If I'd been Root today, I'd have said I'd have bowled first after losing the toss even if I wasn't going to. England's batsmen are under enough pressure as it is - saying you'd have batted would just have put them under even more.
I agree with planetgeli on this. There was no particular need in the game situation to bounce Archer, at least not in the way they did it. But such tactics can backfire. I hope that does on them tomorrow.
No, you recognize that there's the possibility of injury, but also acknowledge that he's a fucking professional athlete who should have the skills and reflexes to get out of the way. It's part of the risk of professional sport. You'll see me say exactly the same thing if the English bowlers send short deliveries at the Australian tail end tomorrow.
This is the main reason I made my argument. It's now part of the game. With all the whining in this thread, you'd think the Australians are the only team who's ever sent a short ball at a tail-end batsman.
You know, if some of the best, international-level sports figures in the world can't deal with the pressure of telling the truth about what you would have done if you won the toss, it seems to me that maybe Aussie hubris is not the first thing you should be worried about.
It's "potentially hubris"? Jesus, that's a high bar you've got there. It doesn't just depend on what the batting conditions are today, but what you think they might be like over the next few days. Why not simply go with the most likely and most reasonable interpretation: that the Australian captain chose to bowl because, in weighing up all the considerations, he thought that this decision would give his team the best chance to win (or perhaps draw) this test? As David Gower said, he was probably thinking that the best chance of winning a match in conditions like this, where you've already lost one day of play and where more rain is in the forecast, is to hope that you can bowl the other guys out for a modest total, then rack up a big score, and then take advantage of the fourth day pitch to see if you can bowl them out again.
That's not what I'm talking about.
This is a veritable dog's breakfast of contradiction. In your explanation, Australia bowled first because of hubris, to show that they don't rate England's batting and the insult the English batsmen. Or, possibly, they bowled first for the exact opposite reason, that they don't trust their own batting against Archer. So bowling first is a sign of hubris and ego, or it's a sign of weakness and lack of confidence. Either way, the Aussies look bad, right?
No not irrelevant but even if Aus win that won't change the information available to them at the toss. On that information, which includes the outcomes of all previous tests, I think they made the wrong decision. Batting first is statistically significant to the outcome - it roughly doubles your chance of winning in recent years. Add to that the weather yesterday and the forecast for today, and the history at Lord's in different weather conditions. Plus the colour of the pitch - it wasn't a blatant greentop. Plus the Lord's drainage system, which negated a lot of what happened on day one. This isn't a partisan thing. I'd be saying the same if Root had bowled first.
Yep. Batting first has to be the default unless there are compelling reasons not to, such as, for instance, today's weather yesterday and yesterday's weather forecast for today.
But not after he's made 140-odd.
I want all the other 9 wickets to go for 30 runs leaving Smith. Then in their follow on, Smith gets a first baller and panic ensues.
I switched off the radio (to listen to a work call) and posted this. Got us a wicket.
And another. I'm on fire.
