England's Winter of Cricket 2020/21

First topic message reminder :

Knight thinks they won't enforce the follow on. I'm not so sure.

Still two wickets needed anyway. 22 runs.

As I say I don't mind spinning pitches. I do think this one was a bit extreme : had England batted first I doubt they'd have made 329 ; but they might have made 220 and that would probably have made them favourites.
But essentially I agree :India are in this position because they've bowled a lot better and three or four batsmen played innings that England have not come near to matching. Credit where it is due...

Further on Pope : the ball before he got out , I think it was , he came down the pitch and played it nicely - but then got caught flat-footed by the wicket ball. His original intention was right : you don't have to whack it when you use your feet ; just get to the pitch of it , and defend if needed. But at this stage of his career he doesn't seem quite confident enough in his method against good spin.
I reckon he will get better. Hopefully second innings here !

112. Bit short of the planned target

That's all Foakes 

Congrats to Axar

Damned good bowling ; even if it was almost like shooting fish in a barrel ...

Time for Anderson and Broad to do another rescue job. 130 all out, England batting again by stumps?

if Rohit and Gill get going this could be absolute carnage

Don't think Rohit or Gill will have much of a chance against the moving ball under lights v Anderson. Kohli and Pujara on the other hand...

Duty281 wrote:Ah yes, England were 74/2 at one point!

Almost forgot that ! Indeed a spectacular fall from that point .

Seemed they really didn't know what to do : apart from Crawly no one really tried to play any shots. Nearly all out just playing back and poking at it.

Though looking at the replays I see I've done Pope a slight injustice : he was going forward to the ball that got him - just not decisively enough. But he was really the only one to get out on the front foot. You'd have to think they might even have made twenty or thirty more if a few of them had thrown the bat ...

Ah well : let us see what the bowlers can do.

Think I'd have given Archer the new ball...

Oh good, third umpire's at it again. At the very least you need to zoom in on the picture.

situation is desperate but not so muhc that you start picking balls off the ground and start claiming catches

Stokes should be fined for violating the spirit of game

Poor drop from Stokes, England's poor day continues

Broad gets the first...or does he ?

TV umpire says no. Does look as if it's touched the ground , after he first grabbed it...but I'd have thought he'd have looked at a second angle before making his ruling. Stokes not happy. Not for the first time in this series ! Hope England aren't going to get a persecution complex over these third umpire calls...

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Poor drop from Stokes, England's poor day continues

And on this point, think we've noted before...Stokes, a taker of great catches in the slips, not a great slip catcher.

Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Poor drop from Stokes, England's poor day continues

And on this point, think we've noted before...Stokes, a taker of great catches in the slips, not a great slip catcher.

Absolutely. Crawley is a very good and natural slipper.

I've said it before that I'm not a big fan of Stokes at second slip. Standing a bit wider in the gully region he can be spectacular but he just isn't the most natural slip to stand at second.

10 overs they have to see off...gill and rohit.
then the shine will be gone and life easier

Soul Requiem wrote:Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Nah don't agree with that at all. He grassed it, clear and simple.

There are some catches like that where foreshortening of the camera angle can make good catches look not out but that wasn't one of them. Stokes just dropped a regulation chance.

India doing well to survive these few overs up to supper. All going to plan for them today...

England need to get their heads straight over this next forty minutes or this match could be effectively over by close of play.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Poor drop from Stokes, England's poor day continues

And on this point, think we've noted before...Stokes, a taker of great catches in the slips, not a great slip catcher.

Opposite in some ways to Grant Holt. Great goal scorers don't score great goals and don't need to.

Well that was a pitiful session. England need a big'un in the twilight. At least seven or eight wickets required.

Actually time for one more over before the interval. Nowt doing.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Nah don't agree with that at all. He grassed it, clear and simple.

There are some catches like that where foreshortening of the camera angle can make good catches look not out but that wasn't one of them. Stokes just dropped a regulation chance.

I'm not disputing that in the slightest. Can you say based on the last test that's being given not out were it an English batsman?

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Nah don't agree with that at all. He grassed it, clear and simple.

There are some catches like that where foreshortening of the camera angle can make good catches look not out but that wasn't one of them. Stokes just dropped a regulation chance.

