So how many for 2 wickets would England need to be at the end of play

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

Well you see it is easy for me to postulate as I have no allegiance.

Your negative psychology has been noted however, we both know in sport it is largely the hope that kills. Actually perhaps negative is unfair, realistic a better word as that would be how I view Arsenal and our seasons. I will never flirt with silly notions such as League success.

---

It's not negative psychology so much as experience, sw. I have watched too much test cricket to believe in this possibility. Such a win is a once-in-a-decade eventuality. There is a reason that the highest score ever made to win in a test at Adelaide is 315. The psychology, the wicket, the history and the odds are stacked against an England win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not negative psychology so much as experience, sw. I have watched too much test cricket to believe in this possibility. Such a win is a once-in-a-decade eventuality. There is a reason that the highest score ever made to win in a test at Adelaide is 315. The psychology, the wicket, the history and the odds are stacked against an England win.

---

As is the fact that all the batsmen to come have a habit of chucking their wicket out the window as soon as you squeeze the scoring. Malan was a big hope here as he has shown a fair bit of discipline. With him gone wickets will fall early tomorrow and that is pretty much the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not negative psychology so much as experience, sw. I have watched too much test cricket to believe in this possibility. Such a win is a once-in-a-decade eventuality. There is a reason that the highest score ever made to win in a test at Adelaide is 315. The psychology, the wicket, the history and the odds are stacked against an England win.

---

:nod: Even more annoying is that any - to use the buzz word of the day - momentum we get from this resurgence is likely to be blown away in Perth if the wicket is remotely quick (although it hasn't been in recent years). *******s

Pretty incredible England have a decent chance of levelling the series and perhaps even winning it.

If Smith had just enforced the follow on this game would’ve been over with the series completely in the bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony C

Pretty incredible England have a decent chance of levelling the series and perhaps even winning it.

If Smith had just enforced the follow on this game would’ve been over with the series completely in the bag.

---

Very true, t. He was protecting his quicks, which is understandable given how injury prone they all are. That was always a risk and they probably should have picked Sayers as a horses for courses selection on his home ground (should have picked another bowling option at 6 as well, but I guess Marsh has justified his place for now).

Think Lyon will make the difference tomorrow, but if one of the quicks was to break down ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Very true, t. He was protecting his quicks, which is understandable given how injury prone they all are. That was always a risk and they probably should have picked Sayers as a horses for courses selection on his home ground (should have picked another bowling option at 6 as well, but I guess Marsh has justified his place for now).

Think Lyon will make the difference tomorrow, but if one of the quicks was to break down ...

---

I may regret saying this but isnt the massive advantage of bowling in the final session more on england's side? Coupling the fact that our bowlers are a little toothless when the ball isnt swinging and their batsmen are pretty ****e when it is? I am not sure it makes THAT much difference when Australia bowl. Their raw pace and hostility is a problem all day and we didnt look in much more trouble this evening than in earlier in the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I may regret saying this but isnt the massive advantage of bowling in the final session more on england's side? Coupling the fact that our bowlers are a little toothless when the ball isnt swinging and their batsmen are pretty ****e when it is? I am not sure it makes THAT much difference when Australia bowl. Their raw pace and hostility is a problem all day and we didnt look in much more trouble this evening than in earlier in the day.

---

All over by 6-30 Uk time tomorrow imo, couple of early wickets and then we lose by 100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I may regret saying this but isnt the massive advantage of bowling in the final session more on england's side? Coupling the fact that our bowlers are a little toothless when the ball isnt swinging and their batsmen are pretty ****e when it is? I am not sure it makes THAT much difference when Australia bowl. Their raw pace and hostility is a problem all day and we didnt look in much more trouble this evening than in earlier in the day.

---

I doubt the final session will come into play tomorrow anyway p, but yes, you are probably right (hence I am surprised they didn't pick Sayers to exploit the conditions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pokster

All over by 6-30 Uk time tomorrow imo, couple of early wickets and then we lose by 100

---

Blimey - you think we'll last a session. Not like you to be an optimist

I want to go on record as saying that England will win tomorrow.

I shall wake up, open my advent calendar, look at the result and think to myself 'just another sport I am an expert on'. :cloud9: