Eng in India

First topic message reminder :

LivinginItaly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Does anyone really see Stokes as a genuine top 5 batsman?

(That comment will no doubt lead to a splendidly crafted century)

Top 5 no. Number 6 yes.

He will be back at six when they leave India and revert to a normal team balance ...ie just five bowlers. But it is probably a necessary evil on this tour.
In this case , five and six turned out to be virtually identical anyway

VTR wrote:These pitches are nothing like those in 2012 - they were generally turning pitches - I don't remember too many 500 plays 600 matches in that series, other than the final Test which was truly one of the worst Test matches of all time

England's bowlers all hopeless - really? Broad is one of the best bowlers in the world

Maybe in home conditions. Plenty of other bowlers better than him in an all conditions scenario

Name them then - these home and away greats. Broad did pretty well in South Africa last winter by the way, or do those now count as home performances because England won?

Its a bit of both. Englands bowlers have been really poor. There was no more in the pitches for the seamers in 2012 and Anderson in particular was much more effective then.

Gooseberry wrote:Are we really trying to sustain the argument that figures of 129/2 are remarkable? Or "not bob"
Surely thats reserved for Moeens strike rate.

We cant entirely  blame the pitch/weather...england have been out classed with bat and ball the last 4 tests, and massively so in these last two.

In the context of the game - in particular, how India went and how our 'leading' bowlers suffered - Dawson did pretty well. Even more so if you factor in expectations. Had Dawson produced a return of, say, 0/60 off his first 9 overs as many here (but not the ever loyal Jimbo ) anticipated, that would probably have been it for his bowling in this Test and incredibly we would have been up against it even more than we are now.

Gooseberry wrote:Its a bit of both. Englands bowlers have been really poor. There was no more in the pitches for the seamers in 2012 and Anderson in particular was much more effective then.

Broad's been outbowled by bloody Shami for crying out load. Starc was sensational when Australia got ruined in Sri Lanka. Broad's efforts aren't of that level

Maxi Sanchez wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Its a bit of both. Englands bowlers have been really poor. There was no more in the pitches for the seamers in 2012 and Anderson in particular was much more effective then.

Broad's been outbowled by bloody Shami for crying out load. Starc was sensational when Australia got ruined in Sri Lanka. Broad's efforts aren't of that level

So you complain about Broad not being able to perform in all conditions, and try to prove your non-existent point by bringing Shami in a home series as evidence against him, and one good away series by Starc. Have a look at Broad's record since 2011 - remarkably consistent in many different conditions

VTR wrote:

Maxi Sanchez wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Its a bit of both. Englands bowlers have been really poor. There was no more in the pitches for the seamers in 2012 and Anderson in particular was much more effective then.

Broad's been outbowled by bloody Shami for crying out load. Starc was sensational when Australia got ruined in Sri Lanka. Broad's efforts aren't of that level

So you complain about Broad not being able to perform in all conditions, and try to prove your non-existent point by bringing Shami in a home series as evidence against him, and one good away series by Starc. Have a look at Broad's record since 2011 - remarkably consistent in many different conditions

Broad has stand out series in UAE(2012) and SA(2015-16) none of the other away series performances are worth the hyperbold

I'm still waiting for this list of bowlers - in your own time please. So far you have highlighted one good away series by one bowler. I thought there was a whole list of really good home and away bowlers?

Philander in NZ(2011-12) ENG(2012) AUS(2016)
Steyn countless times
Ryan Harris in SL, NZ and ENG

All three better than Broad

So the retired Ryan Harris is currently a better bowler than Broad - I know you don't rate the guy but this is just getting silly now!

VTR wrote:So the retired Ryan Harris is currently a better bowler than Broad - I know you don't rate the guy but this is just getting silly now!

It's Broad's attitude. Not his bowling

I'm more interested in their performances on the pitch - I don't aspire to be friends with them or anything. As long as they don't do anything illegal then they can do as they wish as far as I am concerned

You're tying yourselves in knots here anyway - shall we add 5 to his average because you think he has a bad attitude?

I like Steven Finn but he's gone a bit off

VTR wrote:I'm more interested in their performances on the pitch - I don't aspire to be friends with them or anything. As long as they don't do anything illegal then they can do as they wish as far as I am concerned

You're tying yourselves in knots here anyway - shall we add 5 to his average because you think he has a bad attitude?

