England vs New Zealand, 2nd test at Headingly

First topic message reminder :

Thread for the build up & match


New from the NZ camp is that BJ Watling's knee has ruled him out, meaning he'll join Bruce Martin on the sidelones. Brendon McCullum will keep wicket, while Martin Guptill will return to the side and bat #6.

Daniel Vettori trained well yesterday, so is expected to play in place of Martin

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/8706188/Watling-ruled-out-Vettori-likely-for-second-test
Likely NZ XI:
Fulton, Rutherford, Williamson, Taylor, Brownlee, Guptill, McCullum, Vettori or Bracewell, Southee, Wagner, Boult

Still have no idea why people said we declared to early, we clearly didn't.

4 wickets to win, will be done by Lunch tomorrow i recon if the weather is kind to us.

So I take it this day has been another frustrating one..

Just watch it rain all day tommorow to gift NZ the draw!!

mystiroakey wrote:So I take it this day has been another frustrating one..

Just watch it rain all day tommorow to gift NZ the draw!!

That's what some of us are afraid of.

Still, if it does, at least we can look smugly at the folks who have been saying "you can't captain by the weather" and "we didn't bat too long".

When you look at how NZ's 2nd innings has gone, a lead of 350 would have been more than enough and we wouldn't be worrying about the rain tomorrow (as much).

Even if the weather gods smile on England I'll still say we'll have won this one more by luck than judgement (not taking anything away from the good batting performances and largely excellent bowling & fielding).

alfie wrote:I think I detect a little sarcasm going around on here

Ah well we shall see eventually. If NZ are 155/8 tonight and tomorrow is washed out , you lot were right : if they get bowled out today or early tomorrow , Cook was right...if they are 230/3 when the weather closes in mid afternoon tomorrow it probably made no difference ...

Let us see if Jimmy can get some wickets at Headingley for once , his record here is a curious aberration.

Alfie - further to your post above and Mike's earlier one, I won't be convinced that "Cook was right" even if we win anytime tomorrow.

If Cook had enforced the follow on, we wouild amost certainly have dismissed New Zealand in the following 3 sessions and already by now have wrapped up the win without even having to consider the last day's weather. By his decision, Cook lessened the bowling time available to us and thus our chances of victory. That was wrong whatever subsequently transpires.

I accept there can be limited circumstances in which not enforcing the follow on is correct. I just can't see that this was one of them.

To be honest I think it was more important we gave Bell, Trott and Bairstow some more time at the crease and a chance to get into some better form before the Ashes rather than necessarily giving ourselves the best chance to win the game. I'd rather we won but I'd be happier if those lads got another chance to get some test runs under their belts.

JDizzle wrote:To be honest I think it was more important we gave Bell, Trott and Bairstow some more time at the crease and a chance to get into some better form before the Ashes rather than necessarily giving ourselves the best chance to win the game. I'd rather we won but I'd be happier if those lads got another chance to get some test runs under their belts.

But we never. It turned into giggle cricket, and they have plenty opportunities for that before the Ashes.

I don't mind Cook learning his trade the hard way, but if we don't win this, then he should be rightly criticised. Following in our normal timid footsteps of previous captains. He should have took the follow-on or declared an hour earlier. You "can't captain by the weather" is a myth. If you know you are going to lose significant playing time, ignoring that is folly.

I'm beginning to like Bairstow and Root at 5&6. Move Trott up one place when KP returns. Compton just doesn't look good enough.

Its the first time I havent praised cooks century. And I AM NOT GOING TO.

His job is to be a captain first!

Of course you have to play based on the weather and the lack of time in a test match. What crack pot says you shouldnt?

I think the follow-on decision was correct. 180-odd is not a huge lead and could have let NZ back in the game - they are more than capable of getting 350 and if they did England would have been left with a tough chase if it didn't rain. Plus, England are 1-0 up in the series so it wasn't necessary to take an undue risk.

I do think that the declaration was the wrong side of lunch. 20 minutes before lunch rather than 20 minutes after could make all the difference.

We are talking New Zealand not South Africa. Their batsmen have not looked like getting 300 all series. And with the limited time left, we could not have lost this game by enforcing the follow on.

Negative is polite.

