England vs India ODI series

First topic message reminder :

Well Kohli got some runs with 71 vs Middlesex, but India promptly lost 7 wickets for 74 runs when he departed

Well played India.

This does happen a lot though. The test wining team then gets battered in the one day that follows.

But what do we do as England team.. We use this format as a way of blooding test talent and keeping them going..is it time for nations like us to concentrate on this more at the cost of test.

It's really not good signs for cricket IMO.. India only care about shorter formats and have 95% of the fans.....

GSC wrote:Cook needs to go really. He needs a rest from cricket and his game just isn't suited to modern ODI cricket.

I'm usually wary of making mass changes and blooding a lot of youth, but England have nowhere to fall to at this point. We need somebody well versed in foreign cricket at the head of the ODI side, its obvious at this point English methods are horribly outdated.

What he said.

England are palpably not going to go anywhere in the WC with this personnel and these tactics. Nothing to lose by putting the exciting talent in and telling them to go out and express themselves. You're not going to ruin the young talent if you give them the licence.

Roy, Hales, Vince, Root, Morgan, Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Stokes/Jordan, Finn, Gurney

maybe even think of a young spinner, a Riley or Patel?

Would like to fit Taylor in there somehow, but not sure where. I'm still a fan of Root (needs to be more positive) and Morgan.

Id throw in David Willey into the mix in place of Jordan/Stokes.

Gurney isn't good enough either

mystiroakey wrote:Well played India.

This does happen a lot though. The test wining team then gets battered in the one day that follows.

But what do we do as England team.. We use this format as a way of blooding test talent and keeping them going..is it time for nations like us to concentrate on this more at the cost of test.

It's really not good signs for cricket IMO.. India only care about shorter formats and have 95% of the fans.....

I don't think such generalizations really hold. Australia won the Ashes and gave England no chance in the ODIs, last time when India toured England, the home side even managed an ODI whitewash on top of what they managed in tests.
I don't think India care only about limited overs. Yes, limited overs cricket is getting some priority among players and administrators, but they do care about tests, the likes of Sachin and Dravid has left a rich legacy for the younger players to follow. Did you watch Kohli in South Africa. He absolutely enjoyed and valued his performances in the tests there. Even MS Dhoni, the captain who doesn't seem to care, he said he had started thinking about batting at 6 in tests in away conditions from last November onwards.
A 5 test series really exposed the Indian side. A lot of it is about skills, some of it is about fitness, some of it is about captaincy and tactics, some of it is about selections, and some of it of course is about the general attitudinal issues.
There certainly is the issue of general priority, but I don't think that alone would explain India's pathetic performance in the test series.
Likewise, I don't think England can defend their obnoxious ODI performance in the name of priority to test cricket.
I want my side to do well in all formats including T-20I that I don't watch much. Every loss in every format hurts. I am pretty sure 95 % of supporters would think the same, some might say they don't particularly care about a format in which the side is not doing all that well, that is not much more than an excuse in a majority of cases I think.

Taylor in for Bell
Roy for Cook
Bopara in for Stokes

1. Roy
2. Hales
3. Root
4. Morgan (c)
5. Taylor
6. Ali
7. Buttler
8. Stokes
9. Woakes
10. Finn
11. Anderson

Anderson needs a break TBH.

David Willey is nowhere near international standard if you ask me. Not sure who the good young seamers around the England scene are? Talk of the Overtons a while back, what's happened since? Going back a bit further I was quite excited by the left-armer (Topley? Not Mills who has pace but nothing else) at Essex. How is Meaker doing nowadays? TBH I thought Rankin was a bit harshly dealt with in ODIs; England's best bowler in one series, clearly unfit the next one and then discarded. Seems to be bowling well for Warwickshire from the last couple of times I've seen them.

50 over is turning more and more into 20/20. India could have scored 400 plus today(didn't see it but 200 at 30 overs !!!)

its the lack of 20/20 that is holding England back- not the lack of 50 over.

But our players are not playing in the IPL because the ECB wants to keep test cricket established.

Its driving me up the wall.. I dont know what the best method is.

Play completely different teams.. Have two different sets of central contracted players, and seriously push for other nations to get test status so we have more nations to play against. Because if that last point doesn't happen quick- no new team will even care about having test status. They will just stick to one day formats and dream of millions in the IPL.

just gets worse and worse!! DIRE

The problem isn't only that England players don't play in the IPL, it's that they play almost no T20 cricket at all, be that the big bash or even the domestic competition in England.

It is interesting that since T20 has become such a major format no side has really dominated in all formats. England and then South Africa have probably been the dominant sides on the test scene, but both remain average at 50 overs generally; conversely West Indies are probably the best T20 side around but fairly hopeless at tests still.

It could be coincidence, and due to the lack of really dominating sides (like the West Indies of the 80s, or Aus side of the 00s). But even looking at the Aus side, their ODI team whilst keeping a core of players from the test side (Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, McGrath, Lee) had some "ODI specialists" who made key contributions (Symonds, Harvey, Bracken, Tait, Hogg).

It could be that because players play so little domestically and spend so little time away from the national set-up that working on all your skills for all the formats is becoming increasingly difficult or even impossible. Perhaps you're right mysti and we will eventually see virtually separate sides for the different formats (although this is a point which has been made often in the past and has failed to materialise). I don't know how I feel about this if I'm honest.

It does feel that for a variety of reasons the ODI format has become more like a prolongued T20 than a shortened test innings.

Is it a personnel thing? Or mindset? A mixture of both?

