TOPIC:

I've rabbited on enough about this on the Ashes thread, cheering on Ireland after they rolled England for 85 in just 23.4 overs in the first session of the Lord's Test match.
Well, I thought England was gone but after restricting the visitors' first-innings lead to 122 and then setting them a target of 182 to win, the Poms have rolled Ireland for just 38 in 15.4 overs (that's 94 balls).
Surely this has to be an Irish joke - imagine "investing" a few pounds with Ladbrokes on England winning at lunch on Day 1!
Full credit to Chris Woakes (6-17) and Stuart Broad (4-19).
And Joe Root (four catches), though Joe Denly might not think so after Root's selfish running between wickets sacrificed the Test aspirant.

AD -- good post -- England dug the test match out well in the end. 180 was always going to be a lot against that attack on that pitch in those weather conditions. However, there is no doubt that when they started to bowl Root would have preferred to be another 100 runs in front.

What a bloody pleasure it is to watch the ball swing in England. One can understand why Massie and Alderman have bowlled so well there in the past.

Full credit to both sides on the test match.

Indeed, Ark, 2019 could well be a Summer for the Swingers.
50-over and 20-20 cricket may be stacked in the batsman's favour, but I reckon the average Test innings score has decreased in the past 5-10 years and the bowlers have almost wrested back the ascendancy.
The upcoming Ashes series may be one where a team batting first and posting 300 is in the box seat.

AD: good point on the vulnerability of the batsmen and scores in test cricket.

My honest view is that most batsmen lack the technique to simply stay in against good bowllers especially green pitches.

At one point on the commentary Nasser Hessein got angry at the inability of the batsmen to hold out the bowllers and then score later in the day; I sure he was thinking of the double hundred he made against Mcgrath and Warne, which was understandable in the circumstances of the play; alas, AD the current England batsmen don't have the technique or mentality to emulate the feats of himself, or even Graeme Thorpe, in that particular test match.

Ark, sadly, the days of a batsman grafting a hundred are seemingly gone thanks mainly to the influence of 20-20 cricket.
That said, the media - with the possible exception of Nasser - seem to condemn a batsman if he spends five hours making a ton.
Yes, Graham Thorpe was a very good batsman during generally tough times for England.
I think the ideal Test is where each team scores between 250 and 300.
Despite the disappointing result, with AB and Thommo almost taking us to an unlikely victory, the 1982 Boxing Day Ashes Test would have to be one of the best ever played, with the innings scores ranging between 284 and 294 inclusive.
howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/M...d.asp?MatchCode=0941

I was sitting watching the Irish batsmen fold for 38 and wondering if Australia would have actually managed to score 100 in those conditions. Woakes and Broad were making the ball do everything other than talk.

I didn't see any of Ireland's innings (you blink & you miss it), Mike.
The way Broad and Woakes bowled, perhaps any Test team would've struggled to reach 100.
While Jimmy Anderson is a veteran and almost (but not quite) in Glen McGrath's class, the England trio will be a handful for the Aussie batting.
However, I think Cummins, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Starc, etc. will be just as damaging against England's batting, which I consider to be "modest" at best.

mikeh wrote: I was sitting watching the Irish batsmen fold for 38 and wondering if Australia would have actually managed to score 100 in those conditions. Woakes and Broad were making the ball do everything other than talk.

Thing is Mikeh....the likes of Cummins, Pattinson et al wouldn't of allowed Eng to make 300 in the 2nd dig....think Aust would of gotten to 30 odd with a wicket or two left and won the game.....just.....LOL