Shelsey93 wrote:I think the follow-on decision was correct. 180-odd is not a huge lead and could have let NZ back in the game - they are more than capable of getting 350 and if they did England would have been left with a tough chase if it didn't rain. Plus, England are 1-0 up in the series so it wasn't necessary to take an undue risk.

I do think that the declaration was the wrong side of lunch. 20 minutes before lunch rather than 20 minutes after could make all the difference.

Agree with this - I looked at the score about 12:15 (iirc), when we were at 180-1 with Cook over 100 and Trott over 50. Could have declared then or shortly after, to give our bowlers a 20 minute burst before lunch, with us leading by 350 to 375.

Remember that we only have to avoid defeat to win the series, so the decisions were always going to err on the conservative side, so while we may miss out on the win in this match (if the weather curtails play to less than a couple of hours today), it is not that important in the long run.

Also, gave Cook and Trott a chance to bat themselves back into decent form. Pity it hasn't worked so well for Compton and Bell.

mystiroakey wrote:

Of course you have to play based on the weather and the lack of time in a test match. What crack pot says you shouldnt?

Weather, yes (so if it's particularly overcast you might want to bowl your seamers). Weather forecast, no. Unless you have to chase the game.

If they get a couple of hours play in today, then England should win. If it's a complete wash-out then England deserve credit for almost forcing a result inside 3 days. I know this New Zealand side is now the worst ever etc. but a few innings ago they were pretty decent. You don't win many tests inside 3 days against decent opposition.

I respectfully disagree with guildford on this one. For me, the follow-on decision was absolutely correct. On a pitch taking more and more turn and showing a few signs of uneven bounce, putting NZ back in could have left England with a tough little chase of 150 or a bit more had NZ batted well. Slightly less respectfully (in jest ) I would suggest guildford has a rather old-fashioned view of enforcing the follow-on. The modern game rarely sees it enforced as it gives the opposition a way back into the match (by scoring decently second time around). Batting again takes that out of the equation barring a (very) poor second innings performance. So rather than "there can be limited circumstances in which not enforcing the follow on is correct" I see it the other way around: the follow-on is rarely enforced except in special circumstances (think second Test this winter, where England were right to enforce, though ultimately the weather won).

As regards the weather forecast, I think you should take it into account, but only upto a certain point. You can't base your whole thinking around it, because forecasts can be wrong, sometimes very wrong. Let's not forget NZ were 140+ for 3 late in the day, which would have been a decent position to be in had England set them 350 as some were suggesting.

I think people are being unduly harsh on England: they have played some very good cricket in this Test in general, and have completely outplayed NZ throughout. If it does rain all day today then we will have lost a full two days play to the weather... Having said that, I do believe some criticism can be labelled at England and Trott in particular for that rather poor session on Sunday evening. Despite what people say, Trott isn't normally that slow, in fact it's very rare for him to have a SR of under 40 or so. I think he had 8 off about 28 balls or so and then scored 3 off his next 40, particularly passive against Williamson. Can't help but feel England probably lost an hour or so of time right there.

Regarding the timing of the declaration, I thought it could have come a little earlier, but I thought it was pretty decent really. Batting on past lunch put a bit of doubt in their openers minds (as a rule you should avoid declaring at a break if at all possible), and as Mike said, there's no particular need to go chasing the game through an aggressive declaration when you're 1-0 up in the series...

Also, we got to see Root reverse-sweeping Neil Wagner, which was great fun (says the compulsive reverse-sweeper)

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Of course you have to play based on the weather and the lack of time in a test match. What crack pot says you shouldnt?

Weather, yes (so if it's particularly overcast you might want to bowl your seamers). Weather forecast, no. Unless you have to chase the game.

If they get a couple of hours play in today, then England should win. If it's a complete wash-out then England deserve credit for almost forcing a result inside 3 days. I know this New Zealand side is now the worst ever etc. but a few innings ago they were pretty decent. You don't win many tests inside 3 days against decent opposition.

Off course you have to look at weather forecasts!

We would have won the game in 2 - 2'5 days if we followed them on. I am pretty sure on that!!

M4C if we had to chase 150 we would have done it anyway!!(chances on having to chase that would have been 1 in 20, yet we would have still won)

150 would have been the worst possible scenario- odds on we would have chased 20 runs!!

It would have been way more likely to have won with an innings to spare than had to chase 150!!

