How To Take 20 wickets?

First topic message reminder :

637 for two and they lost their opener for a duck. That's not good if you're an England fan.

One down and two to play and 20 wickets to take, 40 if we want to win this series.

Can this attack do it and how can they?

5 bowlers with Finn replacing Bops?

Stick with six batsmen, create scoreboard pressure and replace Bresnan with Finn who is more dangerous with the cherry?

Play the same team and hope this attack bowls like it can?

amanuensis wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Headingley does give our bowlers more chance of taking 20 wickets as it will surely give more seam/swing movement than the Oval, but the only trouble is that our batting line up has struggled on pitches that provide some pace and movement (Headingley 09, Wanderers 09/10, Perth) and not just in spinning conditions in the sub continent. For that reason, as well as others, I can't envisage us going in with 5 bowlers. That is nearly a certainty. Anderson will play, as he is our best bowler, and he is a given but both Broad and Bresnan lacked a bit of nip in the last game and it's been mentioned they were both a bit "floaty" and weren't hitting the bat as hard as they can, but I can't see both being left out as it doesn't really fit with this management teams MO for picking a side. If one goes, which I think they have to, then it has to be Bressy for me as Broad has more potential to be a match winner and has been superb since the start of the India series last year. As for who to come in, it is a tough one. Both Finn and Onions have their pro sides, but I would perhaps lean towards bringing Onions in at Leeds with a few to Finn playing at Lords, his home ground, in the final Test.

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that Bopara provides meaningful insurance?

More insurance than Finn and Onions do.

JDizzle wrote:

amanuensis wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Headingley does give our bowlers more chance of taking 20 wickets as it will surely give more seam/swing movement than the Oval, but the only trouble is that our batting line up has struggled on pitches that provide some pace and movement (Headingley 09, Wanderers 09/10, Perth) and not just in spinning conditions in the sub continent. For that reason, as well as others, I can't envisage us going in with 5 bowlers. That is nearly a certainty. Anderson will play, as he is our best bowler, and he is a given but both Broad and Bresnan lacked a bit of nip in the last game and it's been mentioned they were both a bit "floaty" and weren't hitting the bat as hard as they can, but I can't see both being left out as it doesn't really fit with this management teams MO for picking a side. If one goes, which I think they have to, then it has to be Bressy for me as Broad has more potential to be a match winner and has been superb since the start of the India series last year. As for who to come in, it is a tough one. Both Finn and Onions have their pro sides, but I would perhaps lean towards bringing Onions in at Leeds with a few to Finn playing at Lords, his home ground, in the final Test.

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that Bopara provides meaningful insurance?

More insurance than Finn and Onions do.

Wait, I thought you wanted Finn or Onions ahead of Bresnan anyway?

Yeah, I want Finn or Onions ahead of Bresnan, just not ahead of Bopara. Same team as the last game, just Onions/Finn in for Bres,

A lot of people overlooking Mr Onions here - lest we forget he had the Saffers in plenty of trouble last time he played against them.

JDizzle wrote:Yeah, I want Finn or Onions ahead of Bresnan, just not ahead of Bopara. Same team as the last game, just Onions/Finn in for Bres,

Fists of Fury wrote:A lot of people overlooking Mr Onions here - lest we forget he had the Saffers in plenty of trouble last time he played against them.

Yep and Headingely perhaps suits him more than Finn.

JDizzle wrote:

amanuensis wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Headingley does give our bowlers more chance of taking 20 wickets as it will surely give more seam/swing movement than the Oval, but the only trouble is that our batting line up has struggled on pitches that provide some pace and movement (Headingley 09, Wanderers 09/10, Perth) and not just in spinning conditions in the sub continent. For that reason, as well as others, I can't envisage us going in with 5 bowlers. That is nearly a certainty. Anderson will play, as he is our best bowler, and he is a given but both Broad and Bresnan lacked a bit of nip in the last game and it's been mentioned they were both a bit "floaty" and weren't hitting the bat as hard as they can, but I can't see both being left out as it doesn't really fit with this management teams MO for picking a side. If one goes, which I think they have to, then it has to be Bressy for me as Broad has more potential to be a match winner and has been superb since the start of the India series last year. As for who to come in, it is a tough one. Both Finn and Onions have their pro sides, but I would perhaps lean towards bringing Onions in at Leeds with a few to Finn playing at Lords, his home ground, in the final Test.

