Through.

It does when the Irish press report it. It was three Irish wickets after all.

Not sure it works when it’s an England player to be honest.

Meanwhile, in other news, KC’s favourite potential headline, “The Joshua Three” actually occurred this afternoon, which was most satisfying…

…satisfying at least for headline writers, lovers of yucca brevifolia, U2 enthusiasts and fans of young Mr Tongue, of course. Less satisfying for Irish cricketers.

Is it not 98 overs for a four-day Test? We definitely remember writing that they don’t actually equate to four days overs-wise.

Reviews are the real time suck, aren’t they? It even extends to short highlights packages sometimes where they for some reason devote minutes to the “drama” of a fella asking for snicko on a ball that missed the bat by eight inches.

Test match days are based on 90 overs, not 96, but point taken.

Intriguingly, when the Ireland innings ended, the England over rate on the scoreboard was showing +2 – ie ahead of the rate, despite the fact that only 56+ overs had been bowled just before 16:30. At 15 overs-per-hour that should have been close to 66 overs.

Plenty of spin but one quite lengthy injury stoppage and several referrals to the third umpire, not least a Stuart Broad special that looked as though it was going down the leg side, even when watching in real time from square leg.

Personally I can live with this rate of play if it is the price we pay for injury stoppages and decision reviews by third umpires. I do think that some of those reviews could be done a bit quicker though, now the technology and the understanding thereof is well embedded in the professional game.

The alternative would be to allow more “overtime” to get the overs done. That idea is unpopular with the players and, more importantly, with the broadcasters who want something a bit closer to certainty for their broadcasting schedules. I know, I know, but thems-what pays the piper call the tune and all that.

Simple, just add an ‘o’.