Mike Selig wrote:Anderson needs a break TBH.

David Willey is nowhere near international standard if you ask me. Not sure who the good young seamers around the England scene are? Talk of the Overtons a while back, what's happened since? Going back a bit further I was quite excited by the left-armer (Topley? Not Mills who has pace but nothing else) at Essex. How is Meaker doing nowadays? TBH I thought Rankin was a bit harshly dealt with in ODIs; England's best bowler in one series, clearly unfit the next one and then discarded. Seems to be bowling well for Warwickshire from the last couple of times I've seen them.

How do we know if they are international standard?
Have been impressed with David Willey + his stats back that up.
Topley isn't very good.
Meaker is always injured or goes for a lot of runs.
Rnakin is Irish.

jimbohammers wrote:
How do we know if they are international standard?

Well if anybody knew that for sure... The only answer is that we use our judgement - you add up all the components of a player's game (technical, tactical, fitness, mental but also things like adaptability, coachability, ability to live in an international team setting) and see what they add up to. It is a massive massive step-up from county cricket to international cricket (it is tougher probably for a leg-spinner than for anyone else).

In my opinion there is nothing in David Willey's bowling which will trouble international batsmen, and his batting if we're honest is just that of a cultured hitter; international bowlers (good ones anyway) won't bowl enough balls in the slot for him to be effective enough. All IMO of course.

I've only seen Topley play once in the last couple of years, but I remember when he burst onto the scene he seemed to have genuine nip (he was quicker than you thought he was) and a very good cricketing brain in that he understood what to bowl in what situation fairly naturally. I haven't seen him evolve, but I remember then being impressed and thinking he may very well go on to play for England.

Meaker of course has genuine pace and movement. Young fast bowlers will always have more than their fair share of injuries, he probably needs to strengthen a bit more, but I'd be very surprised if he doesn't play for England again sooner rather than later.

mystiroakey wrote:50 over is turning more and more into 20/20. India could have scored 400 plus today(didn't see it but 200 at 30 overs !!!)

its the lack of 20/20 that is holding England back-  not the lack of 50 over.

The limited over cricket ( doesn't matter whether its T20 or 50 over format) has evolved so much in bowling, batting, fielding, and most important mind-set of players to handle various situations over the 5 to 6 seasons of IPL and other secondary and tertiary leagues.

Big money attracts the top professionals, especially the coaching and support staffs.... who to justify their top earning....give it all they have and that drives the physical and mental performance barrier higher and higher.... the pole vaulter styled catch by that Aussie on the ropes....and the 200+ chase by Mumbai in 14 overs.....were the case in points to this.

Eng has been left out imbibing that innovation front...and hence are visibly 5 years behind Aus, Ind, SA , NZ, Lanka who have all been very actively involved through both players and coaching staff (WI find even 50 over to long and a burden)

Eng just do not know how to play the modern game because neitehr their players nor coaching staff are exposed to IPL.....and Cook has almost given up on ODIs as visible from his comments
Just like  Indian team...doe not know how to play test cricket....and just like Dhoni had given up after winning T2  on rest of test matches.

What Eng can do....:

1) have a captain that is not satisfied winning Ashes and other test series but has his primary task to prove himself in limited over format.
(Ditto India...they should make Pujara the test captain for same reasons)

2) Have a coach atleast that is a highly successful professional from IPL like Bangar or Fleming who can atleast bring the modern experience to the English side

It matters hugely that its 20/20- 20/20 is the game changer- it has evolved the 50 over format along. players are used to scoring quicker and they are bringing that to the 50 over game.

I dont really care about limited over formats(as competitive challenges- only good to find players for test cricket)- and no cricket purist does. We have been trying to hold on to test match cricket and we are fighting a losing battle..

mystiroakey wrote:
I dont really care about limited over formats(as competitive challenges- only good to find players for test cricket)- and no cricket purist does. We have been trying to hold on to test match cricket and we are fighting a losing battle..

That mind-set is a recipe for isolation and extinction....which if extrapolated HG Well styled into the worst case dark/gloomy future...you will see only Eng and Aus playing test cricket in the form of ashes to a stadium selling subsidized tickets.....and broadcast by some government / public carrier like BBC only....and Eng winning easily because most Aussies have their mind in commercially viable formats.

A more pragmatic way forward is inclusive.....focus on all forms seriously by at least all major test nations...else test cricket is most susceptible to premature extinction

you cant focus on all forms with the same players KP fan- thats the point.

as i have said- england need two completely different squads for limited and test and we need to get new countries test status ASAP..

"Play completely different teams.. Have two different sets of central contracted players, and seriously push for other nations to get test status so we have more nations to play against. Because if that last point doesn't happen quick- no new team will even care about having test status. They will just stick to one day formats and dream of millions in the IPL."


Test match batters get worse playing to much limited over stuff and limited over players just cannot deal with test either. We are fighting a losing battle.

We need more separation, but much more test cricket to keep it alive as well

mystiroakey wrote:you cant focus on all forms with the same players KP fan- thats the point.

I agree same team cannot.

Same nation though and their board have to without overt preferences...show equal support to all formats.
India needs to have a diffrent core and captain for tests and Eng for limited overs format

From England

we need to be elevating our 20/20 players into 50 over rather than using test to play 50 over. That is where we are falling short. And those players need to be playing more 50 and 20 over versions of the game...

Broad should captain 50 over cricket and onlyhim, Buttler and ali should play from the test side.. We need to bring more spinners into the 20/20 and 50 over format as well.

