Cricket

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That 3rd Test Match in 1888 at Manchester went as follows:-

England 1st innings ... 176 all out
Turner ... 55 - 21 - 86 - 5

Australia 1st innings ... 81 all out
Peel ... 26.2 - 17 - 31 - 7

Australia 2nd innings ... 70 all out
(They were 7 for 6 at one stage)
Peel ... 16 - 4 - 37 - 4

 

[Mikey C]

That 3rd Test Match in 1888 at Manchester went as follows:-

England 1st innings ... 176 all out
Turner ... 55 - 21 - 86 - 5

Australia 1st innings ... 81 all out
Peel ... 26.2 - 17 - 31 - 7

Australia 2nd innings ... 70 all out
(They were 7 for 6 at one stage)
Peel ... 16 - 4 - 37 - 4

The follow on rules were clearly different back then, or else England would have batted for second time instead of there being just 3 innings.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

In a surprise to no one the ICC rated the pitch "Unsatisfactory"

 

[Bald Rick]

The follow on rules were clearly different back then, or else England would have batted for second time instead of there being just 3 innings.

Yep, back then the follow on was compulsory with a first innings deficit of 80 or more.

 

[3rd rail land]

Yep, back then the follow on was compulsory with a first innings deficit of 80 or more.

Presumably matches were much more low scoring in those days?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably matches were much more low scoring in those days?

I’m old, but not that old enough to remember

 

[DelW]

Presumably matches were much more low scoring in those days?

Based on those scores, it must have been like watching paint dry. Even if Mr Turner bowled unchanged throughout, the England innings must have taken about 110 overs for 176, more if he shared one end, and the Australian innings look little better.

The opposite of bazball, even St Geoffrey of Boycott would surely have found that slow going!

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Based on those scores, it must have been like watching paint dry. Even if Mr Turner bowled unchanged throughout, the England innings must have taken about 110 overs for 176, more if he shared one end, and the Australian innings look little better.

The opposite of bazball, even St Geoffrey of Boycott would surely have found that slow going!

That would make it look like Chris Tavare was playing Bazball!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Presumably matches were much more low scoring in those days?

The England v Australia Test Match at the Oval in September 1880 saw England score 420 in their first innings.

 

[greatkingrat]

Back in 1888 it was 4 ball overs, so not quite as long as it seems at first glance.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

As a postscript to the Melbourne Test, I thought this an excellent article by Greg Chappell:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/memo-to-australia-and-england-honour-the-format-that-has-elevated-you-1517475

(Article blames the cavalier attitude of batters on both sides for the two-day finish...as they showed little application and graft, mocking their forbears in the face of
a challenging pitch, drawing on the example of Rick McCosker batting with a shattered jaw in the Centenary Test of 2977 at the MCG)

 

[43096]

That would make it look like Chris Tavare was playing Bazball!

I think we have the very definition of an oxymoron!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A landmark....the 10,000th posting mark has been reached on this thread.

 

[75A]

Surprised to see that none of the England Cricket Squad / Management made it into the New Years Honours list, after they won a game in the land of plenty

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Bashir is in the squad as a specialist spinner, yes?

He was added to the 12-man squad for the final Test Match of this series, but was not included in the named XI with Pope also excluded.

When lunch was reached on Day 1, England after 24 overs were 114-3, having lost Crawley, Duckett and Bethell.

*************************************************************************************************************

Bad light and rain ended Day 1 early, with England 211-3 from 45 overs. No play at all in the final session.

Root 72 not out, Brook 78 not out..

 

[Purple Train]

I was hoping to take a look at the cricket to calm myself down and sort out my insomnia.

Instead, I'm going to be having nightmares about Jamie Smith's dismissal - caught trying to flog a deliberate long hop from Marnus Labuschagne over deep cover. And that makes it sound better than it was.

England 336-6 at lunch.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The internet in my local area now seems to be restored, thankfully.

England are now all out in their first innings on Day 2, but not until they had posted a total of 384 all out from 97.3 overs.
Root 160
Brook 84

Neser 18.3 - 2 - 60 - 4.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More like a normal 5-day Test Match as Australia's 1st innings reaches 105-1 from 25 overs.

