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...

Ind started breathing too easily
India need to build a 40 or 50 odd run partnership now

Probably be a good idea to stop bowling short at Rohit.

alfie wrote:

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

I say it as I see it...with no malice and no agendas
Stokes should be moved to 6....and Foakes to 5 if he cannot be accommodated at 3
Stokes has better skills to bat with lower order including cutting loose

Funny old game. Looking at that replay : Pujara dismissal is almost identical to the Bairstow wicket this morning. (Same position ,same bowler type , same misreading of the line , same score ) Only difference is he had the good sense not to waste a review on it

Two quick wickets give England a lift. Need another one now though to keep the pressure on...don't think these two bats will fiddle about batting dots.

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.

The theory is sound but the evidence is somewhat lacking however. Much is made of Buttler's undoubted ability to cut loose but when has it ever actually happened in a test match?

England were in a similar hole last summer against Pakistan at 127-5 and yet Buttler didn't counterattack, ended up with 38 off 108. I'm not saying he wouldn't have scored quicker than Foakes but there's an aura around him that he's almost Gilchristesque in tests when he's really not and tends to take a while to get going.

alfie wrote:Funny old game. Looking at that replay : Pujara dismissal is almost identical to the Bairstow wicket this morning. (Same position ,same bowler type , same misreading of the line , same score ) Only difference is he had the good sense not to waste a review on it

Two quick wickets give England a lift. Need another one now though to keep the pressure on...don't think these two bats will fiddle about batting dots.

Leach should be looking to bowl exactly as Axar did. A lot of arm balls, the odd one with decent revs on the ball to sow some doubt and vary his pace. By and large he needs to be landing the ball in the same spot over and over again.

Archer again misused - being instructed to dig the ball in on a pitch where he'd be better served pitching it up.

Not picked up by Swann on comms but I think Stokes is warming up for a bowl.

when the batsman has jumped so far out and the umpires call is N.O...then it ceases to be an intelligent review......and falls in the category of desperate gambling

No pressure on Stokes. He just needs a hat-trick to get England back in the test!

Actually, Leach may have one...no missing by a fraction. Fun times. He's bowled well so far Leach, underlining a good winter.

Must say I was surprised that Leach ball was so high. Thought live it was close...but Rohit had indeed got a long way forward : something England bats failed to do.

Lesson there , maybe.

What the heck is Swann on about? Sharma coming down the pitch didn't make the ball bounce more you plonker

Ball isn't spinning as muhc........skidding.....i i think dew is acting against the spinner
It was a lucky toss to lose as I said in the morning

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:What the heck is Swann on about? Sharma coming down the pitch didn't make the ball bounce more you plonker

In fairness to Swann , Olly , I think he just meant , as indeed I did , that by getting so far forward Rohit has (a) made himself less likely to be given out ; and (b) fooled them into reviewing

No Stokes magic today I think. Not much there for the pace men anyway (wonder how Bess is feeling ?) and he's hardly Mr Economy.

I'd have Anderson on to try and at least tie them down and allow Leach to attack.

But I'm afraid this is all going south too quickly now. Very disappointing display from England today ...and all credit to India. Going to need something special to stop this game from being effectively over rather early...

Good news, Stokes is bowling (seemingly full pelt)
Bad news, he's bowling toss

Why wouldn't Root have a bowl for a couple of overs now. India are 30 runs behind with 8 wickets left. They need to try something different.

If it doesn't work and he goes for 15 runs, so what. They are going to bat way beyond 112 anyway.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Good news, Stokes is bowling (seemingly full pelt)
Bad news, he's bowling toss

Hasn't been good enough from England's seamers in the third session. Too short, too wide, not threatening enough.

Been a very limp display, alas. Still not out of it though.

that cover drive on the rise from Kohli is when he is at his best

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Good news, Stokes is bowling (seemingly full pelt)
Bad news, he's bowling toss

Hasn't been good enough from England's seamers in the third session. Too short, too wide, not threatening enough.

Been a very limp display, alas. Still not out of it though.

Only thing left to decide is if England lose by an innings or not!

Good fifty for Rohit...he is really doing England over this last week or so.

