Do we come here for nuance, Ged? Do we? No, we don’t. We come here for pterodactyls. Failing that, we come here for whatever the opposite of nuance is. No-ance maybe.

Bazball is the living archetype of the famous Angry / Amazed dichotomy. These are the only two options available. Nuance be damned, as Eleanor Roosevelt once said. Or was it Stalin? It doesn’t matter, because that would be just nuance. What matters is that nuance be damned, and nuance be damned.

On the other hand, were I down in the members’ area (fnarr) yesterday, my nuanced view would have been that the correct order for doing things in sport is 1) win, 2) lose, and 137) try to avoid losing. (FYI, 136 is try to become a leopard.) As long as England are trying to win, I am happy. It might not work, but then again it might work, and I can’t see any other tactic that this England team could use to provide that latter option. I think we are somewhat limited. This seems the best argument against the unreconstructed pundits, that they don’t really have an alternative they can point to and say, “That will work”.

I have a dozen bottles of wine on this, so I’m not an uninvolved observer. Also, the other party to that bet IS VISITING THE UK! We’re going to the Old Trafford test. We could lose, I could lose, WHILE HE IS SAT NEXT TO ME! If that happens, I will need some serious TLC from you good people here to get me through it. Current number one idea is to buy him the wine there and then, ten thousand miles from his house. That will help, but it won’t take away all the pain.

England didn’t declare at Edgbaston as soon as the 8th wicket fell, Bert. There was an insane and reckless period during which Root and Robinson put on 43 runs in 44 balls for that 9th wicket prior to the declaration. England might very well have gone in to score an infinite number of additional runs in that first innings had they not declared.

Having spent the afternoon yesterday with a well-informed but not necessarily enlightened cohort in the members’ areas, I can report an interesting mixture of opinion on England’s approach, ranging from unreconstructed pundits ranting in the style of Bert’s parody, to wide-eyed evangelists for the attacking style. Actually many/most were taking a nuanced stance on the matter.

Joe Root looked out uncharacteristically out of rhythm yesterday. Perhaps he would have been better off trying to ride the short-pitch barrage storm, as Stokes subsequently did, but Root clearly was choosing to try to hit his way back into rhythm. All three others, as Bert subtly points out, lived rather well by the sword before dying by it.

The weather is set to get murkier again as the day goes on today (Day Three). Then set to improve again for Saturday/Sunday. England don’t currently hold all the cards but Day Two was a very good day for England – another good day from the lads and it really will be “advantage England”.

Kudos for “holding your nerve”, Ged, even as (run) rates were soaring around you.

Indeed. I’m willing to overlook the (presumed) arithmetic error if this were to come to pass.

Nice one Bert. You should commentate. I always like your points and the way you make them.

Well, as the prophet Isaiah predicted: “a wolf will reside with A Lamb, and a leopard will lie down with [Patrick] Kidd; a calf and young Lyon will graze together….”

With the benefit of hindsight, Nathan Lyon’s (suspected) calf injury was foretold thousands of years ago. Could be hugely significant in this match and indeed the rest of the series. Potentially a leveller in more ways than one.

It’s starting to look like another captivating match.

Honestly, I don’t know what they are thinking these days. At least punditry is a point of stability in all this chaos.

Erect Underwood
Makhaya Ntinny
Brendon TarmacCullum
Joey Bitumen
Obsidian Healy
Graeme Stick
Sophie Tough
I.Ron Bell

Go Harder XI

Zafar Gohard (c)
Robust Key
Mark Stoneman
Shafali Firmer
Richard Harden
David Stiff
Mark Wood (that it were)
Rigid Johnson (I thank you)
Froze Khushi
Joe Densely
Hardik Pandya

**Spoiler alert** for those who are not familiar with Shakespeare comedies, such as “Two Gentlemen…”

…there are not a lot of laughs for the modern audience. Nor are 16th century chat up lines likely to work well in most circumstances today.