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Of course you have to play based on the weather and the lack of time in a test match. What crack pot says you shouldnt?

Weather, yes (so if it's particularly overcast you might want to bowl your seamers). Weather forecast, no. Unless you have to chase the game.

If they get a couple of hours play in today, then England should win. If it's a complete wash-out then England deserve credit for almost forcing a result inside 3 days. I know this New Zealand side is now the worst ever etc. but a few innings ago they were pretty decent. You don't win many tests inside 3 days against decent opposition.

Off course you have to look at weather forecasts!

We would have won the game in 2 - 2'5 days if we followed them on. I am pretty sure on that!!

you got next week's lottery numbers as well?

sure, you look at weather forecasts, but it's utterly brainless to base your strategy around them.

on a side note, does anyone find Geoff Boycott's comments about Trott batting too slowly and for himself a little ironic? This is the guy who famously spent so long batting in warm-up games on an Ashes Tour that his captain had to basically order him to retire hurt

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Of course you have to play based on the weather and the lack of time in a test match. What crack pot says you shouldnt?

Weather, yes (so if it's particularly overcast you might want to bowl your seamers). Weather forecast, no. Unless you have to chase the game.

If they get a couple of hours play in today, then England should win. If it's a complete wash-out then England deserve credit for almost forcing a result inside 3 days. I know this New Zealand side is now the worst ever etc. but a few innings ago they were pretty decent. You don't win many tests inside 3 days against decent opposition.

Off course you have to look at weather forecasts!

We would could have won the game in 2 - 2'5 days if we followed them on. I am pretty sure on that!!

You look at them, but you can't base your match-plan around them, unless you are chasing the game. Having said that I must have a chat to the likes of Gordon Lord to tell him he's a crack pot for saying otherwise, as clearly the 606v2 oracle has spoken.

Corrected the 2nd paragraph for you.

"there's no particular need to go chasing the game through an aggressive declaration when you're 1-0 up in the series..."


forget the declaration. If we are going to waste part of our innings by not enforcing the follow on. We need to make a half decent stab at it- The problem wasnt the amount of runs it was the ridiculas time it took getting there(compton and trott really need to think about the in game situ rather than crapping themselves over potentialy getting dropped)

the problem was the follow on full stop

I don't mind the follow on, the declaration was a bit too cautious for me, a team who have struggled to 200 once aren't getting near 400.

"as clearly the 606v2 oracle has spoken"

I am going to take that literally.

Why thank you Mikey

GSC wrote:I don't mind the follow on, the declaration was a bit too cautious for me, a team who have struggled to 200 once aren't getting near 400.

They needed 180 at the follow on point

I don't think Trott worries about being potentially dropped at this stage

Compton played an important part in seeing off the new ball (an England collapse could still have given NZ a sniff and by putting on 70-odd the openers made (almost) sure that wouldn't happen). Having said that, he hasn't had a good series, and will need runs in the first couple of Ashes tests or England might have to look at other options.

I've already said England were too passive in the last session on Saturday, but other than that I believe they've been just about spot on.

People are forgetting that NZ have bowled us out cheaply four times over the course of the two series, are we really all that confident that on a worn pitch with spin and uneven bounce we'd have scored 150+ to win the Test? Right decision not to enforce...

GSC wrote:I don't mind the follow on, the declaration was a bit too cautious for me, a team who have struggled to 200 once aren't getting near 400.

possibly, but for me declaring 350 ahead would have been way too generous, almost arrogant, and it only takes one special knock (and NZ have players who can make that knock) before suddenly you're sweating.

Massive If there though M4C

What would the chances of them hitting 250 let alone over 330!

I wouldn't have enforced the follow-on either, but I would have declared about an hour or an hour and a half earlier meaning this game would be over by now. But it isn't, and we face a nervous look at the weather in Leeds today. As far as I'm aware, it's been raining all morning in Leeds so a delayed start is likely.

We win the series 1-0 or 2-0 it don't really matter

Mad for Chelsea - that's a good post (the one at 9:36 am partly ribbing me). I don't agree with all of it but it's still good!

I accept my view (particularly on this forum - and that's not a dig at it) is old fashioned although that by itself doesn't mean it's right or wrong. I referred on Sunday to Atherton's comment about it being "a generational thing". Even Atherton who is somewhat younger than me was struggling to come up with valid reasons for not enforcing the follow on and play devil's advocate to justify Cook's decision.