Was a bit of a funny one though : he seems to have it ; then as his hands go down and to his right , the ball appears to escape and brush the ground...yet somehow it doesn't actually leave his control entirely and he brings it up... I think he believed he had his fingers under it throughout. From the view we had in slo mo that looks to be wrong. But with the soft signal given as out you can see why England were so surprised.

I think the correct decision was made. But I do also think it ought to have been checked from more than just the one angle. These decisions are usually analysed minutely even when they appear fairly obvious : after the events of the last Test you can see England have very little confidence in the third umpire's decisions.

I do agree with the sentiments of Olly and others about Stokes being a taker of great catches rather than a reliably good catcher.

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Nah don't agree with that at all. He grassed it, clear and simple.

There are some catches like that where foreshortening of the camera angle can make good catches look not out but that wasn't one of them. Stokes just dropped a regulation chance.

I'm not disputing that in the slightest. Can you say based on the last test that's being given not out were it an English batsman?

Yes, I can.

There were two tight stumpings last Tests with one given out and the other not out.

Then there was the huge screw up with Rahane's bat pad which the officials admitted to being wrong at the end of the day and gave England back the review. It was incompetence from inexperienced umpires not bias. Had the third umpire rolled the Rahane 'dismissal' one far enough to see him glove it, put that on the big screen and given him not out it would have been bias. That's not what happened though. It was just poor officiating.

That on the other hand was good officiating. It looked out in real time so the on-field umpires gave the soft signal of out but checked with third umpire. On review it was clearly not out. Good work from the three of them and the right decision.

Duty281 wrote:Well that was a pitiful session. England need a big'un in the twilight. At least seven or eight wickets required.

Actually time for one more over before the interval. Nowt doing.

Im sure someone will find a way to blame Moeen

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Nah don't agree with that at all. He grassed it, clear and simple.

There are some catches like that where foreshortening of the camera angle can make good catches look not out but that wasn't one of them. Stokes just dropped a regulation chance.

I'm not disputing that in the slightest. Can you say based on the last test that's being given not out were it an English batsman?

Yes, I can.

There were two tight stumpings last Tests with one given out and the other not out.

Then there was the huge screw up with Rahane's bat pad which the officials admitted to being wrong at the end of the day and gave England back the review. It was incompetence from inexperienced umpires not bias. Had the third umpire rolled the Rahane 'dismissal' one far enough to see him glove it, put that on the big screen and given him not out it would have been bias. That's not what happened though. It was just poor officiating.

That on the other hand was good officiating. It looked out in real time so the on-field umpires gave the soft signal of out but checked with third umpire. On review it was clearly not out. Good work from the three of them and the right decision.

The Rohit stumping was not tight, he was out.

Sorry but the combination of the decisions go beyond poor officiating for me and there's a very good reason why the Rahane one wasn't rolled on despite Root explicitly asking them to. You want to see the good in the officiating that's fair enough but i'll call it as I see it.

alfie wrote:India doing well to survive these few overs up to supper. All going to plan for them today...

England need to get their heads straight over this next forty minutes or this match could be effectively over by close of play.

Yep, ideal for India. A few runs on the board and no wickets lost whilst England believe everything is against them.

Along the lines of what Carlos earlier said I might say, India haven't yet won this Test but we've gone a heck of a long way to losing it in two sessions.

Gooseberry wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well that was a pitiful session. England need a big'un in the twilight. At least seven or eight wickets required.

Actually time for one more over before the interval. Nowt doing.

Im sure someone will find a way to blame Moeen

I think if a blame has to be assigned it's on not resting / rotating Root
by the yardstick Eng follow....he would be mentally shot by now.....bubble/ covid / away from family ...long innings, burden of captaincy....5 tests in a row

and so you can see him making incorrect decisions...such as  
leaving out spinne on the most turning track thatz that spinner would have encountered in his career
falling to sweep of all shots in last test
being beaten in flight today that we haven't see the great Root fall in last 8 innings to spin
like getting irritated and arguing with umpires like the vicious Kohli does

alfie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Were that an English batsman it's being given out, lets call it as it is. Yes it's not out but convenient they manage to get certain calls right and others wrong.

Nah don't agree with that at all. He grassed it, clear and simple.

There are some catches like that where foreshortening of the camera angle can make good catches look not out but that wasn't one of them. Stokes just dropped a regulation chance.

