England to play 2 seamers at last, but whether Wood is the right 1, i have
some doubt. From the pics i saw of the pitch, might prefer Yobbo robbo.
Anyway its Wood in for Bash. India selection is still shrouded in
mystery, but media suggests Jadega will play [well he seemed happy
enough yesterday] Patidar stays and Sarfraz and Jurel make debuts.
If so i spose that means a choice between axar and kuldeep.

mike

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:15:36 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
> England to play 2 seamers at last, but whether Wood is the right 1, i have
> some doubt.

16 deliveries in, I think you have your answer.

jack fredricks wrote:

> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:15:36 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
>> England to play 2 seamers at last, but whether Wood is the right 1, i have
>> some doubt.

> 16 deliveries in, I think you have your answer.

Yes after the first hour the pitch looked very slow, even anderson was getting
frustrated by the end.

Indias day for sure after that nightmare start, so 330-6 in the last on the
1st day, 326-5 here, quite consistant! They were quite patient for much of the day,
but still finished with a good score. From what colly said afterwards, i dont expect
england to do the same. Sarfraz was very good value until he got sawn off by jadega, which
made englands day look a bit more respectable.

mike

In message <9ae4c9ec40a5c9caa4d1a8473971d6a7@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>jack fredricks wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:15:360 >>> England to play 2 seamers at last, but whether Wood is the right 1,
>>>i have some doubt.
>
>> 16 deliveries in, I think you have your answer.
>
>
>Yes after the first hour the pitch looked very slow, even anderson was
>getting frustrated by the end.
>
>Indias day for sure after that nightmare start, so 330-6 in the last on
>the 1st day, 326-5 here, quite consistant! They were quite patient for
>much of the day,
>but still finished with a good score. From what colly said afterwards,
>i dont expect
>england to do the same. Sarfraz was very good value until he got sawn
>off by jadega, which
>made englands day look a bit more respectable.

Well day 2 was quite a day, and well played Ben Duckett! My TV went on
the blink as the 30 minutes overtime began, so I tried Talksport's
streamed coverage on Youtube for a while, but was decidedly unimpressed.
They don't seem to feel it necessary to tell the listener the score, and
I think failed to do for the whole 15 minutes or so before I switched to
ESPNCricinfo in disgust. And on Youtube it surely ought not to be too
hard for Talksport to show the score on the screen - after all they show
us their commentators - but seemingly they can't be bothered.

By the time of the TNT 5pm highlights package I'd worked out how to get
their streamed coverage, so that is how I shall be watching tomorrow.

It's been announced within the last hour or so that Ashwin will miss the
rest of the match because of a family emergency, which is a huge blow to
India. It's astonishing the number of players who are now missing from
both sides for one reason or another, who had they been fit and
available might have been first choices. England are without Brook and
Leach (and arguably Archer), but India have suffered even worse, losing
Kohli, Rahul, Asnwin, Sami and Pant (and Pandya?). I was tempted to try
to make an XI out of the missing players, but I don't think the side
would have any openers.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

John Hall wrote:

> In message <9ae4c9ec40a5c9caa4d1a8473971d6a7@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>jack fredricks wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:15:360 >>> England to play 2 seamers at last, but whether Wood is the right 1,
>>>>i have some doubt.
>>
>>> 16 deliveries in, I think you have your answer.
>>
>>
>>Yes after the first hour the pitch looked very slow, even anderson was
>>getting frustrated by the end.
>>
>>Indias day for sure after that nightmare start, so 330-6 in the last on
>>the 1st day, 326-5 here, quite consistant! They were quite patient for
>>much of the day,
>>but still finished with a good score. From what colly said afterwards,
>>i dont expect
>>england to do the same. Sarfraz was very good value until he got sawn
>>off by jadega, which
>>made englands day look a bit more respectable.

> Well day 2 was quite a day, and well played Ben Duckett! My TV went on
> the blink as the 30 minutes overtime began, so I tried Talksport's
> streamed coverage on Youtube for a while, but was decidedly unimpressed.
> They don't seem to feel it necessary to tell the listener the score, and
> I think failed to do for the whole 15 minutes or so before I switched to
> ESPNCricinfo in disgust. And on Youtube it surely ought not to be too
> hard for Talksport to show the score on the screen - after all they show
> us their commentators - but seemingly they can't be bothered.