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that Bopara provides meaningful insurance?

More insurance than Finn and Onions do.

Possibly, but that's a desperately low standard. Playing 6 batsmen also puts more strain on a struggling bowling unit & I wouldn't want to have to depend on the conditions being right when South Africa bat - Headingley can be very temperamental. If England have to bat on a green wicket under cloudy skies, it won't matter a jot if Bopara is there - he'll almost certainly fail.

Dont get all this Bopara hatred! Thought he showed really good signs in the 2nd innings.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Dont get all this Bopara hatred! Thought he showed really good signs in the 2nd innings.

Rather like Bell up until that tour of South Africa, people seem to remember his bad days and sweep under the carpet his good days. Bell is a better player than Bopara, but Ravi deserves his chance - he hasn't had a proper one since 2009 (when he was dropped a couple of matches after getting 3 consecutive 100s), and has been a top contributor in one-day cricket in the last year.

As I say, a failure in this series will probably mean England have to move on from him in the Test side. But we must, must give him a chance first.

Shelsey93 wrote:

amanuensis wrote:And if his failure in this series is a reason for England losing it (he's already made a "contribution" to that), what then? Do we just accept that? Sorry, but no thanks - they need to be ruthless & he looks hopeless frankly.

It was one match. And he didn't look hopeless - admittedly he played poor shots in both innings, but anyone can get out early in a Test innings, and he played very nicely until he got out second time round.

As I say if he fails all series it will be back to the drawing board. But until then he needs backing - I think he can be a fabulous number six for us.

Tricky one this for me.

I'm no fan of Bopara at Test level and am on record as saying he's ''not fit for purpose''. He always strikes me as being good against ordinary opponents and ordinary against good ones. As Shelsey says, his dismissals in the last Test were both poor.

That said, a large part of our success in recent years has stemmed from consistency and continuity in selection. Regardless of my own views on Bopara (which, of course, might be wide of the mark anyway - the selectors see far more of him than I do), I think it would be an unhelpful throwback to the 1990s to chuck someone out after a poor first Test in a new series. I would also be concerned as to the message it might send to the likes of Broad and Swann who probably now need building up rather than fearing they'll be out on their ears if they too have another bad game.

I accept that Bopara just about merited his opportunity against South Africa. The selectors owe it to him and all to make sure it is a meaningful opportunity. All in all, I would therefore retain him for the second Test.

Ravi has played one test, give him the series.

I was always gutted when for some bizzare reason, sidebottom came in to the final test against SA at the expense of Onions, who had been superb all series and like i said, i think SA were relieved to see Onions out of the team.

He is a quality bowler, I love him and Finn tbh and I have to be honest, I wouldn't be gutted if Onions did get ahead of Finn. I would be gutted if Bresnan got in ahead of Finn thought.

That's the issue though - yes he showed some promise. But having done the hard work i.e. getting through the first 30 mins he got out in familiar fashion trying to force a shot away from the body. And we also can't forget that first innings aka the most predictable duck in cricketing history.

Saying that, he plays the rest of the series for me - there is something there based on improving ODI returns. But this is surely the last chance now and he needs to do something significant in the next 2 matches.

Shelsey93 wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Dont get all this Bopara hatred! Thought he showed really good signs in the 2nd innings.

Rather like Bell up until that tour of South Africa, people seem to remember his bad days and sweep under the carpet his good days. Bell is a better player than Bopara, but Ravi deserves his chance - he hasn't had a proper one since 2009 (when he was dropped a couple of matches after getting 3 consecutive 100s), and has been a top contributor in one-day cricket in the last year.

As I say, a failure in this series will probably mean England have to move on from him in the Test side. But we must, must give him a chance first.

Bopara has had pretty much no good days in test cricket, at least against opposition attacks of any real quality.

amanuensis wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Dont get all this Bopara hatred! Thought he showed really good signs in the 2nd innings.