Was a bit of a funny one though : he seems to have it ; then as his hands go down and to his right , the ball appears to escape and brush the ground...yet somehow it doesn't actually leave his control entirely and he brings it up... I think he believed he had his fingers under it throughout. From the view we had in slo mo that looks to be wrong. But with the soft signal given as out you can see why England were so surprised.

I think the correct decision was made. But I do also think it ought to have been checked from more than just the one angle. These decisions are usually analysed minutely even when they appear fairly obvious : after the events of the last Test you can see England have very little confidence in the third umpire's decisions.

I do agree with the sentiments of Olly and others about Stokes being a taker of great catches rather than a reliably good catcher.

Yep, the right decision by the third umpire but a rushed one lacking thoroughness, especially as it overruled the onfield umpire. Increasing England's feeling of grievance - they need to get over that and quickly.

Soul Requiem wrote:The Rohit stumping was not tight, he was out.

Sorry but the combination of the decisions go beyond poor officiating for me and there's a very good reason why the Rahane one wasn't rolled on despite Root explicitly asking them to. You want to see the good in the officiating that's fair enough but i'll call it as I see it.

It was tight. The side on angle was inconclusive and the stump cam one which looked out at first had the usual stump cam issue with stumpings that the line in the centre of the crease is rubbed out from guard marks.

It's not paranoia if everyone's out to get me Doctor.

Anderson moving gingerly now, as if England's day couldn't get much worse. Run-ups don't look good for the bowlers.

Olly will like that celebration/appeal from Broad, but the umpire doesn't.

Looked dead in real time...umpire's call on review. One of those days. That's four (?) umpire's calls which have gone against England today.

Duty281 wrote:Olly will like that celebration/appeal from Broad, but the umpire doesn't.

An absolute classic of the genre

after dinner eng bowlers have not been getting muhc movement
couple of more overs...and the lacquer would be worn off significntly on this dry abrasive pitch

No luck on close calls for England today...wrong side of umpire's call then. For once Broad was correct in calling desperately for a review - at worst it was going to be umpire's call so no loss of referral.

Get the feeling one might bring two or three here . But they need that first soonish because the ball won't stay hard for the seamers for ever...

Stone looked a much more threatening bowler......Eng missing his ¨express pace and skid

Anderson/Broad not quite getting the lengths right in this session. Fraction too short, can't get the ball to talk at the level they're pitching it. Thought they would have taken more risk.

Time for Archer and maybe Stokes soon.

Throw this one out there. [Soul - you may want to look away.]

Foakes faced 58 balls in scoring his 12 today. His application and footwork (until marooned with Anderson at the end) was good and went some way to justifying msp's claim yesterday that he's England's best player of spin. However, his strike rate was below 21 (per 100 balls) and so failed to give any impetus to the innings.

Much as I'm a Foakes fan, I can't help feeling Buttler would have been the better bet out there. I appreciate that's harsh on Foakes as he was placed in such a dicey position by the combined failings of the main batsmen and his main work behind the stumps is still to be done. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how Buttler would have done with the bat - he could have been skittled first ball.

However, fair to say, that any damaged England reputations after this match won't include Buttler's.

Broad is losing it a bit here. Time to give him a rest and let Archer have a go.
As I type he beats Gill with a beauty ; but I think I still want a change.
Calls coming for Leach. Obviously he will have a big part to play but unless the pace men do their bit in this session I can't see him having enough effect so I certainly want to see them all tried first - while the ball is still new (ish).

Eleven overs now . 19/0 . Signs not good. Still Broad. Hmm .

Indian openers have seen off 10 overs of Broad and Anderson with pink new ball in twilight hours

a minor win for openers and a HUGE foundation for India in the context of this game.
now one of them needs to go on to get a 100...hopefully Gill

guildfordbat wrote:Throw this one out there. [Soul - you may want to look away.]

Foakes faced 58 balls in scoring his 12 today. His application and footwork (until marooned with Anderson at the end) was good and went some way to justifying msp's claim yesterday that he's England's best player of spin. However, his strike rate was below 21 (per 100 balls) and so failed to give any impetus to the innings.

Much as I'm a Foakes fan, I can't help feeling Buttler would have been the better bet out there. I appreciate that's harsh on Foakes as he was placed in such a dicey position by the combined failings of the main batsmen and his main work behind the stumps is still to be done. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how Buttler would have done with the bat - he could have been skittled first ball.

