The writing of this blog was significantly delayed on Tuesday night by the world-shuddering, era-defining drama unfolding on the electoral battlefields of the USA. I will admit, I did not vote for Mr Trump - principally for logistical reasons, such as not being American, and not being an expert in the noble art of electo??ral fraud. Another significant factor was that I am sceptical about the benefits of having a man of Trumps ilk in charge of (a) a global superpower, (b) a nuclear arsenal, (c) an ICC Associate member nation (whether suspended or not), or (d) anything, particularly when that Trumpian man is Donald Trump.However, from the point of view of English cricket, beginning a Test series away from home, Trumps election, whether or not it provokes the Armagedonnic scenarios some have predicted, is unquestionably good news. For England are undefeated in winter Test series following a Republican presidential victory since 1980.In 1984, after Ronald Reagans re-election, David Gower led England to a 2-1 victory in India. In 1988, following George Bush Srs victory, England had the winter off after the cancellation of another Indian tour. When Bush Jr won his first election, in 2000, England followed up by winning in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and the re-election of the controversial W in 2004 presaged Michael Vaughans team winning 2-1 in South Africa.No wonder then, that Indias fielders began with the nervous-handed edginess of a condemned turkey at a Christmas party. They knew that the forces of political fury were doing more than turning accepted wisdom and the status quo on their baffled, addled heads; they were making an England series victory inevitable.Despite the historic certainty of defeat, India struck back well as the session progressed, curtailing Haseeb Hameeds promising debut innings, which began with a beautiful Dravidian first-ball leave and interspersed moments of luck with old-school defensive stylings and occasional ethereal drives.Hameed could have ten innings as a teenaged Test opener in this series, before he turns 20 in January. He is an ambitious young man. And will therefore be feverishly hoping not to do too well, and above all, not to score a century. Only six teenaged openers have scored a Test hundred. Four of them - Archie Jackson, Mohammad Ilyas, Nafees Iqbal and Adrian Barath - failed to reach three figures again, though Jackson surely would have done had illness and a tragically early death not intervened, and Barath, at 26, is theoretically young enough to remove himself from this list. Not playing top-level domestic cricket in any format for more than two years is not the best way about doing so, however.The two of the six who did trouble the honours boards after turning 20 are both Pakistanis. As an 18-year-old in May 2000, Imran Nazir scored a match-turning 180-ball 131 against West Indies (including Ambrose and Walsh). He then hit 127 against New Zealand in his first Test as a 20-year-old, before, in the then-classic Pakistan fashion, playing only two more Test matches ever. Nazir has not played a Test for 14 years. He is seven and a half years younger than Misbah-ul-Haq. Only Pakistan cricket could have concocted this paragraph.The only teenage opener-centurion to have made multiple subsequent Test hundreds is a man who features on no ones list of Classic Test Openers - Shahid Afridi. In the seldom discussed Greatest Test Innings by a Teenaged Test Opener debate, only Jacksons debut 164, scored in the 1928-29 Adelaide Ashes Test, comes even close to rivalling Afridis 141 in Chennai in the famous Test match in 1998-99.Afridi made his runs in five hours, off 191 balls, out of a total of 286 all out. Pakistan won by 12 runs, and the only other batsman to pass 60 in the match was the undeniably useful Sachin Tendulkar, whose fourth-innings 136 almost won the Test for India. A stellar Test career beckoned for one of crickets more extravagant talents. Afridi made four Test hundreds after passing 20 (only one of which was as an opener, against West Indies in February 2002), while he gradually and successfully convinced himself that he was not a Test match cricketer, despite the convincing early evidence to the contrary.History suggests that success for Hameed would be a recipe for failure. He should be aiming for adequacy, modelling himself on some fine players of recent and bygone times who have opened in their teens with moderate returns. Kraigg Brathwaite made some admirable battling half-centuries before turning 20, but averaged just 21.3 in his nine teenaged Tests; since then he has averaged 44.0 in 25 Tests. Englands recent scourge Tamim Iqbal played a record 18 Test innings as a teenaged opener, in which he averaged 22.8. In his twenties, Tamim has averaged 45.2. Zimbabwes Brendan Taylor played ten Tests as a teenager, opening in six of them, with a teen-opener average of 19.8. He averaged 46.5 in the second phase of his sadly curtailed Test career, during which he never opened the batting. Further back in history, Hanif Mohammads teen average was 29.2, with no hundreds in 16 innings; he averaged 46.1 as an opener after turning 20 (and 47.2 in all positions). The message for England, then, is not to expect - or demand - instantaneous statistical effectiveness from Hameed, for all the straightness of his bat and purity of his strokeplay on display in Rajkot. The message for Hameed is, for the sake of his own Test-playing longevity, to avoid conspicuous success at all costs. Do not pass three figures. It would be a historicostatistically unarguable sign that he is not cut out for Tests. You cannot fight facts. (A claim which, admittedly, this globally unheaving year would strongly dispute.)