> By the time of the TNT 5pm highlights package I'd worked out how to get
> their streamed coverage, so that is how I shall be watching tomorrow.

> It's been announced within the last hour or so that Ashwin will miss the
> rest of the match because of a family emergency, which is a huge blow to
> India. It's astonishing the number of players who are now missing from
> both sides for one reason or another, who had they been fit and
> available might have been first choices. England are without Brook and
> Leach (and arguably Archer), but India have suffered even worse, losing
> Kohli, Rahul, Asnwin, Sami and Pant (and Pandya?). I was tempted to try
> to make an XI out of the missing players, but I don't think the side
> would have any openers.

yes its crazy and it must have happened quick, like a sudden illness to
a family member, cos he was happy giving interviews at midday.

But england are still far behind, and if everyone tries to ape ducket, i suspect
they will give their wkts away cheaply. Somebody needs to anchor the
innings and bat long, quick 30s and 40s are not enough. Theyve just bowled
130 overs they need to bat all day tomorrow and more so that they can put
india under pressure on the last 2 days. But i suspect it will India batting
at the end of tomorrw and building a big lead not england. Also i notice
there was 86 overs on the 1st and only 79 today, although its not like the specs
didnt get value for money.

I wasnt impressed by england tactics today in the field, they got
the 2 early wkts, but then stokes had wood endlessly bowling bouncers,
just gifting runs to the tail, when he should have just tried very fast
full pitches, i remember holding doing this at the oval once, its often
more effective against the tail, although Ashwin & Jurel are no mugs.

plus i dont usually doubt DRS but i was surprised by Popes lbw, i know
hes short but it didnt look out in real time. expect more critical whinging
after the test from stokes. How do they set these machines up?

mike

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 8:55:22 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
> How do they set these machines up?

I'd also like some clarification if someone is still manually selecting point of impact, and if so, whom?

Oh look! Joe Root's 10th ball of the day and he's out reverse sweeping!

In message <586c4f6ceb13bdb136758207c1a52537@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>John Hall wrote:
<snip>
>
>> It's been announced within the last hour or so that Ashwin will miss
>>the rest of the match because of a family emergency, which is a huge
>>blow to India. It's astonishing the number of players who are now
>>missing from both sides for one reason or another, who had they been
>>fit and available might have been first choices. England are without
>>Brook and Leach (and arguably Archer), but India have suffered even
>>worse, losing Kohli, Rahul, Asnwin, Sami and Pant (and Pandya?). I
>>was tempted to try to make an XI out of the missing players, but I
>>don't think the side would have any openers.
>
>yes its crazy and it must have happened quick, like a sudden illness to
>a family member,

It seems to have involved his mother, and as it appears to have been
sudden maybe a stroke or heart attack. But I suppose one shouldn't
speculate.

> cos he was happy giving interviews at midday.
>But england are still far behind, and if everyone tries to ape ducket,
>i suspect
>they will give their wkts away cheaply. Somebody needs to anchor the
>innings and bat long, quick 30s and 40s are not enough.

That unfortunately was all too prescient. I fear that today may prove to
be the pivotal day of the whole series. I haven't seen the footage -
when I got up and checked the score I decided that it was all too
depressing to watch - but I read that Root was out attempting a reverse
scoop off Bumrah. I don't mind him trying the shot once he's well in
with 50 or so to his name, but as it's not really his natural game I
don't think he should have done it early on. Duckett was out to a long
hop apparently - annoying, but these things happen.

It doesn't seem long ago that our big worry was our top 3, and the
middle order was our strong area, but now with Root and Bairstow failing
again it's the reverse. Root is needed for his bowling, but I wonder if
Lawrence might replace Bairstow for the fourth Test? Probably not, as
England don't like chopping and changing.

Well done India, though, especially as it must have been a big shock to
lose Ashwin, who I had expected to be their most threatening bowler
today.

> Theyve just bowled
>130 overs they need to bat all day tomorrow and more so that they can put
>india under pressure on the last 2 days. But i suspect it will India batting
>at the end of tomorrw and building a big lead not england. Also i notice
>there was 86 overs on the 1st and only 79 today, although its not like
>the specs didnt get value for money.

I suppose England playing an extra quick didn't help, and I believe it's
been very hot, but even so that's pretty poor.

