (at the time of writing) whilst Parkinson has picked up 6-223. Pope did drop Bohannon early on but there's only 3 chances we've created all day.

Although Ollie Pope having his first EVER bowl is something to behold!

Edit: interestingly, Keaton Jennings has just said on Sky that he thinks we bowled very well as it didn't allow them to chase down the score, which they wanted to do by getting to tea and assessing.

If only Pope had held a catch just after the first two wickets fell it might have been different, but probably not since the pitch died during the first day. Our strength is our pace bowling and at no time did we have a pitch with any pace or movement, it was a pudding (though not sweet).

I would imagine it would be the same side next Thursday, though the aggressive option would be to bring Lawes in for Steel on the grounds he would get more wickets. This would be unbelievably harsh on Steel. I rather like the look of Abbott!

offdrive4 wrote:If only Pope had held a catch just after the first two wickets fell it might have been different, but probably not since the pitch died during the first day.   Our strength is our pace bowling and at no time did we have a pitch with any pace or movement, it was a pudding (though not sweet).

I would imagine it would be the same side next Thursday, though the aggressive option would be to bring Lawes in for Steel on the grounds he would get more wickets.  This would be unbelievably harsh on Steel.   I rather like the look of Abbott!

I think Lawes or Moriarty could well come in for Patel (who made 1 and 0). Steel will play as a batter and I expect to see Smith at 4.

Certainly it was a strong batting display to save the game, and while our bowlers did nothing wrong we didn't have the variety of options we needed on the last day. We can't expect the opposition to prepare pitches to suit our strong seam attack in the way we do: quite the opposite. So we have to cover all bases away from home.

Moriarty took a five-fer here in the last week of September. Parkinson took a five-fer in this match, in the first week of April. While I can't argue that Steel hasn't justified his pick as a batsman, we should have found room for the proper spinner, either at the expense of Patel or one of the seamers.

dougieginn wrote:

Badges wrote:I predict they will be 150 short with 7 or 8 down.We batted far too long.The last time anyone got 400 in the last innings at OT to win a game was 1910.

I think you are optimistic with regards to the number of wickets we will get Badges. Think this an awful cricket pitch with so little in it for the bowlers.

Good call three hours into the day's play! The point is you don't need to set a target of 444 or anywhere near it.350 is more than enough.If a team gets it then well done to them.You have to give the opposition a sporting chance IMHO.

350 was more than enough to at least avoid this bore draw. Makes me think even more it's an idea to not have draw points. At least they'd have to go for it which would make it interesting.

Chinaman wrote:350 was more than enough to at least avoid this bore draw. Makes me think even more it's an idea to not have draw points. At least they'd have to go for it which would make it interesting.

That was obviously a batting track. People saying that we should have declared earlier. would be singing a different tune if we lost,
even more so if at end of season risky declarations get us relegated.

optimistnot wrote:

Chinaman wrote:350 was more than enough to at least avoid this bore draw. Makes me think even more it's an idea to not have draw points. At least they'd have to go for it which would make it interesting.

That was obviously a batting track. People saying that we should have declared earlier. would be singing a different tune if we lost,
even more so if at end of season risky declarations get us relegated.

Jennings saying they wanted to be able to have a go at it from their tea position (but were unable to) indicates how teams' mindsets have changed (and were doing so even before Bazball). The thinking seems to be that day 4 pitches offer the least assistance to the seamers and not much to any but the better spinners. The skill of preparing a pitch that will favour spinners late in the match (as opposed to from the outset) seems to have died. Leicestershire have just made 380 odd to beat Yorkshire, who had Dom Bess, not the greatest but at least a front line spinner.

optimistnot wrote:

Chinaman wrote:350 was more than enough to at least avoid this bore draw. Makes me think even more it's an idea to not have draw points. At least they'd have to go for it which would make it interesting.

That was obviously a batting track. People saying that we should have declared earlier. would be singing a different tune if we lost,
even more so if at end of season risky declarations get us relegated.

Not true in my case.If we'd set them 350 and they got it then good luck to them.

Another thing - batting on for personal glory/milestones is utter bollocks.

Risky declaration 444 to win ?