KPF makes a good point about not only the players but the coaching staff being excluded from the IPL. And indeed the other T20 leagues around the country, because the way the county system is set-up the head coach and/or director of cricket role is a year-round full-time job.

The timing of the IPL is a real issue, and I would have thought when the ECB got into bed with the BCCI over the big 3 proposals that they would have tried to negotiate for a shorter IPL or an earlier start to avoid the prolongued clash with the start of the England season. It seems however Clark was thoroughly unconcerned by anything remotely cricket related; or maybe he was, but India simply wouldn't play ball.

[aside: in my view the IPL from a cricketing point of view is far too long; the last couple of editions it has started off really well and then tailed off badly. However because the IPL is run primarily as a commercial business (that the cricket can at times be very good seems to be of only a passing concern to those running it) I doubt this will change unless and until the fans get sick of the final stages being of poorer quality than the first few matches (which may never happen); commercially the longer the better if the stadiums remain rull]

However perhaps counties could and should do more by sending their young specialist coaches to Aus for the BBL to get involved. Problem is numbers though: a lot of counties and not that many slots, but it's an idea.

5 years is an exaggeration - it is more like 1-3 (depending on the team) and England have still led some innovations in the relatively recent past (the slow bouncer being one of them).

In fact the problem is far less one of technique than one of mindset, and this goes all the way down to the fans (how often do we hear English fans say they only care about tests, or that test cricket is the only real cricket, or that real fans ("cricket purists" mysti calls them) only care about tests). The coaching set-up as we know like to use ODIs to test potential test players. Whilst the administrators cannot get the domestic set-up sorted out properly, and don't seem that interested in cricket related issues anyway. Beyond that the team approaches ODI cricket in entirely the wrong way. All these things are probably related.

I really like mysti's last post having said that. It makes a lot of sense.

I can say already that up and coming cricket countries (like PNG, Nepal, etc.) are focusing very much on the T20 format, because at the moment it is the ONLY format which gives them a chance to be seen worldwide, and hence gain increased exposure which leads to increased funding, increased interest from the population etc. This is because the 50 over world cup is becoming a closed shop (10 teams in 2019, at most 2 of which can be non-test playing nations), and test cricket has been that way for a long time already. Even the T20 qualification is unfair, you can ONLY qualify automatically on rankings if you are a full member; i.e. should Ireland (say) be ranked 10th when the automatic qualification kicks in they don't qualify, but if Bangladesh are 10th they do. Let me just let that one sink in.

That doesn't necessarily mean the death of test cricket (which has often been mooted, but so far failed to happen) but you do have an issue when test cricket is only profitable in 2 countries. Test cricket has to somehow make itself more current (I still think day-night matches in India and the West Indies would go a long way) without losing the traditional aspect. That is quite a challenge.

The point about test players getting worse playing limited overs is true and possibly false as well. I think someone like Root is a better player when he is proactive for example, but Cook's issues at driving at balls outside off became more pronounced as he played more ODIs - because in ODIs you can't just leave those all day and wait for the bowler to lose patience.

Sorry this post has really just ended up as a jumble of thoughts.

Test cricket is fighting a losing battle because other than purists and traditionalists - from the spectrum of audience, players, commentators and the cricket establishment - no one else is interested in it.

no one is interested in it, therefore no one watches it.

therefore it does not attract sponsorships

therefore no money.

today it is living on handouts from the limited overs format.

if test cricket was packaged as a business and had to be audition for Dragons Den, it would be shot full of holes.

if at all the boards of the cricket playing nations decide that test cricket should sustain itself, it will die. of course that likelihood is remote.

The Indian team, whether consciously or not, plays in those formats the most, where the most money is.

in England, cricket is a traditionalist's game, and hence there is an instinctive aversion to limited overs format in this country. the rest of the cricketing world have adopted that format and have adapted themselves.

I am roots biggest fan Mike. But is he going to be able to become a great one day player? And if he does I have a feeling that would then make him worse at test cricket.

The way things are going we may be seeing 350 as the norm and teams regularly getting past 400 runs..

They are becoming different sports. Your post isn't that jumbled- but its a very jumbled issue..

RR's of 90 minimum will be the must for the 50 over game in years to come

mystiroakey wrote: The way things  are going we may be seeing 350 as the norm and teams regularly getting past 400 runs..

They are becoming different sports.

this is what I meant by Barrier being set higher and higher....the 100 meter dasj records have dropped by nearly a second in last 100 years and by 0.5 seconds in the last 50 years...evolution of human race and technology both have supported this consistently.

the cricketing evolution has seen a par ODI score gone from 200 to about 280 in last 50 years and upsides of 400 are being touched.
but unlike athletics the explosion in the rise of cricketing bar in batting specially has occurred in the last 5 years or so.
paradoxically thought the fastest bowlers today are not any more faster than in 60s or 70s

KP_fan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:  The way things  are going we may be seeing 350 as the norm and teams regularly getting past 400 runs..