However, fair to say, that any damaged England reputations after this match won't include Buttler's.

I had some similar thoughts , guildford. Buttler would almost certainly have taken the bowlers on rather just remaining passive for so long ; especially as the tail was obviously not going to contribute much. But as you say , he might have got out straight away.

Can't be too critical of Foakes ...third top score - modest as it was. He probably hoped to at least extend the innings and have Broad maybe whack a few boundaries. No one else was able to get after the spinners so his caution was understandable.

Suffice to say this is one of those innings which improves the reputation of any batsman who managed to miss it  

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:if Rohit and Gill get going this could be absolute carnage

Hoping Leach is on his line and length, else this could teeter into Australia's day one at Melbourne in 2010/11 levels of a day

KP_fan wrote:Indian openers have seen off 10 overs of Broad and Anderson with pink new ball in twilight hours

a minor win for openers and a HUGE foundation for India in the context of this game.
now one of them needs to go on to get a 100...hopefully Gill

Rohit and Gill have indeed done very well in this initial period. Little bit if luck but you need that in these conditions. Just what their team needed.

Now Leach has it all to do as he enters the fray...

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Throw this one out there. [Soul - you may want to look away.]

Foakes faced 58 balls in scoring his 12 today. His application and footwork (until marooned with Anderson at the end) was good and went some way to justifying msp's claim yesterday that he's England's best player of spin. However, his strike rate was below 21 (per 100 balls) and so failed to give any impetus to the innings.

Much as I'm a Foakes fan, I can't help feeling Buttler would have been the better bet out there. I appreciate that's harsh on Foakes as he was placed in such a dicey position by the combined failings of the main batsmen and his main work behind the stumps is still to be done. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how Buttler would have done with the bat - he could have been skittled first ball.

However, fair to say, that any damaged England reputations after this match won't include Buttler's.

I had some similar thoughts , guildford. Buttler would almost certainly have taken the bowlers on rather just remaining passive for so long ; especially as the tail was obviously not going to contribute much. But as you say , he might have got out straight away.

Can't be too critical of Foakes ...third top score - modest as it was. He probably hoped to at least extend the innings and have Broad maybe whack a few boundaries. No one else was able to get after the spinners so his caution was understandable.

Suffice to say this is one of those innings which improves the reputation of any batsman who managed to miss it  

Foakes is technically correct and an innings builder
He will blossom with game setting long inings... if given a chance to bat at No. 3 or No. 5

Gill should be kickkig himself...for having given it away after the hard work

Jofra!

Poor dismissal. Do the hard work and chuck it away.

Gill rather throws it away there :

Boy did England need that ! Archer strikes and hopefully he will take a bit of heart from that and have a real go now at the Big Three. Pujara first up...

alfie wrote:Pujara first up...

Back in the hutch.

Classic ball from Leach. England still clinging on, getting Pujara out quick can never be understated.

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Throw this one out there. [Soul - you may want to look away.]

Foakes faced 58 balls in scoring his 12 today. His application and footwork (until marooned with Anderson at the end) was good and went some way to justifying msp's claim yesterday that he's England's best player of spin. However, his strike rate was below 21 (per 100 balls) and so failed to give any impetus to the innings.

Much as I'm a Foakes fan, I can't help feeling Buttler would have been the better bet out there. I appreciate that's harsh on Foakes as he was placed in such a dicey position by the combined failings of the main batsmen and his main work behind the stumps is still to be done. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how Buttler would have done with the bat - he could have been skittled first ball.

However, fair to say, that any damaged England reputations after this match won't include Buttler's.

I had some similar thoughts , guildford. Buttler would almost certainly have taken the bowlers on rather just remaining passive for so long ; especially as the tail was obviously not going to contribute much. But as you say , he might have got out straight away.

Can't be too critical of Foakes ...third top score - modest as it was. He probably hoped to at least extend the innings and have Broad maybe whack a few boundaries. No one else was able to get after the spinners so his caution was understandable.

Suffice to say this is one of those innings which improves the reputation of any batsman who managed to miss it  

Foakes is technically correct and an innings builder
He will blossom with game setting long inings... if given a chance to bat at No. 3 or No. 5

Think you might be getting a little carried away with Foakes there , KP_fan. He is a decent bat ; but 3 in Tests ? Don't think even the Surrey mob would go for that

Aha... Leach has Pujara