Not liking the body language in the England camp. Almost an air of resignation already. Perhaps understandable: but you have to keep believing...

Almost the magic moment then : terrific effort from Pope to nearly bring off the impossible catch

And then the same man drops an absolute dolly off Anderson

Just one of those days...

Dismal from Pope. Kohli too.

Well that looked out as well. Another rushed decision.

Duty281 wrote:Well that looked out as well. Another rushed decision.

Duty - as you say, rushed again. Mrs Bat thought it was out and she's got a beady eye for sure.

Foakes was sure he had Rohit that time...but once again the TV umpire says no. Game of millimetres...

But in the larger sense , India are kilometres ahead

Have to give them credit : totally outplaying England here. Pity though - I was looking forward to a good match and this looks like turning into a walkover.

This is now beyond a joke, whether it's out or not is irrelevant but that is now four snap decisions in two matches that have gone against England. Gets to the point where you cannot just put it down to incompetence, the third umpire is actively looking to give these not out.

I don't think I can pretend it's umpiring incompetence anymore. Not unless the BCCI have dragged random individuals off the street.

Ah Leach gets Kohli. Always good to see Kohli stropping away. Leach deserves that for a good day.

Kohli and Rohit had given India enuf platform, taken sting out of Eng's attack tghru their 60 run partnership
Kohli would be disappointed not going on
BUT...these 30 to 60 run partnerships will take India enuf ahead in game

alfie wrote:Foakes was sure he had Rohit that time...but once again the TV umpire says no.  Game of millimetres...

But in the larger sense , India are kilometres ahead

Have to give them credit : totally outplaying England here. Pity though - I was looking forward to a good match and this looks like turning into a walkover.

that umpire's decision was doubtful only in a parallel universe

If Eng get India bowled out too quickly tomm....say with a lead of 150ish within the 2nd session there is risk of game ending in 2 days

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well that looked out as well. Another rushed decision.

Duty - as you say, rushed again. Mrs Bat thought it was out and she's got a beady eye for sure.

Well I initially thought it was out too ... But assumed I must have been seeing things as it was ruled against so promptly.

Have to say these decisions all seem to be made rather quickly - and we are not seeing the usual extra replays from all angles that tend to follow close decisions. I really don't want to become paranoid but I wish they'd take a bit more time over the decisions - as much for the appearance of doing everything right as for making the correct call.

Now Kohli gone in the last over of the day...but at just 13 runs down with seven in hand I reckon India are laughing. Nearly the perfect day for Virat & co...

The late wicket of Kohli an unexpected bonus but India sensibly don't give us a night watchman as a gift for tonight or the morning.

Their day by a mile and more.

England need a first session blitz tomorrow to have any hope. Poor's day batting, Crawley and Foakes apart, and mostly poor bowling (exception for Leach and Anderson). Patel dominated the day with his clever variations.

The Indian TV umpire made two errors and five (I think) Indian 'umpire's call' decisions all went India's way. All normal stuff.

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well that looked out as well. Another rushed decision.

Duty - as you say, rushed again. Mrs Bat thought it was out and she's got a beady eye for sure.

Well I initially thought it was out too ... But assumed I must have been seeing things as it was ruled against so promptly.

Have to say these decisions all seem to be made rather quickly - and we are not seeing the usual extra replays from all angles that tend to follow close decisions. I really don't want to become paranoid but I wish they'd take a bit more time over the decisions - as much for the appearance of doing everything right as for making the correct call.

Now Kohli gone in the last over of the day...but at just 13 runs down with seven in hand I reckon India are laughing.  Nearly the perfect day for Virat & co...

Hmm I don't think there is some sort of grand conspiracy, but the rushed nature of the usage of it certainly is eye raising. Not good.

Don't think England actually bowled too badly there...there really isn't a huge amount in the pitch I don't think, and the fielding didn't exactly help the bowlers!
Ultimately they've blown a golden opportunity today, winning the toss on a pretty good batting wicket and being bowled out in less than two sessions for 112. Had a great chance to take an advantage in the game, like they did in the first test, and have thrown it away in spectacular fashion

Still bemused why Root didn't bring himself on. Leach was causing way more problems than the seamers.