They are becoming different sports.

this is what I meant by Barrier being set higher and higher....the 100 meter dasj records have dropped by nearly a second in last 100 years and by 0.5 seconds in the last 50 years...evolution of human race and technology both have supported this consistently.

the cricketing evolution has seen a par  ODI score gone from 200 to about 280 in last 50 years and upsides of 400 are being touched.
but unlike athletics the explosion in the rise of cricketing bar in batting specially has occurred in the last 5 years or so.
paradoxically thought the fastest bowlers today are not any more faster than in 60s or 70s

not just technology and human race. in fact i think, those two haven't much do with it.

it's down to innovations such as power play, field restrictions, clamping down on bouncers....all of which help the batting. and of course, the adoption of strategy.

bowling speed hasn't improved much, because bowling is still down to the humans. at most something can be done in the field of nutrition and technique, but that's about it.

i don't follow baseball, but i wouldn't be surprised if baseball scores too have gone up in the last decade.

from 10 seconds for 100 m 50 years ago to Bolt's ~9.5 second now is a marked improvement in stretching the limit of human body in athletics.

you would expect if the same amount of stretch was applied to the human bodies the fastest bowlers should be touching 170kph......but I guess cricket never required the human body to be stretched to deliver 170kph

KP_fan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:  The way things  are going we may be seeing 350 as the norm and teams regularly getting past 400 runs..

They are becoming different sports.

this is what I meant by Barrier being set higher and higher....the 100 meter dasj records have dropped by nearly a second in last 100 years and by 0.5 seconds in the last 50 years...evolution of human race and technology both have supported this consistently.

the cricketing evolution has seen a par  ODI score gone from 200 to about 280 in last 50 years and upsides of 400 are being touched.
but unlike athletics the explosion in the rise of cricketing bar in batting specially has occurred in the last 5 years or so.
paradoxically thought the fastest bowlers today are not any more faster than in 60s or 70s

its due to 20/20- and maybe if batters could sustain 20/20 over cricket for 50 overs- 50 over cricket could become the dominant format. and 20/20 would just be blooding the players to get ready for 50 overs.

however the above poster(welcome new poster) has hit on a point- we could just change the rules in 50 over to curve the scoring rates.

coolpixel wrote:
no one is interested in it, therefore no one watches it.

Broadly speaking yes. The question therefore has to be how can you make test cricket more interesting to more people?

I don't buy that it's simply a question of it being too long/boring in today's frenetically paced world. The Tour de France (cycling) is the sporting event which attracts the 2nd highest number of viewers overall, that lasts 21 days during which not much happens until the final climb/sprint. Baseball, US football are examples of sports in which not much happens for a long time, but then there's the odd frenetic piece of activity (of course in terms of length they are not on the same scale as test cricket, but they are both quite long by general sporting standards).

Test cricket is actually its own enemy, because it plays on the myth that you have to be a "purist" to understand what's going on. It plays on the image that cricket is a complicated sport, which outsiders can't possibly understand. The same kind of reasoning which leads to people saying there's no point trying to make cricket into a global game, because non-traditional cricket countries have no hope of ever taking to it as it is so foreign. I have been told more than once and quite proudly (usually by an elderly Englishman) that there is no point to try to introduce cricket to the French, as the French are incapable of "getting" cricket (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Put simply this is nonsense. The principle of cricket is just as easy to understand as the principle of any other sport. I can and have often explained the game of cricket in 10-15 seconds to French people of all ages including schoolkids as young as 6. Their usual response is "oh, is that all? We've always been told that it's very complicated" which is telling in itself. You can teach someone the rudiments of cricket and have them enjoying a game of sorts in half an hour or 45 minutes, no problems. Of course once you get into the rules and all the subtleties then yes it gets trickier but again more so than other sports? The laws of rugby union I would say are much more complicated. Or take the LBW law vs the off-side law in football. Again, both simply principles with a number of complicating caveats.

In the same vein it is not complicated to understand that because a game is longer people will take fewer risks (which is essentially what test cricket boils down to).

The point is, you don't have to understand all the rules and subtleties of cricket to enjoy watching or indeed playing a game. Just like you don't have to know and understand all the possible ruck and tackle offences in rugby to enjoy watching that, or all the subtleties of right of way and rules of fencing to enjoy two people trying to hit each other with swords (this is a relevant example, as fencing in the UK is also sold as a difficult sport to understand, when in fact the principles are simple).

Yet cricket continues to "sell" itself as a mythical beast, of which test cricket is the most obscure. As much as anything that needs to change.

coolpixel wrote:
in England, cricket is a traditionalist's game, and hence there is an instinctive aversion to limited overs format in this country. the rest of the cricketing world have adopted that format and have adapted themselves.

I think this is far overly simplistic. It maybe used to be the case, and was reflected in youngsters having to learn "basic technique" first before they were allowed to have fun (again, this is somewhat analogous with current thought by some British fencing coaches) but I think that's changed over the last 10 or so years. There is now acceptance that techniques can vary, and far less "overcoaching" (you mustn't believe everything George Dobbell writes) - when you see guys like Buttler and Morgan flourish... There is still this aversion from many to limited overs cricket, but IMO this is a result of a number of factors of varying complexity rather than just pure traditionalism.

coolpixel wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:  The way things  are going we may be seeing 350 as the norm and teams regularly getting past 400 runs..

They are becoming different sports.

this is what I meant by Barrier being set higher and higher....the 100 meter dasj records have dropped by nearly a second in last 100 years and by 0.5 seconds in the last 50 years...evolution of human race and technology both have supported this consistently.

the cricketing evolution has seen a par  ODI score gone from 200 to about 280 in last 50 years and upsides of 400 are being touched.
but unlike athletics the explosion in the rise of cricketing bar in batting specially has occurred in the last 5 years or so.
paradoxically thought the fastest bowlers today are not any more faster than in 60s or 70s

not just technology and human race. in fact i think, those two haven't much do with it.

it's down to innovations such as power play, field restrictions, clamping down on bouncers....all of which help the batting. and of course, the adoption of strategy.

bowling speed hasn't improved much, because bowling is still down to the humans. at most something can be done in the field of nutrition and technique, but that's about it.

i don't follow baseball, but i wouldn't be surprised if baseball scores too have gone up in the last decade.