I do agree that you shouldn't seek to captain by weather forecast. Just like batsmen and bowlers, forecasters can have a poor day and get things badly wrong. However, it seems sensible to me to keep an eye on the forecast and factor that in to some, albeit not an overwhelming, extent. I suspect we're pretty much as one on this particular point.

Where I do criticise Cook - and we almost certainly continue to disagree - is that he brought the weather and time into the equation by not enforcing the follow on. As a statement of the bl**ding obvious, Cook couldn't know how many New Zealand might get batting last and so had to play safe using up time to ensure England's total was out of reach. That is the main reason why I'm generally opposed to not enforcing the follow on - it potentially gives a "get out of jail" or "draw" card to your opponents.

I don't share your concern and that of respected others that the last day could have turned out tricky for us if New Zealand had batted out of their skins and we had been chasing 150 on a worn and turning pitch. An understandable point if facing two quality spinners or even just the one. However, New Zeland went into this Test with just the part-timer Williamson. It doesn't say much for our top seven if you're worried about them failing to reach that sort of total against that sort of bowling (which in all likelihood wouldn't have been needed anyway).

That all said, I'm not nearly so vexed as some other posters who also believe Cook was wrong. We played some good cricket and comfortably won a 2 match series. That's probably the most important thing.

The rain has stopped in Leeds, and the covers are coming off...

I kind of want the draw. Just to be right..

Thats so wrong isnt it!

guildford.

I suspect in the end it comes down to a simple thing. By batting on, Cook has made sure that NZ couldn't win the game, and thus guaranteed his side (at least) a series victory. Had he enforced the follow-on then NZ would have had a chance (however slim) of pulling off the upset. (Also maybe Cook wanted to play himself into form on what was still a pretty good pitch to bat on). So while in a sense you're right that not enforcing the follow-on to an extene gives a "draw" card to your opponents, IMO enforcing it gives them an even bigger "win" one (with a draw not out of the question either). The question then becomes: has England not enforcing the follow-on significantly reduced their chances of victory, compared to what those chances would have been had they done so? I suspect this will be one of those "hindsight is a wonderful thing" moment either way.

On a positive note (both from my personal viewpoint, and for the game) it seems prospect of play is improving, though unlikely to start on time.

I suspect (although all this is pure feeling, and I hasten to add not backed up by any evidence) the reason why not enforcing the follow-on is becoming the norm is down to essentially two factors:

1) run-rate: with scoring rates faster now than in years gone by (including when Mr Atherton was playing) generally, when teams are in the position of being able to enforce the follow-on this comes usually earlier in the match, so there is more time:
a) for the team not enforcing the follow-on to force a win anyway;
b) for the side who could be following on to win if they are made to follow-on.

I suspect that in previous years, a lot of follow-ons were enforced as the only realistic way of winning a match given the time-frames involved, and also that realistically the side made to follow-on often didn't have enough time to score 400 (or so) and then bowl the other side out cheaply.

2) pitches: no doubt pitches are flatter around the 4th day mark nowadays than they often were. The consequence is that a side following-on on the 3rd evening or afterwards will fancy their chances of batting much more than they would have previously, where the pitches would be less conductive to batting.

I think with some lateish declarations there is also a feeling that with the way cricket is played nowadays sides are less willing/habituated to bat for the draw, so leaving the draw as their only option can often make winning more likely. For example Hussain in the 2003 Sydney test delayed his declaration in the extreme - leaving Australia 450 to score in 110 overs. At the time I thought he'd given Australia a chance of drawing, but actually the Australian side he was playing was so aggressive they couldn't help but have a go at the target, and once they started losing wickets, they simply didn't have a mindset to bat time.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:I think I detect a little sarcasm going around on here

Ah well we shall see eventually. If NZ are 155/8 tonight and tomorrow is washed out , you lot were right : if they get bowled out today or early tomorrow , Cook was right...if they are 230/3 when the weather closes in mid afternoon tomorrow it probably made no difference ...

Let us see if Jimmy can get some wickets at Headingley for once , his record here is a curious aberration.

