No, we still need to bowl Australia out again to win. Unless both teams have batted twice it’s a draw.
What will probably happen is a situation where Australia are batting just trying not to be bowled out to save the draw, but we will see.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
What will probably happen is a situation where Australia are batting just trying not to be bowled out to save the draw, but we will see.
It's been short of a length since the dawn of time. You bowl a short ball, not a back ball.
It's not back of a length, it's short of a length. I was thinking how good her commentary has been, until I noticed this.
No. They need to bowl out Australia a second time.
'Back of a length' is really commonly used. I'm amazed you're not familiar with it.
This was a shocking shout...
Last edited:
I don’t know how this keeps happening in all sports, football included. Players can’t be allowed to make the decisions and maybe even team doctors. It should be neutrals who don’t have anything invested in the game.
We should just smash our way to 200 and declare without Smith playing. There’s no way we’re going to win three tests in a row. So annoying that we lost play on two mornings as well as the full day. We probably only need a couple hours more, but that’s cricket I guess.
We should just smash our way to 200 and declare without Smith playing. There’s no way we’re going to win three tests in a row. So annoying that we lost play on two mornings as well as the full day. We probably only need a couple hours more, but that’s cricket I guess.
I'd say you hear back of a length more often than you hear short of a length, but both are very very common.
To be fair I can't think of any international team who will do this. Maybe that monster Australian team.
Just read that too. Hmm. I'm sure I heard such on TMS yesterday. Maybe they were hypothesising or referring to football protocols. Apologies.
But it makes no sense, as I said, you bowl a short ball, not a back ball. Back of a length means nothing.
It's new, short of a length has always been used, because it makes sense, back of a length is idiotic.
Here you go Colin, this might clear it up for you.
https://cricketershub.com/what-does-back-of-a-length-mean/
Should you have any other questions about cricketing, as it's also known, I'll do my best to help.
Haha very good.
Ah that makes sense.
No need to get so hot and bothered about it. Cricket is a complicated game to get the hang of, but I'm sure you will some day.
It's not a short ball though. Short balls are short. It's just back of a length.
Don't know what Buttler was playing at there. Spent the whole morning blocking then hits one up in the air.
Seems like he doesn't have much of a plan to play test cricket.
Seems like he doesn't have much of a plan to play test cricket.
I'm not sure arguing it doesn't make sense is a winning argument for cricket. Most of the sports vocabulary doesn't make sense.
The ball is short of a length, it makes perfect sense.
Aussie moaning about that DRS decision being picked up by the stump mic 
This is a draw then is it?
Unless Australia bat terribly, yeah.
Stokes is taking off
And when Stokes just got hit:Aussie moaning about that DRS decision being picked up by the stump mic
'Ah, in the dick'
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So if its over when it gets dark why haven't England put them in to bat. ??
Ben Stokes is so great
250 to 280 to win with 45 to 50 overs should make for a good game.
A Smithless batting lineup is a big risk for us Aussies
A Smithless batting lineup is a big risk for us Aussies
100 for Stokes time to declare
Not really sure the point of this after Stokes has got his cebtury. 250 with 50 left probably wouldn't be chased but you might get the Aussies caught in two minds about whether to go for it 270ish off 49 and they'll just block for the draw.
There's no way that England can risk an Australia win in any shape or form so had to put it a bit out of sight. 2-0 with 3 to play would be game over. They'll be hoping to give themselves a chance today and if not Smith may not be there for the next test.
I'm far from an expert on cricket with this being the first Ashes I have properly followed but surely without Smith Australia will just try and survive and go for the draw?
Not sure 250 in 50 is really giving them much of a chance. If they look comfortable at any point you can just start taking time out of the game and bowl to ridiculously defensive fields.
I think we're scared of Warner on a pitch that looks easy to bat on.
Wait till you hear about Chinaman bowlers..
Agreed but that last 16 runs and an over less solidifies that. Warner is the important wicket for me - I know he's got zero form, but with him in Australia would keep the runs flowing, without him and no Smith the batting line-up isn't looking great.
If Warner bats well then Australia will win.
He is the key wicket
He is the key wicket
That post didn’t age well
If Archer can keep his feet on the ground and is allowed to develop naturally he really can achieve anything he wants to, the natural talent and air of confidence is amazing in such a young and inexperienced player.
Love watching him bowl.
Love watching him bowl.
Concussion substitutes would be improved if the replacement player had to imitate the replaced batsman's mannerisms at the crease.
Edit: Not like that ffs Marnus
Edit: Not like that ffs Marnus