Rather like Bell up until that tour of South Africa, people seem to remember his bad days and sweep under the carpet his good days. Bell is a better player than Bopara, but Ravi deserves his chance - he hasn't had a proper one since 2009 (when he was dropped a couple of matches after getting 3 consecutive 100s), and has been a top contributor in one-day cricket in the last year.

As I say, a failure in this series will probably mean England have to move on from him in the Test side. But we must, must give him a chance first.

Bopara has had pretty much no good days in test cricket, at least against opposition attacks of any real quality.

You could almost make the same arguement for any of the top 6.

liverbnz wrote:

amanuensis wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Dont get all this Bopara hatred! Thought he showed really good signs in the 2nd innings.

Rather like Bell up until that tour of South Africa, people seem to remember his bad days and sweep under the carpet his good days. Bell is a better player than Bopara, but Ravi deserves his chance - he hasn't had a proper one since 2009 (when he was dropped a couple of matches after getting 3 consecutive 100s), and has been a top contributor in one-day cricket in the last year.

As I say, a failure in this series will probably mean England have to move on from him in the Test side. But we must, must give him a chance first.

Bopara has had pretty much no good days in test cricket, at least against opposition attacks of any real quality.

You could almost make the same arguement for any of the top 6.

Pardon?

amanuensis wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

amanuensis wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Dont get all this Bopara hatred! Thought he showed really good signs in the 2nd innings.

Rather like Bell up until that tour of South Africa, people seem to remember his bad days and sweep under the carpet his good days. Bell is a better player than Bopara, but Ravi deserves his chance - he hasn't had a proper one since 2009 (when he was dropped a couple of matches after getting 3 consecutive 100s), and has been a top contributor in one-day cricket in the last year.

As I say, a failure in this series will probably mean England have to move on from him in the Test side. But we must, must give him a chance first.

Bopara has had pretty much no good days in test cricket, at least against opposition attacks of any real quality.

You could almost make the same arguement for any of the top 6.

Pardon?

England's current top 6 all generally struggle against top class bowling attacks. Clear?

That's far too general. The top 5 haven't all been consistently successful against stronger attacks, but they've had individual success at different times. Their failures have also been far less pronounced than Bopara's - take out the Windies & his stats are absolutely shocking.

trott and cook have been incredible the last 18 months. KP has been in form and scored a big double against india last year. bell has been playing very well since the SA tour. Bopara has only just returned to the test set up and played some lovely shots in the second innings, just played the cut shot too hard on a slow dry pitch.

Bopara has had less of a chance against the top class bowling attacks than the rest. His failure during the 09 Ashes was really the end of his chances for a while and he's only played against the WI and Sri Lanka with a brief showing against India so his oppourtunities have been limited.

Meanwhile, against Pakistan in 2010 the top 6 provided 2 centuries (1 was Morgan) and only Trott averaged over 30.

Pakistan in 2012, none of the top 6 averaged over 30 (26 was the highest) and there were no centuries.

South Africa in 2010 where surfaces were quite batsman friendly given the right approach, 3 of the top 6 averaged over 30 but one of those is retired from International cricket. There were 2 centuries. I suppose that's not bad on the face of it, but when you realise the opposition had 4 of their top 6 average well over 30 (lowest being 39.42) with 5 centuries between them then that puts a bit of perspective on the figures.

That's probably the 3 best attacks England have faced in the last 3 years. In fact, I'd say they most certainly are and by some distance.

Agree with liver, this England team hasn't faced many top quality bowling attacks and when it has they have struggled badly. England's rise to number 1 in the rankings has co-incided with the decline in international bowling attacks.

Surely the title should be "how to take 3 wickets?"

Its completly mooseheaded to believe that Finn , or any one player bar perhaps Chuck Norris, wouldve made the darndest difference to that game, it was lost by loose batting on the second morning and then became a disaster due to a complete failure as a team.
Its also ridiculous to suggest that the margin of victory is a true reflection of the levels of the two teams.