Maybe he didn't want to admit they had misread the pitch entirely.

This series is without doubt the death knell for home umpires being used in the long term which is a shame for the English trio who were all superb last summer. There's a good reason why there's an elite panel.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Still bemused why Root didn't bring himself on. Leach was causing way more problems than the seamers.

Maybe he didn't want to admit they had misread the pitch entirely.

Root underrates himself as a bowler. If Cook were captain he'd have brought Root on to bowl by now.

Fine day for India. Would have been even better had Kohli managed to survive that last over. He was even dropped twice already by then, once of Anderson too. Rohit again played really very well. Indian batting will have some depth with Ashwin or Axar coming in at 9, and they need a few decent partnerships.
The track was good, some turn from the beginning. But not a 15 wicket track on day one, England batting was just not quite there in terms of skill levels in playing the spinning balls.
The ball didn't do much in the lights either, and Root should have bowled a few on this track for sure.
Umpiring questions again. Both decisions seemed a touch rushed for sure. The Gill decision was absolutely correct though.

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:

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

I say it as I see it...with no malice and no agendas
Stokes should be moved to 6....and Foakes to 5 if he cannot be accommodated at 3
Stokes has better skills to bat with lower order including cutting loose

Stokes was Englands only batsman making big runs consistently for an extended period till this winter, and did it from 5. He's struggled with Ashwin, but came in as a guy aeraging around 50 in his recent tests in a team where the majority of batsmen average in the 30s.

Stokes is not batting too high , and it should be Pope bumping him down by earning a spot as a batsman which is what he's picked for. Sadly another who's struggling coming in a bit cold to this tough series.

Crawley and Rohit have shown that you can get runs from considered shot playing in these conditions. The other batsmen just have figured out which shots they can play to which balls to balance that risk reward. Stokes is having a clear problem figuring out how to score off Ashwin, that would be the case whatever position he played in.


Depressed all round by this showing. Selection of bowlers appears to have been driven by data rather than a reading of the pitch as is, presumably also input from Jeetan Patel re: Bess in the nets and reliability. Chopping around the squad might also taking some blame with players coming in cold, but Crawleys shown that doesnt count for everything and its certainly no excuse for Root and Sibley failing.

Overall its just England being collectively bad against quality spin bowling. Nothing new, just depressing they haven't really shown progression (Crawley aside) this winter, and Root seems to have lost his mojo.

Take a miracle for them to not be on the end of another big loss here.

-As I read the match situation Ind with Rohit, Rahane, Pant, Sundar, Ashwin and Axar down at No.9 should be able to bat out most of the 2 sessions and get a lead of something ~ 150-180
-and that should be enuf to cause an innings defeat.

First session will be easiest to bat I think and a lot will depend on how long Rohit bats and if Pant gets going...these two will score at 5rpo and could push the lead to 200ish in 2 sessions

Could Eng have done anything better?
-Naah not with the bat....in fact by the time Kohli read the pitch he had given too many FOUR balls to Crawley bowling seamers too long....
had he brought spinners earlier .....Eng would have been restricted to under 100.
Eng  managed about what they could with their skill level on this pitch and against this quality of spinners.
In the second inning Kohli will open with 2 spinners.


-With the ball yes....Eng could have had Stone who looked much sharper than both Broad and Archer
and should have had a second spinner in either Ali or even Bess would also be workable on this pitch
and then Eng could have restricted India to about 200
and that means Eng would have not lost by an inning but perhaps stretched India to a 4th inning chase of 50ish and lost by 8 wickets
I have seen SA & Aus at their peak stretch india.

--But the good news is that improper selections did not cost Eng the match..they would have lost anyway

-Though don't take my word, miracles happen and have been happening more frequently these days in test criket......the English seamers could bowl like the Aussies did in Adelaide and bundle Ind out for 135 tomm morning

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Still bemused why Root didn't bring himself on. Leach was causing way more problems than the seamers.

Maybe he didn't want to admit they had misread the pitch entirely.

Root underrates himself as a bowler. If Cook were captain he'd have brought Root on to bowl by now.

Which is then a little concerning about the voices around him. Surely someone, more than one, should be telling him.