I'm sure Broad will review it if you change his average

Maxi Sanchez wrote:

VTR wrote:I'm more interested in their performances on the pitch - I don't aspire to be friends with them or anything. As long as they don't do anything illegal then they can do as they wish as far as I am concerned

You're tying yourselves in knots here anyway - shall we add 5 to his average because you think he has a bad attitude?

I'm sure Broad will review it if you change his average

Ha! Good riposte - about time

You mention Finn - well if you admire his attitude that's because he is as soft as the Andrex Puppy. I know who I'd rather have bowling out of Finn and Broad if the team needs a wicket

Maxi Sanchez wrote:

VTR wrote:So the retired Ryan Harris is currently a better bowler than Broad - I know you don't rate the guy but this is just getting silly now!

It's Broad's attitude. Not his bowling

What's wrong with his attitude

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Maxi Sanchez wrote:

VTR wrote:So the retired Ryan Harris is currently a better bowler than Broad - I know you don't rate the guy but this is just getting silly now!

It's Broad's attitude. Not his bowling

What's wrong with his attitude

Nothing - but when you can't back up your claims with any facts, resort to the rules of the playground!

I eagerly await the next installation: Joe Root is a worse batsman than Darren Maddy because my dad said so

very poor tour this, i really struggle to watch sub-continent cricket. pitches havent offered anything for the quicks. only offer to the spinners of which we have non decent and dont play spin as well as india. theres a reason everyone was backing a 5-0. not blaming india, in home conditions you have to play to your strengths. just as a fan dont realy enjoy it.

the clues in the name, i like conditions that have abit for both type of bowlers. that will test the batsman. English conditions make for much more watchable cricket

alfie wrote:First (baby) step taken safely.

I give England a bit better than the 10% chance KP_f is offering ; the pitch really does appear to be still free of gremlins.   First session may be the key...the Indian spinners will certainly apply pressure throughout ; but a good first couple of hours might enable the (theoretically deep) batting lineup to handle them.

Neither 320/5 nor 180 all out would surprise me.

--we will wait and see......the pitch has deteriorated some, with roughs....the pressure , the feeling of nothing to fight for on Eng....and the spirit that India has shown....all point to an Eng defeat....
That they can eek out a draw is highly unlikely now.....

--India's performance in this series is what dreams are made up of....lost 4 tosses and will end up winning 3-0 or 4-0......piled on their highest total  ever without any significant contribution from the 3 heavy weight batters from the first 4 tests.....i.e Kohli, Pujara, Vijay and in the absence of last game centurion Jayant....

India's two first choice batsmen Rahane and Rohit weren't even fit....

Vijay is a proven all condition batsmen who gets a hundred once he gets past 20s and 30s
Nair is also a shaky starter.......but once set he was imperious......toyed with the balling
blessed with batting riches India is....

--a word on Dawson and English spinners seeing the amount of debate they ggenerate

Dawson on my close look is much better than his FC stats suggest......he gets good drift and has a good , quite deceptive arm ball and showed good control too.
he is a shade better than Moeen....
His stats don't look good because he plays on unhelpful pitches perhaps and doesn't get many overs to bowl....if he bowls a lot in Asia...he will average 35ish or so

my ranking of young English spinners from best to worst

1) Rashid.
2) Dawson
3) Moeen
4) Ansari

Notes-->
* Rashid is better on helpful pitches only....on English/ SA /NZ pitches...he would be just as effective ( or ineffective ) as any one else.....so outside of subcontinent when Eng has to play one spinner only selection should be made on tight/ control and baatting skills where dawson and Moeen score above him

** there is very little between Dawson and Moeen as a bowler.....perhaps same in effect and potency....I rated Dawson higher because he has more potential.....if he can tweak his action a bit....he should release the ball just a fraction of second later than he does
then his deliver point will be a bit higher and he will get more spin and bounce 
he is already putting decent revs on the ball and gets good drift and ha a decent arm ball

he needs to work with a spin bowling coach to tweak his action and release point and he will be a much more potent material

i like slow left armers against the right handers just like i like off spinners to the left handers. if dawson can improve think it gives us a better balance, as we can also use root against left handers if needs be.

rashid just gives too many freebies out, all the best spinners out there have control of which rashid doesn't. more often than not the wickets will come from pressure. which rashid fails to put on.

VTR wrote:This pitch is a disgrace - there's no place in cricket for cr@p like this. Probably the worst Test match for some time - beyond boring

In fairness, given that Chennai got hit by a cyclone 5 days before the start it's a miracle they produced a surface to play on at all

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would bring in Foakes myself Guildford, not picking a far superior keeper harks back to the 90's with Russell and Stewart, he's not a bat batsmen anyway.

