Well they went from 430-3 to 471 all out and ended up losing from a seemingly impregnable position in the last test. So at 350-5 that would still be a thought in their heads.
But of course now that they’ve added a further 200, I would think they are quite safe.
I expect no declaration though.
Just goes to show how wrong you can be, or, never bet against an England batting collapse.
Meanwhile in Grenada, deja vu, with to entire batting top order back in the shed for 5-110 and the lower order making something of a fist of the recovery. Now 8-257.
Which unfortunately might be enough.
The old cricket meme: “the singular purpose of the batting top order is to lull the opposition into a dangerous sense of over-confidence.”
286 all out from 66 overs doesn’t seem like a bad outcome for Australia
My benchmark for a Test 1st innings is 300 runs off 100 overs.
It’s a reasonable result which would have much more palatable if it had been from a base of 4-200 rather than 5-110.
There are enough gremlins in the pitch that The Cartel could run through the WI for a comfortable win. But it’s a “we is shit, you is shitter” outcome.
With the current ENG philosophy with the bat, taking as much time as you can out of the game while you are batting is a core strategy for success.
Now on display at Edgbaston. Also Bazball. 5 down for 84? Time to bash the bowlers. 100 partnership at 7 rpo.
I was surprised to learn that if India somehow lose this match, it will not be the highest first innings total in a losing effort by a test side.
Apparently Bangladesh declared at 595-8 against New Zealand and lost by seven wickets.
IANA cricket expert but I’m not a total noob either. I’ve just refreshed my knowledge of declarations, draws, etc. The fact that declaring looms large as an element of game strategy says that clearly the 5-day time limit is a significant factor. Both teams are highly incentivized to avoid a draw, even at the cost of increasing their likelihood of losing.
Which leads to a question:
Given current first class teams, Test rules, etc., what would happen if the 5-day time limit was removed? More specifically, if the teams always had to play until both sides had completed their allotted two innings, but nothing else changed, how many days might it take to complete a match?
I recognize that, like in US baseball, theoretically such a match could run for decades if folks on the batting side were perfect in their play. But more realistically, given the current balance of power between batting & bowling in first class cricket, might it take 6 days, or 10 days or ??? to run a match to a conclusion?
Yes, many Test matches now finish via all innings complete and a comparison of final scores leading to a winner and a loser. But of those that would’ve run longer if allowed, how much longer?
Refer to the “Endless Test”. The longest cricket Test match ever played was the “Timeless Test” between England and South Africa in Durban, South Africa, from March 3 to March 14, 1939, which was abandoned as a draw after nine days of play across 12 days. The match concluded prematurely because the England team had to depart for their ship home, despite having the highest-ever first-class fourth innings score at that point.
I don’t think this is as big a factor as suggested
Are you also disallowing the follow-on?
i.e. when the team batting second falls substantially less (in Tests it’s 200), they can be made to follow-on or bat again. If they don’t compile the deficient the game finishes. If they do the team batting first is allowed to bat again and chase the residual.
If the team in a dominating position after the first innings needed to bat again to the extent of losing it’s 10 wickets before they can go for the win you’d likely see many batters sacrificing their wicket so as they could bowl again.
However, simply due to fatigue, few Test teams have been able to bat more than onto the third day, say for 240 overs. Only 19 innings out of 9461 have exceeded 240.
The longest Test innings is The Oval 1938 when Australia bowled 335.2 overs to England who scored 907/7 declared. (ENG captain Hammond only declared when he learned that both Bradman and Fingleton had been injured while fielding and would not be able to bat)
If the premise was that AUS also batted 335 overs, then ENG 2nd, then AUS 2nd then with 90 overs per days play, that would indicate a Test could maximally extend to almost 15 days, and 20 new balls being taken. (note that in 1938 the ball was not changed) .
A Test with 4x240 over innings might last into the 1st session of the 11th day.
This premise assumes that the pitch can last that long before breaking up and becoming unplayable.
There has never been a Test where there have been 3x200 over innings and only 4 where there were 2x200 over innings. Melbourne 1929, Durban 1939, Leeds 1951 and Manchester 1964.
Based on my analysis from CricInfo’s StatsGuru (wonderful free resource) ENG’s 407 all out is the only instance in Test cricket history of a team scoring 400 with 6 ducks.
The only instance of a team scoring 400 with 5 ducks was SA who scored 429 vs BAN at Centurion in 2008
I was wondering if that was a record.
How much would be a safe total for India to defend? Just a couple of years ago it would be fanciful to think that 450 would be chased in a day and a session. But now?
They should have enough now.
Block every ball for the rest of the day and a bit and give ENG 2 1/2 sessions and 80 overs to chase say 350.
But if they give ENG 4 sessions then they will need 450.
Looks like they are going for option 2, but with a 500 target in mind.
They’re past tea now, and 538 ahead. Surely they don’t think Eng can chase this?
Declared with just over 600 needed, 3.n sessions to bat.
This is The Fear in action. India should long since have stopped worrying about England’s chances of winning, but the last match and England’s general attitude of “sure, why not?” Is exerting a powerful reality distortion field.
England finish 3 down, with all day to bat tomorrow. There was the suggestion of rain breaks today that never happened, we’ll see if the rain can save England tomorrow.
All out for 250 an hour after lunch is my bet.
In Grenada with WI v AUS a much more conventional game scenario.
Despite a few stopages for rain and light AUS 7-221 and ahead by 250 with 3 wickets in had at stumps day 3.
Most of the runs combining from the guys who should be getting them.
Time not a factor. Pitch is showing variable bounce. If AUS get another 30 or so, a chase of +/- 300 should prove comfortably excessive for the home side.