The cry for 5 bowlers is always built on "well the 6th batsman doesnt score many runs". At least we know he will get a go, whats the 5th bowler going to do other than take overs away from the fourth bowler who wouldve been picked ahead of them due to being better. especially when the 5th bowler will be another right arm seamer. OK in this case it was such a stupidly long innings that the reserve bowling was use dto rest the frontline guys, but their variety is also a reason why they are used...as yest another right arm seamer Finn (and Onions) dont really offer anything massively different to the others.
Finn on a slow low pitch, was that really likely to have worked? OK it couldnt have been any worse but ....]
I would see a bigger argument for 5 bowlers if the guy missing out were a leg spinner or a left arm seamer.
For the next tests where there may be more help from the pitch I see a strong argument for Finn ahead of Bresnan

But that tinkering alone will not close a gap as big as the one in that test. there has to be a huge mental change, England have to perform....including folk like Swann. Bopara has to get over his nerves. KP has to get over his ego. Whatever seamers get selected have to be switched on and find some better sweets.

Get back to doing whjat they do best, put the pressure on the opposition and crack them.

England's problems over the last few months has more to do with the batting than with the bowling. In fact, it has been the bowling unit that has been largely instrumental in setting up their recent wins. Even against the West Indies the batting struggled.
In that context, England has to look at a better number 6. Ravi Bopara has tallent, and the England management has tried to stick with players as much as possible, particularly if they are batters. I think Morgan despite his failings, has that additional something, the X factor about him, and would be a better choice at 6. But going into the eries, Bopara had decent ODI form, and his parttime bowling is much better than the other options available in the side, Pietersen and Trott. So no complaints when they picked him to start the SA series. But I don't think now he should get the entire series to see what he can do. He has had his fare shair of chances, the next test should be the last for him in a while if he couldn't turn things around.
Hope Bopara turns it around for himself and his team.

If England are looking to keep the6 specialist batsmen and 4 bowlers strategy, how about moving Matt Prior to number 6, but don't give him the wicketkeeping duties. Instead bring in someone like a Craig Kieswetter of a Steve Davies or a Geraint Jones to bat at 7 and to keep wicket.

gboycottnut wrote:If England are looking to keep the6 specialist batsmen and 4 bowlers strategy, how about moving Matt Prior to number 6, but don't give him the wicketkeeping duties. Instead bring in someone like a Craig Kieswetter of a Steve Davies or a Geraint Jones to bat at 7 and to keep wicket.

As if Prior's keeping is the problem?

gboycottnut wrote:If England are looking to keep the6 specialist batsmen and 4 bowlers strategy, how about moving Matt Prior to number 6, but don't give him the wicketkeeping duties. Instead bring in someone like a Craig Kieswetter of a Steve Davies or a Geraint Jones to bat at 7 and to keep wicket.

Prior at six? That would be ok if we had genuine allrounder at seven or as you suggested a different keeper. I certainly wouldn't bring in a keeper who is not as good but a Foster or Bates could work?

What we need is the world first specialist bowler keeper, who can bat a bit as well

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:If England are looking to keep the6 specialist batsmen and 4 bowlers strategy, how about moving Matt Prior to number 6, but don't give him the wicketkeeping duties. Instead bring in someone like a Craig Kieswetter of a Steve Davies or a Geraint Jones to bat at 7 and to keep wicket.

Prior at six? That would be ok if we had genuine allrounder at seven or as you suggested a different keeper. I certainly wouldn't bring in a keeper who is not as good but a Foster or Bates could work?

Or what about bringing in the young Yorkshire batsman Joe Root to bat at 7, with him also performing as the second spinner in the bowling attack.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:What we need is the world first specialist bowler keeper, who can bat a bit as well

Kieswetter has taken several wickets recently ( ).

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:If England are looking to keep the6 specialist batsmen and 4 bowlers strategy, how about moving Matt Prior to number 6, but don't give him the wicketkeeping duties. Instead bring in someone like a Craig Kieswetter of a Steve Davies or a Geraint Jones to bat at 7 and to keep wicket.

Prior at six? That would be ok if we had genuine allrounder at seven or as you suggested a different keeper. I certainly wouldn't bring in a keeper who is not as good but a Foster or Bates could work?

Or what about bringing in the young Yorkshire batsman Joe Root to bat at 7, with him also performing as the second spinner in the bowling attack.