It'd be interesting to see how Bairstow went as a pure batsman - Andy Flower may have managed to average more (53.70) as a keeper vs batsman only (35.45, at the tail end of his career) but the evidence of Sangakkara (40.48 vs 66.78 as pure batsman), Stewart (34.92 vs 46.70) & McCullum (34.18 vs 42.94) suggests Bairstow as a pure batsman will score more than if he's burdened with the gloves. So if there isn't another #5 out there who can average 10-15 runs per innings more than Foakes it'd be worth the switch

Patel drops Cook off Ashwin - Cook on 4 at the time.

It may be my half asleep brain imagining it but Chef's footwork is suddenly looking much more assured since the drop. It regularly happens after a drop, a batsman steels himself and comes to life a little bit.

That said Ashwin is bowling his stock off spinner fantastically. He's varying his flight, pace and length smartly but keeping the ball on an excellent middle-off stump line. A couple ripping right past the edge.

Good important little innings by Jennings. Should ensure he starts the summer in the test team. A century here would also give him breathing space when the inevitable few failures come along.

Good first session . Long way to go.

It would appear that leach was not considered as a replacement for Ansari due to concerns over his action after routine testing.

The openers gone now, both to Jadeja. Frustrating like so much of this tour. They both seemed comfortably set and had brought up the century stand when they fell in quick succession.

A few nerves around but I'm still fairly confident of the draw. India have bowled more than half the overs they're automatically entitled to in this innings and still 8 wickets to get on a benign track. 46 overs left as a minimum, not enough unless we completely lose our heads.

LI ..thats interesting, especially as they happily played him for the Lions!

So Dawson was in effect the 5th choice?

LivinginItaly wrote:It would appear that leach was not considered as a replacement for Ansari due to concerns over his action after routine testing.

LiI - where did you get from please? Not doubting you, just interested,

Chruist this is going wrong very quickly. Root really needs to convert more of those 6's into centuries.

guildfordbat wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:It would appear that leach was not considered as a replacement for Ansari due to concerns over his action after routine testing.

LiI - where did you get from please? Not doubting you, just interested,

BBC sport website

LivinginItaly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:It would appear that leach was not considered as a replacement for Ansari due to concerns over his action after routine testing.

LiI - where did you get from please? Not doubting you, just interested,

BBC sport website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/38376187

Wish I shared guildford's confidence. Three down and half the day to go - and the scoring has virtually stopped so they aren't going to save themselves some overs by passing the Indian lead with time to spare...

Four gone ! I fear this will be over soon after tea...

Jadeja having a party out there ...can do no wrong

That was an excellent catch .

Bairstow really needs to start converting some of these 1's into 2's.

I've just realised what we've been missing in the middle order for years; Paul Collingwood, in situations like this he'd eat up 40 overs without any problems.

alfie wrote:Wish I shared guildford's confidence.  Three down and half the day to go - and the scoring has virtually stopped so they aren't going to save themselves some overs by passing the Indian lead with time to spare...

Four gone !  I fear this will be over soon after tea...

The landcapes changed very rapidly. They looked jacked now ( oh wait they have the worlds greastest all round cricketiung genius and 606 flavoutr of the day Dawson to come) ... at 2 down the blance was still in their favour. Now they just look broken.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I've just realised what we've been missing in the middle order for years; Paul Collingwood, in situations like this he'd eat up 40 overs without any problems.

I miss Collingwood scoring runs despite looking like he's never held a bat in his life before - and his dibbly dobbly medium pacers

Gooseberry wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:It would appear that leach was not considered as a replacement for Ansari due to concerns over his action after routine testing.

LiI - where did you get from please? Not doubting you, just interested,

BBC sport website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/38376187

So not only do his own Somerset teammates think he wasn't ready for tests, he's also a chucker.

But I'm sure Liam, 22 on Twitter from Burnley who's never seen him bowl, was correct in saying he should've been picked for the tour....

England are kindly donating this Test to India. I think they could save it but don't seem too up for it. Root and Bairstow's shots - very bad in the circumstances and not the shots of players that are seriously trying to save a game

Its a sign of just how much England have struggled to settle in specialist batsmen over the last few years isnt it. Bairstow replaces Prior quite nicely and obviously theres Root, but Cook/ Strauss / Trott/ KP/ Bell / Collingwood in their prime actually were a pretty decent unit despite how on any given day one (or all) of them would be drawing the ire of the england fans.
England now rely on pretending chaps with averages in the 30s are top 7 bats and getting some bonus runs at 8/9 from county level bits and pieces players.

