Some random numbers, some obscure terms, more random numbers, more obscure terms . . . and England lose.
By This describes my comprehension of cricket, at least until the 2005 Ashes. I learned to appreciate the game, I know the rules, but I’ll admit that tactics and strategy still, for the most part, pass me by.
The title references the second test of the 2009 Ashes, currently underway. Oz are 310-5 in their second innings. This puts Australia only 211 runs behind with five wickets to burn. If England lose at Lords, two questions will surely be raised:
1. Should Strauss have ordered the follow-on after Australia’s limp first innings? There are pros and cons to this, and while I’m inclined to force the follow-on while you have momentum on your side, as above I’ll admit I don’t appreciate all the tactical nuance involved.
2. Should England have declared as soon as they did? At the time a 500+ run lead looked safe, and the Sunday and Monday sessions are threatened by rain. The best way to increase the probability of a test victory in the face of uncertain weather is to afford the opposition as much time to bat as possible. But in Cardiff, we saw what Australia is capable of, so would 500+ (I think it was 511?) suffice?
I’d have gone for a few more runs myself.
UPDATE: bad light stops play with Australia 313-5. They have one day and five wickets to score 209 for a test victory.
