Why bat for two days when it's a four day test and we want to win?
Because they will be knackered and demoralised, and the weather will be more overcast.
Why give them the best of the weather tomorrow? They should be able to take more time out of the game, and we would have to bat again anyway.
..all day. Have a run at them in the evening obviously.
England already have 374. Get that to somewhere in the 500-550 (first session tomorrow) and it'll probably be enough.
Plus we want to give the new bowlers the hardest possible test to see what they've got.
So are you thinking we just do one innings each I guess?
Jasprit Bumrah is such an exciting cricketer to watch.
Fielding might not have been the choice here.
Fenella? Not sure whether she bowls, bats, or fields...but it seems unlikely that she can hold an end up* these days.
* Horrific gag. Carry on.
So, does this england team have it in them to bat out a draw over, let's say, 4 sessions.
Spoiler alert: almost certainly not.
Lead currently 583. I know we chased a shed-load down in the 1st test, but surely that's enough even without Bumrah?
Maybe Gill has forgotten he's captain. Or wants another double ton.
Confidently relying on england batting like idiots.
Just the 108 overs to survive.
Let's worry about the next 18 first. (Fewer than 18.)
For the 2nd time this series I turn on the TV and Crawley is out next ball.
How does he know?Even allowing for The Law Of Bazball that was terrible.
Ultimately this is why I can't get behind modern English test cricket. I understand all the bits about going for it, and confidence, but i just can't bear to repeatedly see test batsmen actually celebrate the mind numbingly stupid ways that they and their colleagues get out.
Neil Warnock is commentating on Sky's broadcast of Somerset v Essex.
No, seriously.