Maybe Jennings with his medium pace and difficulties in laying the bat on the ball could be the new collingwood.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:It would appear that leach was not considered as a replacement for Ansari due to concerns over his action after routine testing.

LiI - where did you get from please? Not doubting you, just interested,

BBC sport website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/38376187

So not only do his own Somerset teammates think he wasn't ready for tests, he's also a chucker.

But I'm sure Liam, 22 on Twitter from Burnley who's never seen him bowl, was correct in saying he should've been picked for the tour....

yeah imagine what wouldve happened if theyd not bought Batty along



In terms of the comments regarding the "timing" of the announcement I think theres no question that England have revelaed this because certain people are worried about their reputations and jobs. The selectors are taking a trashing on social media and form the pundits, no question.
That doesnt mean its not a legitimate piece of information though. In theory they shouldve kept it quiet to protect the player, but it does cast a very different light on the decision not to take him (although again I have to ask why they were happy to have him bowl for the lions if he they beleived he was bolwing illegaly). Anyway it does get them off the hook on that one to some extent.

Hopefuly its nothing serious, and just a borderline concern. If it hits his confidence or he has to do some serious tweaking a la Finn then it could set the only real hope we have back significantly. Guys like Dawson (despite having better figures that Ashwin in this match) and Moeen (whos test career has gone way off the boil) are just never going to be proper first choice test spinners, the same probably true of Ansari and frankly Rashids only proved why they kept overlooking him in the past. This lad has the potential to actually be a proper bowler, something England are struggling to find (as with the batsmen) of any type.

In hindsight its probably a very good thing hes not come out here and been part of a shellacking. Ansari may have played himself unfairly onto the scrap heap being chucked into a massacre.

Dawsons chances of getting summer games are increasing, espcially if he does well in the limited overs games.

Do I get a sense that Olly isn't an enthusiast for "Leach for England " ?

I've been getting battered in another place for suggesting that he might not (at least yet) be the Answer to All Our Prayers. Or at least that we couldn't guarantee it.

I haven't seen him bowl either , by the way , and I really don't want to diss him...but I can't help thinking he might be an example of the apparently immutable rule that Whoever Isn't Playing is always better than the incumbents...

That was a great batting unit, allied to a very good bowling attack, I am sure that was the best England team that most on here can remember

The current team is a work in progress, but the all-rounders starting at 4 can't be the long-term solution. I am though hopeful that we are possibly one decent batsman away from being a good side

Am not sure now why Leach didn't get in - he might have gone on to take 800 wickets for us!

VTR wrote:England are kindly donating this Test to India. I think they could save it but don't seem too up for it. Root and Bairstow's shots - very bad in the circumstances and not the shots of players that are seriously trying to save a game

To be honest I don't think Root and Bairstow are cut out for blocking for four hours ; pity they both got out (to a review that nearly wasn't called and a super catch) but I won't savage them for trying to score some runs.

Misjudgments , maybe. But if you allow India to just bowl while surrounding you with fielders , it won't end well...

It really would be nice to see Paul Collingwood at the crease

They didn't need to block for 4 hours though - even an hour and a half each, or 50/60 balls each would be enough. Cook and Jennings had done the hard work for everyone else by batting an entire session plus a bit for them. All they had to do was play straight, and they also both fell short of a record that was there for the taking

Stokes blocked one through the slips nicely there

VTR wrote:That was a great batting unit, allied to a very good bowling attack, I am sure that was the best England team that most on here can remember

The current team is a work in progress, but the all-rounders starting at 4 can't be the long-term solution. I am though hopeful that we are possibly one decent batsman away from being a good side

Agreed. I'd like to see both Hameed (when fit again) and Jennings given a run in the side. I think they're exactly the type of top order players we've been lacking...and could potentially be our new opening pair when Cook decides to retire.


Back to the match I see things are hanging nicely in the balance (England never make it easy for themselves, do they?) Got off to a good start, but since then the wheels have started to wobble on the England wagon. Fingers crossed that Moeen can shine again and Stokes can have one of his good days.

With a more favourable pitch its almost tempting to think England could chase the remaining 130-odd runs, but survival seems the sensible option.

I think you are forgetting, India have only had one innings so far, so chasing the 130 would just mean India batting again!