Potts bowled four expensive overs costing 37 runs, with seven fours taken...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Day 3 sees Australia move on to 518-7 from 124 overs at the end of play for the day, when I just logged on.

Head, obviously taking delight in his new role of opener, moved relentlessly onwards to 163, before falling lbw to Bethell. Smith has also played a good part in the innings building, currently 129 not out with Webster 42 not out

Potts sees determined to prove that his omission from the main strike bowling Test Match squad was correct, until injuries to others occurred, now has figures of 25 - 1 - 141 - 0. at an (un)economy rate of 5.64..

 

[75A]

The Pantomime continues, halfway through his second over of the morning Ben Stokes hobbled off and might not be able to bat. Beau Webster has now passed 50 and Josh Tongue has just had Smiffy out again this time caught by Jamie Smith for 138.
Leaving Oz 8-544, a lead of 160.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Tongue has just bowled Starc for 5, leeaving Australia 567-9.

 

[DelW]

The Pantomime continues, halfway through his second over of the morning Ben Stokes hobbled off and might not be able to bat. Beau Webster has now passed 50 and Josh Tongue has just had Smiffy out again this time caught by Jamie Smith for 138.
Leaving Oz 8-544, a lead of 160.

Under the stand-in captaincy of Harry Brook, the last three wickets fell quite quickly, to Tongue (2) and Jacks. Australia have a lead of 183.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Crawley out for 1 in the first over of the England second innings, but that was the only wicket to fall and at lunch on Day 4, Duckett and Bethell had taken the England score to 80-1, still trailing Australia by 103 runs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2026 ==

Just awoke at 0520 to find that both Duckett (42) and Root (6) had fallen, but currently Bethell is 106 not out and Brook 42 not out, England moving on to 219-3 from 51 overs.

 

[Haywain]

At stumps England are 302-8, with Bethell still at the crease on 142, having achieved his maiden first class and test century. England 's lead is 119 and the test goes into the 5th day to the great relief of Cricket Australia!

 

[SuspectUsual]

Nice of Crawley to find another ridiculous way of getting out. Is he not aware that Mitchell Starc can move the new ball a bit?

 

[PauloDavesi]

The dismissal of Jacks was even more rediculas, the sort of shot that should end his international career.

Very pleased to see Jacob Bethell complete his hundred, he has a lot of ability, but was not helped by the way the England management have treated him over the past year.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Beau Webster has had a good Test Match for Australia, as when batting as a number 9, made 71 not out and then coming on to bowl in the later stages of Day 4, currently has figures of 13 - 1 - 51 - 3.

 

[75A]

I saw Crawley's dismissal 'live' and have just watched it again, after having had a good sleep.
Can't work out if it was arrogance or incompetence, offered no shot and then had the cheek to ask for a review, words escape me.

 

[Purple Train]

I saw Crawley's dismissal 'live' and have just watched it again, after having had a good sleep.
Can't work out if it was arrogance or incompetence, offered no shot and then had the cheek to ask for a review, words escape me.

It looked high to me on first watch - and it was umpire's call if I remember correctly so it wasn't to the team's detriment.

 

[Haywain]

it was umpire's call if I remember correctly

It was umpire's call for hitting, at the top of off stump. I think in those circumstances asking for a review is perfectly justified, and certainly isn't arrogance or incompetence - the latter would come into play by NOT asking for a review.

 

[SuspectUsual]

It was umpire's call for hitting, at the top of off stump. I think in those circumstances asking for a review is perfectly justified, and certainly isn't arrogance or incompetence - the latter would come into play by NOT asking for a review.

For me the arrogance and incompetence is the (lack of a) shot, not the review. They have bats for a reason! The ball just wasn’t wide enough to leave, and it’s staggering that an international opening batsman could think that it was - yes, the ball moved, but not that much

 

[Mikey C]

For me the arrogance and incompetence is the (lack of a) shot, not the review. They have bats for a reason! The ball just wasn’t wide enough to leave, and it’s staggering that an international opening batsman could think that it was - yes, the ball moved, but not that much

To be fair, one of the key things an opener has to do is leave the ball if he doesn't have to play it. Indeed that's something Duckett has been criticised for.

Starc has been regularly pushing the ball across right handers, looking for the nick.