? In their match-turning first-innings collapse in Perth, Australia lost all ten wickets for under 100 runs for the tenth time since their Ashes-losing Oval disintegration in 2009. That is as many ten-wicket sub-100 slides as they had suffered in the previous 28 years, since Headingley 1981, which itself was the tenth such subsidence since the Laker Test at Old Trafford in 1956 (when they slumped from 48 for 0 to 84 all out in the first innings).The baggy green bowlers have been building some impressive platforms for their batsmen to hurl themselves off. For the second time in consecutive Tests, and third in the last four, Australia have bowled first, reduced their opponents to four down for less than 50 in the first innings, and lost.They had only done so once since 1979 (a low-scoring 13-run defeat in Mumbai in 2004-05); in that time, they had won 12 and drawn two of the other 14 Tests in which they had had their opponents four down for under 50 in the opening innings of the match.Few bowling attacks have begun matches as effectively as the 2016 Australians. They have bowled first in all of their seven Tests this year, in which games their opponents top four first-innings partnerships have averaged 19.1 runs per dismissal, equating to an average score of 76 for 4.To put that in historic context, since 1955, only three teams have returned a lower average for their opponents top four first-innings stands in any calendar year (this is counting the teams first innings, rather than just the opening innings of the match).West Indies in 1962 played one series, a five-match home rubber against India, in which they had their opponents four down for an average of 55. England in 1967 reduced their opposition to an average first-innings predicament of 62 for 4; they played six Tests, all at home in a split summer against India and Pakistan. The 2000 Australian attack, in eight Tests, had an average first-innings start of 72 for 4. Between them, those three sides won 18 of those 19 Tests, the exception being Pakistans draw at Lords in 1967.Steven Smiths 2016 Australians, by contrast, have now won two, drawn one and lost four of their seven Tests. Historically, skittling your opponents top order in the first innings has proved to be a sound strategy. Truly, there are no certainties in this world anymore. Air Max Goedkoop Online . Ouellette, from Montreal, already has three Olympic gold medals since joining the team in 1999. Air Max Bestellen Goedkoop . Capitals head coach Adam Oates said Ovechkin was injured in the first period against the Vancouver Canucks on Monday and clarified it was not a head injury. http://www.airmaxsalenederland.com/ . 1 position. The Mustangs (6-0), who beat Queens 50-31 last weekend, earned 17 first-place votes and 287 points in voting by the Football Reporters of Canada. Western was last ranked first in the country in October 2011. Nike Air Max Schoenen Kopen . As the crowd erupted, Davis knocked the ball off the glass and back into his hands. With 1:14 to go in overtime, Davis sixth block also became his 17th rebound. That, along with his 32 points -- which tied a career high -- proved too much for Denver to overcome, and the Pelicans held on for their third straight victory, 111-107 on Sunday night. Nike Air Max Outlet Nederland . Kiriasis and brakeman Franziska Fritz finished two runs in one minute 55.41 seconds -- a mere 0.01 seconds ahead of Meyers and Lolo Jones, who likely bolstered her Olympic hopes by helping give USA-1 a huge push in the second heat. NEW ORLEANS -- Former Saints player Will Smith was accused of bringing about his own demise by the friend of Smiths accused killer, Cardell Hayes, during one of the most dramatic moments to date in Hayes murder trial.That friend, Kevin ONeal, testified for nearly four hours Thursday, stressing the point that Smith and others in his party were acting as the aggressors in an altercation that led up to Hayes shooting Smith eight times and Smiths wife, Racquel, being shot in the legs.ONeals statement came when he responded loudly to an assistant district attorney who was asking about Smith not being there anymore for Racquel and their children.Did her husband bring it by his own demise? ONeal said -- which elicited loud sobbing from the area of Racquel and other family and loved ones. Im just asking. He attacked this man (Hayes) from the beginning to the end of that situation. At no point in time did I ever see this man (Hayes) irate or aggressive with anyone out there. At no point in time, my Gods honest truth, did I ever see (Hayes) get angry.Hayes is claiming self-defense in the case, which has centered on whether Hayes felt in fear for his life when he opened fire on Smith and allegedly on Smiths wife. Other