At this stage anyone would be better than Bopara frankly, so why not?

Too young, too early and his FC bowling is at Pieterson's level. We've already had Bairstow come back from England duty in poor form after being picked too early so preferrabley Root will be given the time he needs to gain enough experience.

liverbnz wrote:Too young, too early and his FC bowling is at Pieterson's level. We've already had Bairstow come back from England duty in poor form after being picked too early so preferrabley Root will be given the time he needs to gain enough experience.

All right then, what about Kent's Sam Northeast who batted well enough against the current South African test attack during the warmup Kent V South Africa match? If not Sam Northeast as he is too young as well, what about an older player Michael Carberry, and if not Carberry then what about bringing in an OAP in Robert Key.

Boycott

You don't seem to have a 'grand plan'

If any youngster deserves a go then it's Bairstow, who didn't get a real one due to Bops returning (rightly, IMO).

gboycottnut wrote:

liverbnz wrote:Too young, too early and his FC bowling is at Pieterson's level. We've already had Bairstow come back from England duty in poor form after being picked too early so preferrabley Root will be given the time he needs to gain enough experience.

All right then, what about Kent's Sam Northeast who batted well enough against the current South African test attack during the warmup Kent V South Africa match? If not Sam Northeast as he is too young as well, what about an older player Michael Carberry, and if not Carberry then what about bringing in an OAP in Robert Key.

What about Ramps? It's been a while since there was a clamour for him to be recalled.

Retired you say?

Ok then. Trescothick?

liverbnz wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

liverbnz wrote:Too young, too early and his FC bowling is at Pieterson's level. We've already had Bairstow come back from England duty in poor form after being picked too early so preferrabley Root will be given the time he needs to gain enough experience.

All right then, what about Kent's Sam Northeast who batted well enough against the current South African test attack during the warmup Kent V South Africa match? If not Sam Northeast as he is too young as well, what about an older player Michael Carberry, and if not Carberry then what about bringing in an OAP in Robert Key.

What about Ramps? It's been a while since there was a clamour for him to be recalled.

Retired you say?

Ok then. Trescothick?

Bringing Trescothick back as a one-off for this current Test Series V South Africa is a very good idea. If such a move does happen, he should bat at number 6 rather than opening the batting as he used to do.

Stella wrote:Biltong

Isn't 'How to choke at Cricket' on the school curriculum in South Africa?

No its 'how to poison rubgy teams' which is still the main lesson. Poisoning cricketers is only just now being taught, may take a few years yet for them to perfect it

eirebilly wrote:

Stella wrote:Biltong

Isn't 'How to choke at Cricket' on the school curriculum in South Africa?

No its 'how to poison rubgy teams' which is still the main lesson. Poisoning cricketers is only just now being taught, may take a few years yet for them to perfect it

Sigh, you should know better billy, we don't poison we PK.

Anyhoo, the reason I came on this thread today was to supply the answer to the OP's question.

You take twenty wickets by bowling 20 unplayable deliveries.

biltongbek wrote:Anyhoo, the reason I came on this thread today was to supply the answer to the OP's question.

You take twenty wickets by bowling 20 unplayable deliveries.

Or pick the best fielders in county cricket and pray for run outs

As i have alluded to before. Bopara is my biggest concern here. He is not test competant with bat or ball. I doubt whether Englands batting will fail again but the bowling could use a boost as these South African batsmen are very very good.

I would, therefore, remove Bopara and replace him with Onions or Finn depending on the conditions.

eirebilly wrote:As i have alluded to before. Bopara is my biggest concern here. He is not test competant with bat or ball. I doubt whether Englands batting will fail again but the bowling could use a boost as these South African batsmen are very very good.

I would, therefore, remove Bopara and replace him with Onions or Finn depending on the conditions.

But making this move will further weaken the batting then England will only have 5 specialist batsmen, and that is almost suicidal move to have against this high quality South African bowling attack. What England desparately need is a genuine all-rounder of test match quality like an Ian Botham or an Andrew Flintoff.

Who?

Woakes, Stokes?

Stella wrote:Who?

Woakes, Stokes?