Stokes and Bairstow should be telling him to, with their experience and stature, and whilst Broad and Anderson are going to be a little more selfish, it would mean more coming from two experienced top bowlers.

I mean, I totally disagree with the contention that there was no more England could do with the bat! If you are rolled for 112 in the first innings, there is always more you can do with the bat. Unless you are playing on the pitch England played the Windies on in the abandoned Test in the 90s.

As far as the game goes, England are going to have to shoot India out for a score around what they made in the fourth innings. The only way I see anyway back in is something along the lines of India collapse to 200-220 all out, England match that, then do something magical to fire India out for 100 in the final innings. But I won’t be putting my life savings on it.

It’s not total despair though. I wonder how many of us thought England would win three Tests this winter? Albeit it has been very Root reliant. Pope struggled with picking Yasir’s length in the summer when he got bowled going back cutting a few times so there is definitely an issue that needs resolving. But he is still England’s brightest batting hope, and I just hope he this tour doesn’t do too much damage.

Crawley just screams quality player. Even if the runs aren’t fully there yet. Him and Gill definitely top my list of young players who just hit it like proper players. The easy timing and power is all there.

JDizzle wrote: I mean, I totally disagree with the contention that there was no more England could do with the bat! If you are rolled for 112 in the first innings, there is always more you can do with the bat. Unless you are playing on the pitch England played the Windies on in the abandoned Test in the 90s.

Maybe they could have done 120....but equally likely done 99
It's a combination of cricketing skill level and mental state....both are low
I already commented in the last game.....this exhibition of frustration & self pity is a slippery downward and irreversible slope.

Given the skill they have demonstrated & their state of mind.....I again see them in the 100-130 ish total in second inning also....and that would be 4 innings in a row

KP_fan wrote:

JDizzle wrote:  I mean, I totally disagree with the contention that there was no more England could do with the bat! If you are rolled for 112 in the first innings, there is always more you can do with the bat. Unless you are playing on the pitch England played the Windies on in the abandoned Test in the 90s.

Maybe they could have done 120....but equally likely done 99
It's a combination of cricketing skill level and mental state....both are low
I already commented in the last game.....this exhibition of frustration & self pity is a slippery downward and irreversible slope.

Given the skill they have demonstrated & their state of mind.....I again see them in the 100-130 ish total in second inning also....and that would be 4 innings in a row

Na, we aren’t going to agree on this one. There is no way the best England could do from being 74-2 was make 120! That is saying the best they could do is add 46-8 - and that is the best they could do!

Normal rubbish to suggest 112 is about the best England could do. They on the whole got themselves out missing straight deliveries, they could and should have been making at least 250 on that pitch.

Soul Requiem wrote:Normal rubbish to suggest 112 is about the best England could do. They on the whole got themselves out missing straight deliveries, they could and should have been making at least 250 on that pitch.

It has changed a bit because after the first session KP_Fan was saying England could make 170-odd!

KP_fan wrote:I don't want us to bat 2nd time.
Get Eng for 170odd
Score 370 and win by an inning and 50runs ....would be the script from here

Gooseberry wrote:Depressed all round by this showing. Selection of bowlers appears to have been driven by data rather than a reading of the pitch as is, presumably also input from Jeetan Patel re: Bess in the nets and reliability. Chopping around the squad might also taking some blame with players coming in cold, but Crawleys shown that doesnt count for everything and its certainly no excuse for Root and Sibley failing.

Overall its just England being collectively bad against quality spin bowling. Nothing new, just depressing they haven't really shown progression (Crawley aside) this winter, and Root seems to have lost his mojo.

Take a miracle for them to not be on the end of another big loss here.

I think depressed by this showing sums up my feelings exactly.

Such a dismal batting display. Yes, Axar and Ashwin put the ball in good areas but winning the toss and batting you need to make the bowlers do more than that.

In the field the bowlers then let their heads go down pretty quickly I thought. Broad in particular just frustrated me. On a day like that England need his experience to calm things down and lead, not spit his dummy out and stomp around having tantrums. Disappointing in my opinion.

