[Match Thread] Zimbabwe v Bangladesh: 2nd Test

[brmtaylor.com admin]

I think that's probably the game. Really disappointing, no sense of the match situation.

I'd still like to see some good individual performances. A century from Taylor, a century from Masakadza (it would be timely for him to be honest)... but I think any faint hopes of saving this match are long gone now. Not sure we'll make it far after lunch tomorrow.

[takleg]

I think that's probably the game. Really disappointing, no sense of the match situation.

I'd still like to see some good individual performances. A century from Taylor, a century from Masakadza (it would be timely for him to be honest)... but I think any faint hopes of saving this match are long gone now. Not sure we'll make it far after lunch tomorrow.

Now a question of how big a defeat this is going to be. Disappointing.

[Jemisi]

I agree you shouldn't have a runner for cramp, but if you've been out with a proper injury, you should be able to have one.

Also the game is 11 on 11, most runs wins. It isn't 7 batsmen against 4 bowlers. The game is about taking all 20 wickets, because all bat. There isn't a law about the number or quality of bowlers. You could pick 11 top order batsmen if you wanted.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Cremer and Meth chewing out all their nails on the balcony.

[foreignfield]

Only need to remember the first innings of the first Test. We started worse, the pitch was more difficult to bat on, Robiul was fresh, and we batted for 150+ overs.

It's all in the head.

[maehara]

Every time one of our guys hits a big one, I cringe. Because it's going to cost us this match. SLOW DOWN, you eejits...

[brmtaylor.com admin]

It's great to see another but I really question why?
Surely given the match situation keeping it on the ground is the smartest thing to do. Minimise risk and everything.

As much as I would like to see him bring up a century, I would much prefer to see Masakadza make 60 off 300 than 120 off 110. It shows more character to knuckle down and pull a Faf to save the match than blaze away like Pollard and go on to lose.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Every time one of our guys hits a big one, I cringe. Because it's going to cost us this match. SLOW DOWN, you eejits...

That's what we should have probably done in the first innings instead, hitting out positively?

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Anyone found a good stream? The one with the ucaster.eu logo in the top right which has been so reliable through this match is cutting out like crazy now - even the audio

[Kriterion_BD]

Better start than we've had recently. I think we will win if we bat out the overs. 3 runs an over becomes well doable if we were to have plenty of wickets in hand tomorrow afternoon. Unless tomorrow is washed out a win or tie are our only ways out of this. Just can't see us 8-280 off 130.

And Meth on crutches.

This is what makes the runner rule (or lack thereof) so annoying. You have a guy with a legitimate injury completely disadvantaged because he can't have a runner.
I don't really understand why it was abolished in the first place. It wasn't really being abused that I can remember. And when the runner is in play the fielding side always thinks they're a chance of a run out.

Were runners ever allowed in Test cricket? One of the reasons might be the lack of uniformity in the application of the rule. From what I heard, the batting side would request the fielding side for permission to use runners. Sometimes fielding sides would be good sports about it, other times not. I don't think anyone would let someone use a runner in a World Cup final. I believe that was the reason why the ICC abolished the runner rule.

Here's the link to the ICC's decision regarding runners. Apparently it was controversial because some fielding captains refused injured batsmen the right use a runner. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 20924.html