Did you watch the Sky coverage all day, as I pretty much did yesterday? Do you think Sir Ian Aspergers would listen to anyone regarding the follow-on (or lack of) decision. No. Neither do I. The bloke has obvious contempt for Strauss as a skipper (and if England win the Ashes, watch that change as he does his best to ingratiate himself into the hierarchy again) as he uses his hindsight hobby horse to rumble on about the late declarations in the West Indies. “In two successive games we left the declaration too late. In Antigua the West Indies were 9 down and in Port-of-Spain they were 8 down.” I know the Barbados game was boring, but I do let the fact get in the way of a good rant. I’d also point out we declared in Chennai (albeit 9 down) but lost – Botham’s aggressive amnesia would never recall that. Sky’s cricket expert was probably fishing at the time.

In my opinion you should only enforce the follow on if you have a shortage of time – say on the 4th day. You should never enforce the follow on if you give the opposition the opportunity to set you over 200 to win with you having the time to get them. You have to chase a tricky score when, on most pitches, you’ll get the worst of it. You win the toss and bat to avoid batting last many times. Why put yourself under that pressure, especially when you have the decision half an hour into the third’s day play?

In my view, 210 in front, pile it on, get a lead over 500, declare and give yourself the best part of 2 days to get the wickets. I’m cautious given the Aussies made 670 odd in 181 overs at Cardiff – I’d give them no price so you can set attacking fields all day. Botham sees it differently. He thought you should sling them in, and give yourself as much time to take 10 wickets as possible, and back yourself to chase whatever you are set on a flat pitch. They don’t have Warne and McGrath after all. Well, yes…..Aspergers…. You’d back this mob to chase 200 on anything? With the pressure on?

Then Aspergers went into full on mode…England don’t know when to declare….The weather forecast is not good…. It is a negative approach which gives Australia a chance to win (I really can’t work that one out, still) and makes them feel better (really? you believe England didn’t demoralise them last night with Prior’s innings?). I tell you now, if Australia had finished yesterday at 250 for 2, they would not have felt good in themselves – the game would have been pretty much even stevens. Now England are 520 in front, and completely in control. Even if England had been skittled out for 200, the Aussies would still have been chasing over 400 to win, and England would have been in control. The only way England could have lost control of the game, and under real pressure, was by enforcing the follow-on.

Botham’s pique at the England hierarchy ignoring the advice manifested itself in various spectacular rants during the day. Then he got all arsey at the end asking his fellow commentators when they would declare. Michael Holding, who is also getting a bit dull in his old age, said England wouldn’t declare that night if the power of six suns were shining (I know we’ll never really know, but it appears as though England would have), then said if you couldn’t bowl a side out in 180 overs you don’t deserve to win. I don’t want to get on another moan, but Michael, we wouldn’t have 180 overs. Australia score at 3 and change an over so they’d probably get 500 in around 140-150 overs (by tea on day 5, weather permitting). What’s the sense in that unless you KNOW large chunks of the game are going to be lost to rain.

I may be accused of wanting not to lose rather than going for it to win. I wouldn’t give this, or any Aussie side, a sniff of winning this game. Never, ever. They are a good side who batted badly first time up. It is easy for Botham to give it the aggressive intent, for Warne to do the same, but this England attack isn’t running through anyone despite what happened first time up. I want the runs on the board, and so did Strauss and Flower and their jobs depend on making the right choices. Botham can spout off what he wants, but he’s become such a bore….

As for the play, I loved Atherton’s piece early on about not hitting the stumps, whereupon Onions prised the last two out with balls outside off. Cook looked good, but fell over in front again. Strauss looked good but nicked off. Bopara did nothing to persuade me he’s a test number 3 against anything near the top line of opposition, while KP looks injured and it looks like it is affecting his footwork to me. Collingwood got his third half century in four knocks and infused positive running into the process once Hop-a-long KP had gone. Prior’s knock was a gem, and I am very sorry Matt, because having texted Sussex supporting Reg about how well he was batting, he was immediately run out by North’s freak throw from the boundary hitting the stumps with Cymbals short of his ground. Freddie mishit a rapid 30 odd to take us past 300, and dominating this game.

I’d throw the bat for half an hour his morning, stick another 30 or 40 on and then have a go at them. It means the Aussie openers don’t know when they’ll bat, and also just add a little more cushion. Then have 170 overs to see what we can do.

The other added benefit is if we did bat for half an hour, Aspergers might get so incandescent, he’ll explode and take that eyesore media centre with him in an orgy of self-righteous combustion. One can but dream.