The England over rate is the least of my concerns after that batting display but still a concern. They need to speed up. Presumably if that over rate continues they will get docked WTC points, which won't affect anything given current performances.

Good things for England would be Crawley batting well and Leach bowling well. Good things for India would be just about everything else. Axar has impressed since coming in, Ashwin is simply an excellent bowler and Rohit is a fabulous player.

England's only hope has to be getting on enough of a roll tomorrow morning to limit India to around 100-150 lead, then batting incomparably better. I'm not feeling optimistic though.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Still bemused why Root didn't bring himself on. Leach was causing way more problems than the seamers.

Maybe he didn't want to admit they had misread the pitch entirely.

Root underrates himself as a bowler. If Cook were captain he'd have brought Root on to bowl by now.

Which is then a little concerning about the voices around him. Surely someone, more than one, should be telling him.

Stokes and Bairstow should be telling him to, with their experience and stature, and whilst Broad and Anderson are going to be a little more selfish, it would mean more coming from two experienced top bowlers.

I often think this when captains are criticised in professional sport. Similar to my feelings about Tim Paine's field placings in the Headingley Test that allowed Stokes to farm the strike. Is it poor from Paine, yes. But there are 10 other professional cricketers out there with him who should be able to read the situation and offer input.

I do think that captaincy plays a role but when I look at those considered great skippers in the field they almost always had bowlers with good tactical brains who made their views known. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, etc for AB and Waugh. Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts, etc for Lloyd. Willis, Botham, Underwood for Brearley.

Root, Broad, Anderson and Stokes is a lot of experience. England didn't look like an experience side in the field today.

king_carlos wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Still bemused why Root didn't bring himself on. Leach was causing way more problems than the seamers.

Maybe he didn't want to admit they had misread the pitch entirely.

Root underrates himself as a bowler. If Cook were captain he'd have brought Root on to bowl by now.

Which is then a little concerning about the voices around him. Surely someone, more than one, should be telling him.

Stokes and Bairstow should be telling him to, with their experience and stature, and whilst Broad and Anderson are going to be a little more selfish, it would mean more coming from two experienced top bowlers.

I often think this when captains are criticised in professional sport. Similar to my feelings about Tim Paine's field placings in the Headingley Test that allowed Stokes to farm the strike. Is it poor from Paine, yes. But there are 10 other professional cricketers out there with him who should be able to read the situation and offer input.

I do think that captaincy plays a role but when I look at those considered great skippers in the field they almost always had bowlers with good tactical brains who made their views known. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, etc for AB and Waugh. Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts, etc for Lloyd. Willis, Botham, Underwood for Brearley.

Root, Broad, Anderson and Stokes is a lot of experience. England didn't look like an experience side in the field today.

Hi Carlos - all very true. I would also emphasise the importance of the wicket keeper's advice to the captain. Quite possibly that is something Foakes needs to offer more. Not too surprising if that is the case given his lack of international experience. Rather strange now to recall that having signed for Surrey, Foakes was first kept out of the side by Gary Wilson. The Irishman's loud and regular vocal encouragements allied to his gutsy sergeant major type role were generally viewed as the reasons for this notwithstanding his inferior glovework.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Carlos - all very true. I would also emphasise the importance of the wicket keeper's advice to the captain. Quite possibly that is something Foakes needs to offer more. Not too surprising if that is the case given his lack of international experience. Rather strange now to recall that having signed for Surrey, Foakes was first kept out of the side by Gary Wilson. The Irishman's loud and regular vocal encouragements allied to his gutsy sergeant major type role were generally viewed as the reasons for this notwithstanding his inferior glovework.

Hi Guildford

I'm an enormous Foakes fan as you know but I can still recognise where Buttler adds and having a very cool head with good tactical nous is definitely a tick in the Jos column. Root clearly trust Jos a lot and I do think he adds to England's decision making in the field.

I was actually having skim over Gary Wilson's stats the other day after seeing that Jonathan Batty is taking over as Oval Invincibles coach for the women's Hundred sent me searching through former Surrey keepers. I must be honest that I wouldn't had guess Steve Davies spent as many seasons at Surrey as he did. It's also odd to think that Burns and Pope started as keepers now.