Originally posted by squaccermanAustralia have a chance - they aren't batted out of the game. But it is a good total, I think.
434-8 at lunch.
Anything less than 500 leaves the Aussies with a chance of winning. Remeber Eng v SA at the Oval a few years ago, SA got 484 in the first innings and lost by nine wickets.
Remember, everyone was saying that the 400 at Edgebaston was "50 to 100 runs short" and it was around 100 runs lead.
Originally posted by VargYeah and I also think you can never say what a good score is until you've seen the state of play after the first innings. If Australia get anything less than 340 then you can say 444 is a good score. Still plenty of cricket left.
Australia have a chance - they aren't batted out of the game. But it is a good total, I think.
Remember, everyone was saying that the 400 at Edgebaston was "50 to 100 runs short" and it was around 100 runs lead.
Originally posted by VargI agree, that's definitely an outdated view of English cricket, we can match the Aussie batting lineup.
It's funny how people automatically assume that if England get 450, it must be a belter of a track and Aus are on for 600+. People said the same at Edgebaston...