Alfie - further to your post above and Mike's earlier one, I won't be convinced that "Cook was right" even if we win anytime tomorrow.

If Cook had enforced the follow on, we wouild amost certainly have dismissed New Zealand in the following 3 sessions and already by now have wrapped up the win without even having to consider the last day's weather. By his decision, Cook lessened the bowling time available to us and thus our chances of victory. That was wrong whatever subsequently transpires.

I accept there can be limited circumstances in which not enforcing the follow on is correct. I just can't see that this was one of them.

Apologies for going back to this - I see a few posts have been made since - but indulge me a little , please:

First off , guildford , I was actually in favour of enforcing the follow on , although I can see perfectly respectable reasons for not doing so , and the course of action taken didn't bother me...I was addressing all the angst about delaying the declaration. I still don't know if there will be play today , but I would suggest that if there is none , then it is probable that declaring at lunch would not have enabled England to win anyway...

I must however push the point about Cook being "right" if he gets a win. If a captain ends up with a win he is surely by definition "right" since he has obtained the desired result ?
It may be that armchair generals are still sure their way would have achieved the same result more easily , less riskily or with more excitement ; but since those choices were not tested there is no way anyone can actually know whether those opinions were valid or not ( I suppose the multi-universe theory allows for the possibility that all options have been played out somewhere , but of course we cannot ever verify that in our own boring single universe )

Incidentally I am amused by the way that transition to the broadcasting box changes ex-Test captains from generally conservative tacticians into extremely adventurous souls whose only interest is the entertainment of spectators

I do think England were a bit over cautious , but I don't think the degree of fuss I've seen on this and other forums was at all warranted. And I see it now appears possible there will be some play in the not too far distant future so we may have a happy ending ?

Whatever else it caused , Cook's tactics and Trott's batting kept the Internet busy all day and gave a lot of people a chance to air their wisdom so it ends up a real win-win , does it not ?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Also, we got to see Root reverse-sweeping Neil Wagner, which was great fun (says the compulsive reverse-sweeper)

Definitely agree with that ! Though I hope he doesn't try it with Steyn...

Play to start at 11:45 barring no further rain. I reckon we need about an hour of play to finish this series off, let's hope we get it. Sadly, there's some more rain imminent.

http://www.raintoday.co.uk/

Come on the DRAW!!

They need a kick up the backside. We can not look at the tactical decisions in the this test match in a positive light!

Pretty much agree with Mike's summary above as to why the follow on is becoming less popular.

The modern arrangement of making up time lost to weather through early starts/late finishes has probably helped too. Plus better covers - unless the weather is truly awful most games get the majority of the assigned overs in.

The main reason I would have sent NZ back in this time was the psychological aspect , just a few days after their dismissal for 68 ... Add in the dismal first innings and I think there was a decent prospect they would have folded up...but certainly , one up in the series and with an easy pitch , batting again was the most "sensible" option.

If it rains further then Cook will have been thoroughly vindicated, as had he declared earlier New Zealand would have finished the day on 200-2 and then probably won as it wouldn't have rained.

Ridiculous? Yes, but by no means much more so than other posts on this thread...

Mike Selig wrote:If it rains further then Cook will have been thoroughly vindicated, as had he declared earlier New Zealand would have finished the day on 200-2 and then probably won as it wouldn't have rained.

Ridiculous? Yes, but by no means much more so than other posts on this thread...

The lack of a follow on was the problem .. not sure why people are arguing over an hour or two in reagrds to the declaration.

alfie wrote:Pretty much agree with Mike's summary above as to why the follow on is becoming less popular.

The modern arrangement of making up time lost to weather through early starts/late finishes has probably helped too. Plus better covers - unless the weather is truly awful most games get the majority of the assigned overs in.

The main reason I would have sent NZ back in this time was the psychological aspect , just a few days after their dismissal for 68 ... Add in the dismal first innings and I think there was a decent prospect they would have folded up...but certainly , one up in the series and with an easy pitch , batting again was the most "sensible" option.

I would also add in the improved drainage system in place at quite a few grounds (IIRC Lords being the first, then others followed suit).