I disagree with the first points. Heavier and more bottom-heavy bats, understanding of what is required physically to hit 6s and reproduction of that physique using modern training, understanding the mechanics of hitting a 6 (body position, head position, weight transfer, bat speed), all these have contributed massively to increased scoring. As I posted on another thread, a big evolution of cricket over the last 5-8 years has been that the short ball from the spinner goes for 6 regularly (usually over square-leg or mid-wicket, but sometimes over extra-cover). This was rarely the case before. Powerplays etc. haven't played any part here, it is simply the matters stated above.

Also the T20 format, as it has shown what is possible over a sustained period of cricket. Teams now know you can score at 10 an over for a sustained period, that makes a huge difference in mindset. People in T20 had to take what they used to think of as big risks, but now think of as far more natural. Hitting the full-toss for 6 is no longer thought of as a risk or difficult, it is just what you do.

And what about the fact that batsmen can simply play more shots nowadays than in the past? So fielding restrictions are simply more restrictive.

On the other hand the powerplay has been around in various forms (including the batting powerplay) for a while now, as have restrictions on bouncers. The tighter fielding restrictions have had an impact for sure.

As for bowling speeds it's well known that I think speeds have increased considerably, just that our measures of speeds from years gone by is completely wrong. For example Larwood probably bowled barely 80 mph, Thomson and Holding maybe hit 90 occasionally, etc. Average speeds have certainly gone up as you would expect, speeds of spinners as well.

Bowlers have also come up with innovations and stuff, but yeah the batsmen do seem to be "winning" at the moment.

To make Test cricket more entertaining or more attractive to fans you have to address certain issues I believe cause problems. For one, the price of a ticket. Its obscene. You find yourself paying at least £50, and if you bring your family along your looking in excess of £150, not to mention the price of drinks and food inside the ground. Its an expensive day out which could also be affected by rain delays etc.

Another issue is scheduling, which often can't be changed but does affect crowd numbers. Starting a test match of a sunday for example, doesn't bode well for crowd numbers. In today's financial climate, its not easy to take days off work, particularly ones during the week, so to expect people to flood in on monday's tuesday's and wednesday's is unrealistic. Reduce ticket prices and make tests more accessible would be a start for me.

Mike Selig wrote:

coolpixel wrote:
no one is interested in it, therefore no one watches it.

Broadly speaking yes. The question therefore has to be how can you make test cricket more interesting to more people?

I don't buy that it's simply a question of it being too long/boring in today's frenetically paced world. The Tour de France (cycling) is the sporting event which attracts the 2nd highest number of viewers overall, that lasts 21 days during which not much happens until the final climb/sprint. Baseball, US football are examples of sports in which not much happens for a long time, but then there's the odd frenetic piece of activity (of course in terms of length they are not on the same scale as test cricket, but they are both quite long by general sporting standards).

Test cricket is actually its own enemy, because it plays on the myth that you have to be a "purist" to understand what's going on. It plays on the image that cricket is a complicated sport, which outsiders can't possibly understand. The same kind of reasoning which leads to people saying there's no point trying to make cricket into a global game, because non-traditional cricket countries have no hope of ever taking to it as it is so foreign. I have been told more than once and quite proudly (usually by an elderly Englishman) that there is no point to try to introduce cricket to the French, as the French are incapable of "getting" cricket (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Put simply this is nonsense. The principle of cricket is just as easy to understand as the principle of any other sport. I can and have often explained the game of cricket in 10-15 seconds to French people of all ages including schoolkids as young as 6. Their usual response is "oh, is that all? We've always been told that it's very complicated" which is telling in itself. You can teach someone the rudiments of cricket and have them enjoying a game of sorts in half an hour or 45 minutes, no problems. Of course once you get into the rules and all the subtleties then yes it gets trickier but again more so than other sports? The laws of rugby union I would say are much more complicated. Or take the LBW law vs the off-side law in football. Again, both simply principles with a number of complicating caveats.

In the same vein it is not complicated to understand that because a game is longer people will take fewer risks (which is essentially what test cricket boils down to).

The point is, you don't have to understand all the rules and subtleties of cricket to enjoy watching or indeed playing a game. Just like you don't have to know and understand all the possible ruck and tackle offences in rugby to enjoy watching that, or all the subtleties of right of way and rules of fencing to enjoy two people trying to hit each other with swords (this is a relevant example, as fencing in the UK is also sold as a difficult sport to understand, when in fact the principles are simple).

Yet cricket continues to "sell" itself as a mythical beast, of which test cricket is the most obscure. As much as anything that needs to change.

coolpixel wrote:
in England, cricket is a traditionalist's game, and hence there is an instinctive aversion to limited overs format in this country. the rest of the cricketing world have adopted that format and have adapted themselves.