>
>I wasnt impressed by england tactics today in the field, they got
>the 2 early wkts, but then stokes had wood endlessly bowling bouncers,
>just gifting runs to the tail, when he should have just tried very fast
>full pitches, i remember holding doing this at the oval once, its often
>more effective against the tail, although Ashwin & Jurel are no mugs.

The reporter in my newspaper said something similar.
>
>plus i dont usually doubt DRS but i was surprised by Popes lbw, i know
>hes short but it didnt look out in real time. expect more critical whinging
>after the test from stokes. How do they set these machines up?
>
>mike

Pope was a bit unlucky, as India's decision to review didn't seem too
obvious, and the ball was shown to be clipping just enough of the
top-legside corner of the leg bail for it to come up Red for hitting the
stumps.

Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter still!
Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length bowling to
England's openers when, as well as one batting left-handed and one
right, there's over a foot difference in height, so that a good-length
ball to one of them would be too full or too short to the other. I
suspect that's a major factor in their success.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 10:36:37 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
>but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter still!

Pope's 5'9", Duckett's apparently 5'7"

>Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length bowling to
>England's openers when, as well as one batting left-handed and one
>right, there's over a foot difference in height, so that a good-length
>ball to one of them would be too full or too short to the other. I
>suspect that's a major factor in their success.

It helped Hayden and Langer

John Hall wrote:

> In message <586c4f6ceb13bdb136758207c1a52537@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>John Hall wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>But england are still far behind, and if everyone tries to ape ducket,
>>i suspect
>>they will give their wkts away cheaply. Somebody needs to anchor the
>>innings and bat long, quick 30s and 40s are not enough.

> That unfortunately was all too prescient. I fear that today may prove to
> be the pivotal day of the whole series. I haven't seen the footage -
> when I got up and checked the score I decided that it was all too
> depressing to watch - but I read that Root was out attempting a reverse
> scoop off Bumrah. I don't mind him trying the shot once he's well in
> with 50 or so to his name, but as it's not really his natural game I
> don't think he should have done it early on. Duckett was out to a long
> hop apparently - annoying, but these things happen.

> It doesn't seem long ago that our big worry was our top 3, and the
> middle order was our strong area, but now with Root and Bairstow failing
> again it's the reverse. Root is needed for his bowling, but I wonder if
> Lawrence might replace Bairstow for the fourth Test? Probably not, as
> England don't like chopping and changing.

yes the yorkies havnt contrib much with the bat so far. no doubt root
is going to get caned in the media for getting out with the scoop.
he bowled ok but its clear that the pitch has all sorts of gremlins
waiting to aid the odd delivery now, so i dont see england making
many in the last. big defeat looming i fear.

> Well done India, though, especially as it must have been a big shock to
> lose Ashwin, who I had expected to be their most threatening bowler
> today.

bit reminiscent of the 2nd ashes test when oz lost lyon and instead of
making oz bowl all day a bowler down, england went full bazball and
blew the match.

>> Theyve just bowled
>>130 overs they need to bat all day tomorrow and more so that they can put
>>india under pressure on the last 2 days. But i suspect it will India batting
>>at the end of tomorrw and building a big lead not england. Also i notice
>>there was 86 overs on the 1st and only 79 today, although its not like
>>the specs didnt get value for money.

> I suppose England playing an extra quick didn't help, and I believe it's
> been very hot, but even so that's pretty poor.

today it was 87, india bowled 36 and england 51, so 3 days in, and
our bowlers have sent down 181 overs. Not great captaincy or tactics
to bat like that when the op are a bowler down and ours are knackered.

>>
>>I wasnt impressed by england tactics today in the field, they got
>>the 2 early wkts, but then stokes had wood endlessly bowling bouncers,
>>just gifting runs to the tail, when he should have just tried very fast
>>full pitches, i remember holding doing this at the oval once, its often
>>more effective against the tail, although Ashwin & Jurel are no mugs.

> The reporter in my newspaper said something similar.
>>
>>plus i dont usually doubt DRS but i was surprised by Popes lbw, i know
>>hes short but it didnt look out in real time. expect more critical whinging
>>after the test from stokes. How do they set these machines up?
>>
>>mike

> Pope was a bit unlucky, as India's decision to review didn't seem too
> obvious, and the ball was shown to be clipping just enough of the
> top-legside corner of the leg bail for it to come up Red for hitting the
> stumps.

> Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
> but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter still!
> Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length bowling to
> England's openers when, as well as one batting left-handed and one
> right, there's over a foot difference in height, so that a good-length
> ball to one of them would be too full or too short to the other. I
> suspect that's a major factor in their success.

yes it really is a little and large show they have out there, but crawley
really struggles against spin. they quoted some avs against seam and spin,
apparently crawley is 70 against seam and 15 against spin, whether thats
just this tour or his career i dunno.

mike

In message <g2f1tidjr6a6995pr2b1sih9doqm3fe5fd@4ax.com>, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> writes
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 10:36:37 +0000, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
>>but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter still!
>
>Pope's 5'9", Duckett's apparently 5'7"

It looked like rather more than that when I saw them talking to each
other. Maybe Duckett tends to stoop a little?

>
>>Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length bowling to
>>England's openers when, as well as one batting left-handed and one
>>right, there's over a foot difference in height, so that a good-length
>>ball to one of them would be too full or too short to the other. I
>>suspect that's a major factor in their success.
>
>It helped Hayden and Langer

I suppose in county cricket the classic example was when Clive Lloyd and
Harry Pilling batted together for Lancashire. Though they weren't
openers, they still batted together a lot.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>John Hall wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
>>but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter
>>still! Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length
>>bowling to England's openers when, as well as one batting left-handed
>>and one right, there's over a foot difference in height, so that a
>>good-length ball to one of them would be too full or too short to the
>>other. I suspect that's a major factor in their success.
>
>yes it really is a little and large show they have out there, but crawley
>really struggles against spin. they quoted some avs against seam and spin,
>apparently crawley is 70 against seam and 15 against spin, whether thats
>just this tour or his career i dunno.
>
>mike

I assume that must be over his Test career. I'd have thought his average
against spin must be much better than that, given the number of runs he
scored.

Incidentally, there's a very good article on the BBC web site by Stephan
Shemitt reflecting on today's play. I think he strikes a very fair
balance between praise and criticism.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68326425
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <j1o2B9BmwP0lFw4n@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
><dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>John Hall wrote:
><snip>
>>
>>> Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
>>>but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter
>>>still! Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length
>>>bowling to England's openers when, as well as one batting
>>>left-handed and one right, there's over a foot difference in height,
>>>so that a good-length ball to one of them would be too full or too
>>>short to the other. I suspect that's a major factor in their success.
>>
>>yes it really is a little and large show they have out there, but crawley
>>really struggles against spin. they quoted some avs against seam and spin,
>>apparently crawley is 70 against seam and 15 against spin, whether thats
>>just this tour or his career i dunno.
>>
>>mike
>
>I assume that must be over his Test career. I'd have thought his
>average against spin must be much better than that, given the number of
>runs he scored.

I meant to say "his average against spin in this series".
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 17/02/2024 18:34, John Hall wrote:
> In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> John Hall wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>> Talking about height, I've always thought that Pope was pretty short
>>> but, seeing him talking to Duckett, Duckett's a good bit shorter
>>> still!  Pity the poor bowlers trying to keep a good line and length
>>> bowling to  England's openers when, as well as one batting
>>> left-handed and one  right, there's over a foot difference in height,
>>> so that a good-length  ball to one of them would be too full or too
>>> short to the other. I  suspect that's a major factor in their success.
>>
>> yes it really is a little and large show they have out there, but crawley
>> really struggles against spin. they quoted some avs against seam and
>> spin,
>> apparently crawley is 70 against seam and 15 against spin, whether thats
>> just this tour or his career i dunno.
>>
>> mike
>
> I assume that must be over his Test career.

I can't be this series, as he hasn't been out to a pace bowler, so
doesn't have an average.

OTOH, 53 of his 75 dismissals in Tests have been to pace, so I don't see
how he could average 70 against pace and 32 overall.

--
David North

John Hall wrote:

> In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>John Hall wrote:

> Incidentally, there's a very good article on the BBC web site by Stephan
> Shemitt reflecting on today's play. I think he strikes a very fair
> balance between praise and criticism.

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68326425

Its difficult to find any praise after that debacle.