witnesses have testified that Smith and passenger Richard Hernandez were both acting aggressively during a shouting match with Hayes and ONeal and that they both had to be restrained by their wives.One witness stated that Hernandez was acting in a ridiculous fashion, with one eyewitness testifying Thursday that he shouted, Im gonna f---ing kill you, followed by a racial slur directed toward either ONeal or Hayes.However, the state has repeatedly stressed the points that Hayes was the only one armed with a loaded gun when everyone exited their vehicles after Hayes car crashed into Smiths car; that Smith was unarmed when he was shot; and that even if Hernandez was acting aggressively, no one seemed to be afraid of him, with multiple witnesses saying they found Hernandezs behavior almost comical.And homicide detective Bruce Brueggeman testified that the police never found any evidence that Smith was armed or said he was going to arm himself -- though Hayes defense team will try to show that Smith did.Another explosive moment that happened in court Thursday came when defense attorney John Fuller slammed down a legal pad and demanded a mistrial when the state asked ONeal about a recorded statement he had made criticizing Fuller as a sellout or a nobody who gets people off on technicalities even if theyre guilty. The judge denied Fullers request.Assistant District Attorney Laura Rodrigue began the day by focusing on multiple statements ONeal gave to both the media and a grand jury about how he felt as if he could handle the men trying to fight him and wasnt really in fear for his life until he heard the gunshots.The state referenced that ONeal said, How the f--- did it get from this to this? ONeal replied, however, that, Me having confidence in my ability to defend myself has nothing to do with the facts.And ONeal stressed that, Before anyone was shot, Mr. Hayes was under attack as well as myself. Point blank period.ONeal testified that five or six people were trying to restrain Smith at one point, including Saints running back Pierre Thomas -- thouggh no eyewitnesses have testified to seeing that other than ONeal.dddddddddddd And ONeal said he doesnt know where those five people went before the shooting, when only Racquel was trying to restrain Smith.Fuller drove home the point with ONeal, with two neutral eyewitnesses and with the homicide detective, Brueggeman, that Smith and Hernandez were the only ones who needed to be restrained by anyone during the altercation. Fuller also made the point that Hayes was not some stone-cold killer since he didnt shoot at anyone when they exited their vehicles or when people were charging at him or taking swings at him.Fuller suggested it was something Smith did that made Hayes act in fear of his life.Fuller said Smith had done some great things. But he asked ONeal, Was he acting like a great man that night? And ONeal said no.Then ONeal was asked if the two sides were reversed but the facts of the case stayed the same, would Smith be there on trial for murder. And ONeal replied, I doubt it.ONeal was one of many witnesses, however, who said he did not see or hear what happened between Smith and Hayes in the moment before the first shot was fired. ONeal said he didnt even know Hayes had a gun and didnt see him fire any shots, because ONeal was occupied trying to hold off Hernandez and Hernandezs brother-in-law Jonathan Whipple at the time.ONeal testified that he saw Smiths body slumped over the drivers seat after the shooting with his arm extended and the glove box open -- as if he might have been trying to retrieve a gun. But the state pointed out that ONeal said he retrieved his own gun after the shooting started -- and Smith might have been trying to do the exact same thing ONeal did.ONeal also testified that he and Hayes were following Smiths car at a normal rate of speed that night with the intent of getting Smiths license plate number after they felt as if Smith had bumped them from behind moments earlier, then drove off.ONeal said Hayes car accidentally crashed into Smiths car while they were trying to retrieve that license plate info and call 911. And ONeal testified that several members of Smiths party came rushing aggressively at them after the accident instead of calmly discussing what happened.The two neutral eyewitnesses that testified Thursday -- ?Justin Ross and Abby Levray -- agreed that Hernandez and Smith were acting more aggressively than Hayes and ONeal, with Hernandez definitely acting the most aggressive, though everyone was arguing. They both testified that Smiths and Hernandezs wives were trying to restrain them.Ross said Hernandez pushed his wife in the face to get her away. But Ross said Smith was not acting in the same manner toward his wife -- not at all. And in Ross viewpoint, Racquel had successfully restrained her husband and calmed him down before the shooting started.Ross testified that nothing he saw warranted Smiths being shot. And he said ONeal was the only one he heard mention a gun, saying something like, Back off, back down, I have a gun.Neither witness was looking at Smith and Hayes right before the shooting started, though, and neither could hear what was being said between Smith and Hayes. ' ' '