I think this is far overly simplistic. It maybe used to be the case, and was reflected in youngsters having to learn "basic technique" first before they were allowed to have fun (again, this is somewhat analogous with current thought by some British fencing coaches) but I think that's changed over the last 10 or so years. There is now acceptance that techniques can vary, and far less "overcoaching" (you mustn't believe everything George Dobbell writes) - when you see guys like Buttler and Morgan flourish... There is still this aversion from many to limited overs cricket, but IMO this is a result of a number of factors of varying complexity rather than just pure traditionalism.

i am not sure about the Tour being the second highest watched sport http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28264183 , but whether it is or not is irrelevant.

i think i am representative of all those who have no interest in test cricket.

for me it is anachronistic  that in this day and age a sport has to last 5 days (don't watch the Tour either), and at the end of the 5 days it can result in a no-result. all that effort and sweat, 110 mandays of work, and no-result. it makes no sense to me. as i've said before, if test cricket was a business, it would go bankrupt.

those championing test cricket will argue that the ebb and flow of test cricket is what makes it interesting.

i am sure it does to them. not to those like me. there are billions like me. if there weren't, test cricket would've been king in India. it isn't.

the average spectator in India has too much demands on his time, too busy with survival, to bother about a 5 day sport.  the average spectator in India battles with the system every day, deals with 3-4 hours of commute every day... at the end of the day, Joe Spectator in India is seeking a few hours of escapism.

THAT is why limited overs cricket, especially T20 has taken off in India. that demand has resulted in a supply being created, supply of limited overs players.

i am not sure how you market such a product, test cricket, to someone like me  

i think it will continue to remain a sport limited to viewers in England and Australia.

i am not convinced that it will have a lot of viewers in India. the new generation of cricketers in India have come up playing limited overs cricket. that is their baseline. as they grow older and become establishment, their distance to test cricket will widen only more.

as for the traditionalists view, i think we'll have to agree to disagree.

just yesterday there was a comment from Jonathan Agnew that it was the Ashes that was the most important, which to me is a comment echoed by many the length and breadth of the country. i losely equate Ashes with traditionalism.

if the Ashes and Test cricket are the most important, then losing a limited over series, however badly, should not matter.

Liam wrote:To make Test cricket more entertaining or more attractive to fans you have to address certain issues I believe cause problems. For one, the price of a ticket. Its obscene. You find yourself paying at least £50, and if you bring your family along your looking in excess of £150, not to mention the price of drinks and food inside the ground. Its an expensive day out which could also be affected by rain delays etc.

Another issue is scheduling, which often can't be changed but does affect crowd numbers. Starting a test match of a sunday for example, doesn't bode well for crowd numbers. In today's financial climate, its not easy to take days off work, particularly ones during the week, so to expect people to flood in on monday's tuesday's and wednesday's is unrealistic. Reduce ticket prices and make tests more accessible would be a start for me.

it goes back to the point i have made in a few posts. the commercial model behind test cricket is unsustainable. it works now because the boards of the various countries govern all forms of cricket and hence are able to fund test cricket.

if test cricket had its own board, a bit like the Premier League, we would see a very short shelf life for test cricket.

I read Cooks comments and his stubborn refusal to quit...and that if he continues he will pretty much do it his way of wanting to bat 40 overs.

it's too close to this world cup......for Eng to try doing "anything else"
They have to stick with faith to their strategy of one of Cook, Bell or Ballance  anchoring and others batting...around them.
Just need to get their preferred 11 and then the first line replacements right.

given what I have seen of Eng I would recommend the following:

1) Cook
2) Bell
3) Ballance
4) Root
5) Morgan
6) Ali
7) Bairstow
8) Stokes ( he is a better bowler than either Jordan or Woakes IMO...so keep him in and bat him to form)
9) Broad
10) Jordan
11) Anderson

--this allows Eng to hold their strategy of top 3 as anchors...
--next two proper batsmen but more free-flowing....
--and then all the allrounders down to No.10 who can smash around to score at 10 RPO even in the last 15 overs.

--Keep Hales as a back-up for Morgan or Root category
--Woakes as a back up for Stokes / Jordan/ Board Category
--and another seamer  for Anderson
--and a batsman spinner as a backup for Ali

'I disagree with the first points. Heavier and more bottom-heavy bats, understanding of what is required physically to hit 6s and reproduction of that physique using modern training, understanding the mechanics of hitting a 6 (body position, head position, weight transfer, bat speed), all these have contributed massively to increased scoring. As I posted on another thread, a big evolution of cricket over the last 5-8 years has been that the short ball from the spinner goes for 6 regularly (usually over square-leg or mid-wicket, but sometimes over extra-cover). This was rarely the case before. Powerplays etc. haven't played any part here, it is simply the matters stated above.'

all these are valid points and bat weight and technology has certainly seen a dramatic change.

i am not sure though if the sub continent teams devote a lot of time to the science of hitting. my perception is that they are more instinctive players, a la John McEnroe, than good players because of science and technique.


maybe i am wrong.

KP_fan wrote:I read Cooks comments and his stubborn refusal to quit...and that if he continues he will pretty much do it his way of wanting to bat 40 overs.

it's too close to this world cup......for Eng to try doing "anything else"
They have to stick with faith to their strategy of one of Cook, Bell or Ballance  anchoring and others batting...around them.
Just need to get their preferred 11 and then the first line replacements right.

given what I have seen of Eng I would recommend the following:

1) Cook
2) Bell
3) Ballance
4) Root
5) Morgan
6) Ali
7) Bairstow
8) Stokes ( he is a better bowler than either Jordan or Woakes IMO...so keep him in and bat him to form)
9) Broad
10) Jordan
11) Anderson

--this allows Eng to hold their strategy of top 3 as anchors...
--next two proper batsmen but more free-flowing....
--and then all the allrounders down to No.10 who can smash around to score at 10 RPO even in the last 15 overs.