I think England need to be more results focused. To do that they need
to realise that theres a reason why test cricket is played over 5 days.

As Rohit said "When you play Test cricket, it's not played over two days or three days. We know the importance of staying in the game for five days."

England dont seem to realise this. In particular after 1 good session on the 2nd
day which seemed to have put them in a promising position, they immediately
handed the advantage back to india the following morning. After barely 2 sessions
off the field their bowlers had to go again, and were duly flogged around the
ground. I'm sure 1.3 billion+ enjoyed anderson being smashed for 6 after 6,
but is that really the entertainment england were hoping to produce? Instead
of Bazball they got Jazball.

mike

On 2/18/2024 7:20 AM, miked wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
>
>> In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
>> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> John Hall wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, there's a very good article on the BBC web site by
>> Stephan Shemitt reflecting on today's play. I think he strikes a very
>> fair balance between praise and criticism.
>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68326425
>
> Its difficult to find any praise after that debacle.
> I think England need to be more results focused. To do that they need
> to realise that theres a reason why test cricket is played over 5 days.
>
> As Rohit said "When you play Test cricket, it's not played over two days
> or three days. We know the importance of staying in the game for five
> days."
>
> England dont seem to realise this. In particular after 1 good session on
> the 2nd
> day which seemed to have put them in a promising position, they immediately
> handed the advantage back to india the following morning. After barely 2
> sessions
> off the field their bowlers had to go again, and were duly flogged
> around the
> ground. I'm sure 1.3 billion+ enjoyed anderson being smashed for 6 after 6,

1.3 billion Indians DON'T WATCH "Test Cricket".

Probably its about a 100 million.

Of Course ODIs and T20s are a different story.

> but is that really the entertainment england were hoping to produce?
> Instead
> of Bazball they got Jazball.
> mike

In message <553522b345914011e845766c01dd41ee@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>John Hall wrote:
>
>> In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
>><dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>John Hall wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, there's a very good article on the BBC web site by
>>Stephan Shemitt reflecting on today's play. I think he strikes a very
>>fair balance between praise and criticism.
>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68326425
>
>Its difficult to find any praise after that debacle.
>I think England need to be more results focused. To do that they need
>to realise that theres a reason why test cricket is played over 5 days.
>
>As Rohit said "When you play Test cricket, it's not played over two
>days or three days. We know the importance of staying in the game for
>five days."
>
>England dont seem to realise this. In particular after 1 good session
>on the 2nd
>day which seemed to have put them in a promising position, they immediately
>handed the advantage back to india the following morning. After barely
>2 sessions
>off the field their bowlers had to go again, and were duly flogged around the
>ground. I'm sure 1.3 billion+ enjoyed anderson being smashed for 6 after 6,
>but is that really the entertainment england were hoping to produce? Instead
>of Bazball they got Jazball.
>mike

They did indeed.

I wonder what odds one could have got after 2 days play against England
losing by over 400 runs? At least 100-1 I would have thought, maybe even
500-1.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <129ae8f0-cdff-47e8-bc5e-62746d33e135@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>On 2/18/2024 7:20 AM, miked wrote:
>> John Hall wrote:
>>
>>> In message <942806dfbbfbde23500ff8bbc4c811a8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
>>><dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>
>>> Incidentally, there's a very good article on the BBC web site by
>>>Stephan Shemitt reflecting on today's play. I think he strikes a very
>>>fair balance between praise and criticism.
>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68326425
>> Its difficult to find any praise after that debacle.
>> I think England need to be more results focused. To do that they need
>> to realise that theres a reason why test cricket is played over 5 days.
>> As Rohit said "When you play Test cricket, it's not played over two
>>days or three days. We know the importance of staying in the game for
>>five days."
>> England dont seem to realise this. In particular after 1 good
>>session on the 2nd
>> day which seemed to have put them in a promising position, they immediately
>> handed the advantage back to india the following morning. After
>>barely 2 sessions
>> off the field their bowlers had to go again, and were duly flogged
>>around the
>> ground. I'm sure 1.3 billion+ enjoyed anderson being smashed for 6 after 6,
>
>
>1.3 billion Indians DON'T WATCH "Test Cricket".
>
>
>Probably its about a 100 million.
>
>
>Of Course ODIs and T20s are a different story.

If nothing else, this series may have helped to considerably increase
that number.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)