What about Samit Patel as the all-rounder. His left-arm bowling will complement Swann's right-arm off-spin bowling whilst his batting can't be any worse than Ravi Bopara's batting.

Patel is not a test match class allrounder. His batting is not of a number six and would be more of a fill in bowler.

The only way I would get Patel in, is if Swann was injured. We could then bat Patel at seven, drop Bops and bring in Finn or Onions.

George Dobell on cricinfo mentioned Rikki Clarke in one of his post-match articles. Have no real thought on it myself other than he's in very good form this season,

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:Who?

Woakes, Stokes?

What about Samit Patel as the all-rounder. His left-arm bowling will complement Swann's right-arm off-spin bowling whilst his batting can't be any worse than Ravi Bopara's batting.

If anyone seriously believed he was up to test match standard and that the wickets would be conducive to spin then yeah maybe.
His test career to date says it all however (ie he doesnt have one of note)
If England wanted a left arm spinner they would pick Panessar rather than a fat man who throws a ball slowly but in now would could be mistaken for someone who actually spins it. If Patel were a genuine test class bowler then England would pick him fairly regularly, he would offer the variety their bowling attack lacks for sure. Sadly he isnt.

Honestly if we are chucking out names like Patel and Clarke it kind of sums up where England are, its pretty clear that selection would only be minor tinkering and really isnt going to suddenly turn them around overnight. The side that went out was more balanced than others England have fielded in the last couple of years, and lost in all departments. Theres some good reserve bowlers, but they arent really any different to the guys currently in the side who have dominated most sides for the last couple of years. Sticking Steve Finn in isnt going to make up that gap.

Sorted out the mental application of the players, sorting out their batting/bowling plans and execution might. the England team that was fielded last week is capable of much better than what it produced, we know that.

gboycottnut wrote:

eirebilly wrote:As i have alluded to before. Bopara is my biggest concern here. He is not test competant with bat or ball. I doubt whether Englands batting will fail again but the bowling could use a boost as these South African batsmen are very very good.

I would, therefore, remove Bopara and replace him with Onions or Finn depending on the conditions.

But making this move will further weaken the batting then England will only have 5 specialist batsmen, and that is almost suicidal move to have against this high quality South African bowling attack. What England desparately need is a genuine all-rounder of test match quality like an Ian Botham or an Andrew Flintoff.

But is he such a great batsman? Will the batting line up seriously miss Bopara? Will the inclusion of an extra bowler to attack the South African batting line up cause more damage than the supposed runs the England number 6 makes?

gboycottnut wrote:

eirebilly wrote:As i have alluded to before. Bopara is my biggest concern here. He is not test competant with bat or ball. I doubt whether Englands batting will fail again but the bowling could use a boost as these South African batsmen are very very good.

I would, therefore, remove Bopara and replace him with Onions or Finn depending on the conditions.

But making this move will further weaken the batting then England will only have 5 specialist batsmen, and that is almost suicidal move to have against this high quality South African bowling attack. What England desparately need is a genuine all-rounder of test match quality like an Ian Botham or an Andrew Flintoff.

This 'specialist batsman' rubbish is really irritating. Prior is a specilist batsmen. He's got a decent average, and batted better than most of the other so called 'specialists' in the last test. We need a good test cricketer to replace all the not so good test cricketers who have peddled their wares at spot 6, ever since Freddie retired. Putting all these labels on players is rather silly..... it's like using cliches, which I always avoid like the plague....

DouglasJardinesbox wrote: all the not so good test cricketers who have peddled their wares at spot 6, ever since Freddie retired. Putting all these labels on players is rather silly..... it's like using cliches, which I always avoid like the plague....

I like how you ended that with a cliche.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote: all the not so good test cricketers who have peddled their wares at spot 6, ever since Freddie retired. Putting all these labels on players is rather silly..... it's like using cliches, which I always avoid like the plague....

I like how you ended that with a cliche.

Yep. I don't use them as a rule.......

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote: all the not so good test cricketers who have peddled their wares at spot 6, ever since Freddie retired. Putting all these labels on players is rather silly..... it's like using cliches, which I always avoid like the plague....

I like how you ended that with a cliche.

Yep. I don't use them as a rule.......

Good form.