--Keep Hales as a back-up for Morgan or Root category
--Woakes as a back up for Stokes / Jordan/ Board Category
--and another seamer  for Anderson
--and a batsman spinner as a backup for Ali

i think the ECB does not do knee jerk and any replacement of Cook will be seen as knee jerk. also, from now to WC, is too short a time to blood a new captain.

Cook sounded petulant yesterday, but will just have to deal with it. no one said captaincy was a bed of roses.

Coolpixel,

I agree with you that the current model of test cricket is not sustainable, except in England and Australia (and only then against other "big" teams; for example Lords didn't sell out for the West Indies test a couple of years back).

Where I may disagree (I'm not sure) is that I don't think this HAS to be the case. I think test cricket could be sold to a much wider audience quite easily (obviously it will not be for everybody, but then no sports are - it doesn't mean it can't be globally popular) if people showed a bit of flexibility and thought.
Liam has talked rightly about ticket prices (not to mention prices for food and drink inside the grounds).
Mysti talked about opening the format up to more teams (and hence more markets), imagine the potential for a USA vs China test match and what that would create with all the political rivalry.
I've talked about a change in mindset, and day-night cricket which would have a huge impact for the economic reasons Liam and yourself have discussed.
There are loads of other ideas which could be floated around, going from simple things like numbers and names of the back of shirts, even (might be unpalatable ultimately) coloured clothing.

One thing which I would certainly do is make test cricket more meaningful by introducing a formal championship, and several divisions with promotion/relegation. At the moment most of test matches are devoid of context except history (which is fine when trying to sell the ashes, but less fine when you're selling India against South Africa for example) and a vague and arbitrary ranking system which nobody understands anyway.

On the point of technology, subcontinental teams are embracing it more and more. The old stereotype of "western" science vs subcontinental flair is really no more, even if misinformed pundits still like to trot it out from time to time.

KPF, why on earth would anyone pick Bairstow over Buttler?
I rate Woakes as a better bowler than Jordan TBH (Stokes I agree is superior to either when bowling well).
On the other hand I don't agree that it's too late to change things now. Put simply, England aren't going to have much of an impact at the WC with their current personnel and tactics. What do they have to lose by just going for it?

Mike they have nothing to lose by changing captaincy, but it looks like Cook has dug his heels in and by all accounts the ECB is extremely reluctant to act for fear of being knee jerkish. The establishment runs strong and deep there.

I had no particular liking for Swann when he was playing but his comments re Cook as a captain are good.

On opening up to other countries, yes, in principle a good ideas. There is lot of potential in the US with the Indian and ex pat population over there.

The issue still is around perception for blinkered folks like me, and the willingness to do something.

The BCCI is a much maligned organisation and usually deserves the criticism it gets but I also think it is one of the most innovative governing bodies in sport especially with regards to packaging and presenting consumable forms of cricket and creating new market segments,

I don't think there is any governing body in the world that would readily look to have its star tournament in a different country and the BCCI has done it twice now.

If the BCCI was shown a way of monetising the US market, I am sure they would be off in a jiffy.

On a totally unrelated note, KP tweeted yesterday a tweet that was picked by the Beeb. He was referring to yesterday's match and said the IPL is where most of the Indian team blooded themselves and playing with other international,players helped.

This is not about KP, but I think that was a fair comment. When you play with and against other internationals, many of them better than you,there's no way that experience isn't going to rub on you.

Secondly, I think Cook would have benefitted hugely. He would have lived in an environment, even if for a short while and would have seen how those captains manage all those egos,!

Maybe that would have come in handy during the KP episode.

"The BCCI is a much maligned organisation and usually deserves the criticism it gets but I also think it is one of the most innovative governing bodies in sport especially with regards to packaging and presenting consumable forms of cricket and creating new market segments,"

it has a billion in population, if you cant make a few quid out of your 'only' sport then there is something wrong.. it also doesn't utilise DRS, so i would say Not sure about that comment!!

England invented 20/20 as well. And we could have created a monster that swallows up test

coolpixel wrote:There is lot of potential in the US with the Indian and ex pat population over there.

See this just annoys me. There is potential in the US with the US population! Cricket does not have to only exist in the expat community in these countries.

coolpixel wrote:The BCCI is a much maligned organisation and usually deserves the criticism it gets but I also think it is one of the most innovative governing bodies in sport especially with regards to packaging and presenting consumable forms of cricket and creating new market segments,

I don't think there is any governing body in the world that would readily look to have its star tournament in a different country and the BCCI has done it twice now.

Yes and no. They have essentially reproduced a sporting model seen in different sports all over the world. They have done it very well, and deserve the credit for being the first cricket board to see that cricket could be made "glamorous" like that, but there is nothing really innovative about the IPL, it is merely applying successful models from other sports to cricket.
As for going abroad, pretty much standard practice in other sports again, and in any case it wasn't by choice that India moved the IPL elsewhere.

coolpixel wrote:On a totally unrelated note, KP tweeted yesterday a tweet that was picked by the Beeb. He was referring to yesterday's match and said the IPL is where most of the Indian team blooded themselves and playing with other international,players helped.

This is not about KP, but I think that was a fair comment. When you play with and against other internationals, many of them better than you,there's no way that experience isn't going to rub on you.

Secondly, I think Cook would have benefitted hugely. He would have lived in an environment, even if for a short while and would have seen how those captains manage all those egos,!

Maybe that would have come in handy during the KP episode.

I think we all agree that English players and coaching staff could gain a lot by spending some time at the IPL. The issue is the calendar, and attitudes in English cricket.

Mike Selig wrote:  




On the point of technology, subcontinental teams are embracing it more and more. The old stereotype of "western" science vs subcontinental flair is really no more, even if misinformed pundits still like to trot it out from time to time.