I understand the psychological aspect, but often teams bat better 2nd time around when following on. I also like MfC's point: not enforcing the follow-on gives the opponents an exit for a draw; enforcing it gives them a potential path for a win. With a pitch deteriorating and my most effective bowlers in the first innings being my spinner and my tall fast-bowler who is the most likely to take advantage of uneven bounce (rather than the two new ball bowlers who rely more on swing and seam), and being 1-0 up in the series... As a coach I know which option I'd have taken.

Not sure I agree with your point on Cook being right by definition if he wins. I think you can get the right results by the wrong means. Likewise I don't believe that if today is rained off, then Cook was wrong. In fact, given that you could argue either way on his decision, I'd be tempted to say it's neither right nor wrong, but just debateable.

"given that you could argue either way on his decision, I'd be tempted to say it's neither right nor wrong, but just debateable."


Very wishy washy fence sitting.

It was the wrong decision..

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:If it rains further then Cook will have been thoroughly vindicated, as had he declared earlier New Zealand would have finished the day on 200-2 and then probably won as it wouldn't have rained.

Ridiculous? Yes, but by no means much more so than other posts on this thread...

The lack of a follow on was the problem .. not sure why people are arguing over an hour or two in reagrds to the declaration.

Fine. If it rains further Cook will have been vindicated, as had he enforced the follow-on New Zealand would otherwise have won.

As equally a ridiculous statement as the previous one I made, and the statements "had Cook declared an hour earlier this game would be over" or "had he enforced the follow-on England would have won by now".

mystiroakey wrote:"given that you could argue either way on his decision, I'd be tempted to say it's neither right nor wrong, but just debateable."


Very wishy washy fence sitting.

It was the wrong decision..

Or just accepting that the world isn't black and white?

Captaining a test match side is really very easy according to many on here...

Mike you must know my style and philosphy for the game of cricket.

I respect the game first and allways have done. I am consitant with this. I allways like the attacking, enforcing approach. This is not the first time I have disagreed with this sort of play.. I allways do!

Its all about odds.

In the long run i would rather win 6 games draw 3 and lose 1

over drawing 10 games..


That is the sort of stats we are looking at here..

There is nothing ridiculas in understanding that premise.. Its all about an outlook. No it wont work all the time. But it will gain for more wins than draws!!

mystiroakey wrote:
Mike you must know my style and philosphy for the game of cricket.

I respect the game first and allways have done. I am consitant with this. I allways like the attacking, enforcing approach. This is not the first time I have disagreed with this sort of play.. I allways do!

Its all about odds.

In the long run i would rather win 6 games draw 3 and lose 1

over drawing 10 games..


That is the sort of stats we are looking at here..

There is nothing ridiculas in understanding that premise.. Its all about an outlook. No it wont work all the time. But it will gain for more wins than draws!!

There's an awful lot of made up stats in there Mysti haha

Olly you have to understand that we cant get perfect stats here(and it was a very rough draft!!). You can rearrange them how you wish but you cant dispute the fact that if you have an aggresive mindset you will lose more but win more and draw less.

Nz did the same think in NZ by the way.. They didnt enforce the follow on.

You can kind of understand that when you are the lower ranked team. But in Englands case. Ermmmm.

Well caught Broad..

mystiroakey wrote:
Mike you must know my style and philosphy for the game of cricket.

I respect the game first and allways have done. I am consitant with this. I allways like the attacking, enforcing approach. This is not the first time I have disagreed with this sort of play.. I allways do!

Its all about odds.

In the long run i would rather win 6 games draw 3 and lose 1

over drawing 10 games..


That is the sort of stats we are looking at here..

There is nothing ridiculas in understanding that premise.. Its all about an outlook. No it wont work all the time. But it will gain for more wins than draws!!

I don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is:
- the premise that if someone disagrees with your philosophy of attack at all costs that makes them wrong;
- the definitive statement that England would have won by now had they enforced the follow-on (which is the statement I argue is ridiculous).

In any case, McCullum goes chipping a full-toss back to Broad exactly because he was only concerned with batting time (going back to the mindset point I raised in my earlier post).

Mike

Your right there is no right philosphy, and yes your right there is no definites!!

mystiroakey wrote:"given that you could argue either way on his decision, I'd be tempted to say it's neither right nor wrong, but just debateable."


Very wishy washy fence sitting.

It was the wrong decision..

If England do win, will it still be the wrong decision?

Doesn't matter how you reach the desired outcome as long as you reach it.