First Test: England v South Africa, Lord's, July 6-10.

[Dr Cricket]

Arthur it is way stupid now, take yesterday sa bowled less overs when at top and then they were forced to bowl way more overs in the evening and Ali and root destroyed them.
Same thing happened in India where the Indian batsman would destroy English tired bowlers at the end but it won't just be 30 overs but sometimes 40 plus or even 45 overs.
Really if they bowled at a good pace chances are teams will be scoring way less runs in a day or they would take more wickets.
Really is no reason for team to be slow, especially since everyone else can do it in domestic games.

[rich1uk]

the problem is finding a meaningful way to penalise it

theres no way you can apply retrospective runs or wickets penalties to the match that the offence occurred in as the dynamics of the game wouldn't have happened the same way so you would be making a bit of a farce of games

applying fines or suspensions for later games obviously dont work within current rules as teams can still play the next match at full strength and the next match might not even be against the team the slow over rate took place against, and players match fees are only a tiny proportion of what they make anyway at top level so getting docked half their match fee isn't a deterrent as they dont miss it anyway

unless the ICC are prepared to have the balls to hand out meaningful penalties it isn't going to get better, and when was the last time the ICC did anything that took balls

[backfootpunch]

Still banging the same drum

Can we not just discuss the cricket

[Dr Cricket]

They could be strict like ecb are.
Or like ICC are now on player behaviour.
They could easily just give demerit points to captain.
England were 8 overs short last year nothing happen, in same test pak were overs short as well nothing happened.
Really 30 mins should be enough leeway time.
You really shouldn't be misusing more than 2 overs.

[rich1uk]

my last post on this but technically there were no overs lost today when you take acount of the extra 30 minutes

SA bowled 19.3 overs this morning to finish the england first innings

England bowled 68 overs in the rest of the day

and 2 overs are lost for the change of innings after a side is bowled out

by my arithmetic thats 89.3 overs

edit : apologies SA only bowled 18.3 overs in 90 minutes at the start of play today so we actually lost one over

[Arthur Crabtree]

Agreed Bhaves. An old problem that doesn't go away, hence bfp's frustration!

[Dr Cricket]

Spreading like wildfire as well most teams are so slow.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Dry pitch with a few puffs of dust along the way. Spin might be the way to win the game, though it's been a match moved along by the new balls so far.

[Dr Cricket]

I be surprise if Dawson plays the 2nd test will they go back to rashid or pick another spinner for the squad.
Wonder how many test balance gets as well.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not sure. Having picked him, they can't really not give him some sort of a reasonable opportunity. Especially as England won't lose this game.

If Woakes comes back, is it obvious that Wood will go or is there a case for sticking with him and looking at the old timers?

I suppose if Dawson is in because England didn't want to go into a game without a batter at eight, Woakes' return means there is less of a reason to retain Dawson. But even so, better not select LD at all than treat him like that.

[Dr Cricket]

Surely they have to admit it is a mistake if Ali the number 1 spinner and Dawson getting a game on his bowling.
They better off playing rashid since he can bat same level and a better spinner.

[Arthur Crabtree]

But you can't judge an international player on a day or two day's cricket. There can be factors of nerves and luck that can undermine a player over that time-frame.

But if England do end up discarding ZBGB and Dawson (OK, the case isn't yet made) would that be a terminal blow for the 'right stuff' selection? Players being picked on hard to quantify personal qualities rather than actual performances? See also James Vince. These are all touted as Flower influenced picks at various times (though the press backtracked on his influence in advancing Vince quickly enough.

Probably not the subject for a match thread... But interesting (to me).

[The Professor]

South Africa have some selection snaffus too.

Rabada, while being top quality, needs to sort his economy out.

As well I struggle to believe that Duminy is Test quality.

[Arthur Crabtree]

SA have problems in this game, but they have just won in Australia and had a strong winter, compared with a very bad winter for England. Obviously, it's far too early to be drawing premature conclusions....

[bigfluffylemon]

A good day's cricket. Obviously England have the upper hand, but it's surprising how closely the two innings have mirrored each other so far. With Bavuma at the crease, and de Kock and Philander to come, (and Maharaj can bat too), South Africa are clearly capable of getting near or past England's score from this position.

Moeen. He always seems to be one of the players whose place to the side is questioned (including by me), and he always responds with a performance like this that shows just how valuable his allround contribution to the side is. I think that as long as he, Bairstow and Stokes are in the side there will be questions about where he bats, but I think yesterday shows that you really need to sort England's top order out rather than worry about details - all three of those can bat anywhere from 5-8.

Thank goodness Dawson was picked because he can bat at 8. And of course, he's going to be primary spinner. Oh, wait (ok, I'm being harsh to judge after one day, but given that the pitch is already starting to turn, you'd expect him to be heavily involved in the fourth innings. We'll see if two spinners turns out to be a winning tactic after all).

re: Stokes, I'd be the first to agree that he was picked too early, and on potential rather than true merit. He dined out on that century in Perth for quite a while, and was only really in the side because England lost so many other players at once. However, since the start of 2016 he's more than deserved his place in the side on merit with both bat and ball. To focus only on the good fortune he has had comes off as somewhat churlish - you don't average 45 with the bat and 27 with the ball since Jan 2016 simply by being lucky. Besides, it depends what counts as luck. If you include having a catch dropped, a close lbw umpire's call verdict that goes your way, edge through third slip when there's no third slip in place, bowled off a no-ball, etc., then I'd argue it's a pretty rare innings of any substance that does not involve any degree of 'luck' somewhere along the way. Root was dropped twice (including one pretty straightforward chance by Duminy), and stumped off a no-ball, on his way to 190, and I lost count of how many times England managed to drop Kohli, or otherwise stuff up a chance to get him out. We don't call Root and Kohli 'lucky' players - we acknowledge them as very good players who take advantage of luck if it comes their way to punish the opposition.