KPF, why on earth would anyone pick Bairstow over Buttler?
I rate Woakes as a better bowler than Jordan TBH (Stokes I agree is superior to either when bowling well).

--Sorry I meant Butler.....not Bairstow
--I agree.....this subcontinent driven by flair and western nation by science is a thing of past....
it's access to same technology and methods of training that all including the less affluent nations like BD have access to

--Woakes is swing / seam condition dependent.....more puts the ball there type.......Jordan hits the deck hard.....will get reverse and also more out of unseaming but bouncy pitches such as in Aus

And India would also do well to bring Yadav and Aaron into the equation..these swing medium pacers such as Bhuv and Kulkarni and Mohit sharme will be too easy for batsmen....in Australian conditions

and also the Indian spinners' bowling will sit up to be thumped through the line off the back foot much more easily then on these English pitches that are affording reasonable spin

msp83 wrote:First ODI hundred for Ajinkya Rahane!. A very graceful effort indeed. His ODI performances so far has been rather average, hopefully this is the beginning of him really kicking on in the format........

Indeed... a long overdue innings but better late than never. In my view, this has cemented his spot for the WC and hopefully he won't be shoved down the order to accommodate Rohit. I've been very, very critical of him in ODIs but thats more to do with the fact that he was wasting his talent cus he clearly has the talent to play the shorter formats. In terms of style, he is probably the closest resemblance to Tendulkar in world cricket today (only talking about style here). Hopefully, he'll kick on from here and go on and have a big World Cup as we desperately need some solidity at the top of the order and he is technically the most equipped batsman in India to deal with overseas conditions. I just hope this isn't a flash in the pan.

Still not sure who the other opener should be. Rohit played well in difficult conditions at Cardiff but once again threw his wicket away immediately after a fifty and his lack of strike rotation was at the forefront again as his fifty took over 80 deliveries! I'd prefer Dhawan if he is in form as when in form, he is a match winner as he can get on a roll and score hundreds like he did last year but he needs to do more IMO to show that he is in form. He played really well the other day but we've seen false dawns before such as the 2 good Test innings in New Zealand, which were preceded and followed by a lengthy period of mediocrity. I'd like to see a bit more consistency before I say he is back in form.

Rohit could come into the middle order at 4 (I'd personally prefer Kedar Jadhav there) but that depends on when he comes back. If he misses the home ODIs against his favourite WI and Rayudu continues to do well (still not convinced by him against raw pace tbh), he'll be hard to displace. As I said though, I'll prefer Kedar Jadhav to either of those 2.

In the bowling department, I'd look to bring back Ishant into the ODI setup (can't believe I'm saying this!) but if he is not used at the death, I think he could be a useful wicket taker for us on the pitches given his recent improvement (he has a very good ODI record in Aus btw). Umesh and Aaron should also be in the mix. And good to see Shami back in form. Not sure Dhawal or Mohit are the bowlers who are gonna take us forward to the WC, especially in Oz conditions. I strongly disagree with KPF's assessment of Bhuvi though and mentioning him in the same sentence as Dhawal and Mohit is frankly ludicrous. He is by far our best bowler, especially in ODIs.

In the spin department, Karn Sharma should get a go in the last ODI. Still reckon he is a better bet than Ashwin Down Under.

'See this just annoys me. There is potential in the US with the US population! Cricket does not have to only exist in the expat community in these countries.'

it doesn't have to. but the expat community is the way to start getting traction. soccer in the USA didn't become the fastest growing sport just because the wides swathes of population, unfamiliar with the game, suddenly fell in love with it.

it became popular because those of European and Latin American descent played it and started pushing the sport into the mainstream.

I know people will talk about Cook losing the odi captaincy, but who takes it..can't give it to Morgan...in odi's recently he has been as bad as Cook..and could argue that Morgan should be left out of the side..

I agree with that on Morgan. I think he has the potential to be a good captain, but, he should be leading from the front as a batsmen and he isn't doing that currently. Although, that's not to say that the captaincy wouldn't work the opposite way and improve his current form, who knows?

Suppose Broad is the other candidate having captained the T2O side and has his place well and truly cemented. He'd be my pick personally.

Is that the same Morgan who's scored the most runs in Odis for the past 12 months for us? Bad summer doesn't make a bad player, everyone hits a rough patch

Still easily one of the best six one day batsman we have. Madness to drop him

I haven't said to drop him. I said whilst he's struggling for form with the bat, does he warrant the captaincy if he isn't doing his primary job? In his last 13 innings he's recorded 1 hundred and 1 fifty. I agree though, his overall record deems him our no.1 one day batsmen.

Same old same old

Really. Seems much better. Root anchoring well.

England threatening a competitive total here.

So they'll be all out for around 250

300 lad 300

Joe Joe we love you Joe....

Certainly a better batting performance, and we are close to being competetive. Just lost wickets too often and at times that have killed momentum: Cook and Root were going along quite nicely and then Buttler could have pushed us on to well over 300. Even so, just shy of 150 for the last 15 overs - pretty decent effort

Fine innings by Root - started off as an anchor but accelerated nicely
and ended at better than a run a ball. For a player not noted for power hitting, that's impressive stuff.

Still had a flat spell in the middle innings overs of spin, not helped by Cook's wicket and Morgan's lack of form, and the first 15 overs was affected by the wickets of Hales and Moeen - at least the intent was right in being aggressive at the top, but the execution wasn't good.