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...

Opening in tests especially in England has been incredibly difficult over the past decade, there are players who excel in home conditions like Rohit or Warner but are beyond rotten abroad. In that context Sibley averaging 36 at home but more importantly eating up overs is an ok return, you would obviously want better but the days of Smith and Cook excelling away from home seem long gone. Crawley needs to play as much county cricket as possible in between test series, his shot making is very good, just needs to work the space better in order to rotate the strike.

It's hard to be too critical of the players this series to be honest as even Sanga and Jayawardene would struggle on the previous two pitches, i'd go as far as disregarding the matches long term. Jack Leach bowling well is the only real take home from it.

b]England all out for 81[/b]


For the English fans who were offended by the 112 the limit of Eng's skill on this pitch against this attack...Eng's second inning score a reminder and case in my point.

Even India's limit of skill was in the range of 150-170 ish...but significantly enuf differential given the lowness of scores to win under all circumstances of toss.
Every run can be deemed worth 3 times it's value.

The thing is survival and scoring against spin on this type of pitch is is only possible for the highest skill batsmen and no wonder Root & Stokes score 55% of Eng's 80 odd runs between them.

and the moment you go from highly accomplished batsmen of spin
TO
Either specialist batsmen but not accomplished in spin
or lower order bowlers
the collapse is in a heap...as we saw the Indian second half collapse in a heap to Root spinning it like Murali...but Root didn't have the same affect against more accomplished openers

I am repeating my lament & rant probably third time.....by not bowling spin in tandem until the 16th over when Eng were 57-2....Kohli allowed Eng to get about 30' runs too many bowling with seamers. in the first inning.

Anyway a fair result......Eng need to come up with a more positive mind, play all the reserves...although it's highly unlikely they can win T4 in Ahmedabad

I wasn’t able to watch any of the action today - so was following on Live Text and Twitter, and it is probably anecdotally but both seemed a lot more active than I remember for a while about English cricket. And have been throughout this series - similar to this board. Just got me thinking whether this was purely down it being a big series or whether it did have anything to do with C4 effect and people watching cricket for the first time or getting back into it?

JDizzle wrote:I wasn’t able to watch any of the action today - so was following on Live Text and Twitter, and it is probably anecdotally but both seemed a lot more active than I remember for a while about English cricket. And have been throughout this series - similar to this board. Just got me thinking whether this was purely down it being a big series or whether it did have anything to do with C4 effect and people watching cricket for the first time or getting back into it?

For me personally covid giving me more time off has definitely been a factor in being more active on here during the days play.

As a business owner in hospitality I've gone from working a lot of hours a week to none so have had more time than usual to sit down and watch most balls in each Test live and comment. I expect that might be the case for many others as well.

That and work from home allowing a lot more time for 'just having the cricket on in the background while I work'. Which I certainly know is what I'd be doing in the same situation. Hell, I watched the CWC final on a tablet propped up in the kitchen during dinner service and listened to the Headingley finale on TMS whilst at work fielding questions from Scottish colleagues about what the hell was happening to make the commentators keep going nuts!

JDizzle wrote:I wasn’t able to watch any of the action today - so was following on Live Text and Twitter, and it is probably anecdotally but both seemed a lot more active than I remember for a while about English cricket. And have been throughout this series - similar to this board. Just got me thinking whether this was purely down it being a big series or whether it did have anything to do with C4 effect and people watching cricket for the first time or getting back into it?

Working from home at the moment, in "normal" times I'd be travelling a fair bit at the moment, and only about to follow like you via twitter/live text. Two screen setup allows me to have work on the one screen and cricket on the other!

Cheers guys! Sounds like the one ‘benefit’ of Covid is giving people more time to watch the cricket. So might be the double whammy of people being at home and cricket on terrestrial. Fingers crossed.

India's amazing depth of resources had served them well in Aus
And ditto here....how they have managed to not let the absence of Ind's most potent spin  bowler at him Jadeja be felt ever since Axar came.

And sadly Axar may play only one more test match......until Jadeja returns...though he would have earned the right to be the first reserve spinner ahead of Kuldeep.
And what a pity...prospects  of this top quality left arm wrist spinner Kuldeep playing for India seem to be severely diminished.

Expect T4 pitch to be more like T2 as it will be a day game with a red ball.
Both Root & Rohit stated that the pink ball was skidding too much and too fast....resulting in so many LBWs and Clean bowled.

If India bats first, then they will bat two times and there will be chances of game going into the 4th day.
Ind will go with same team

Eeng should bring in Bess, Woakes, Stone, ..i.e change all 3 bowlers other than Leach
Batting.....changes ain't gonna make too much difference

For me I hope that England bring Wood in as he's a good reverse swing bowler. Stone is a really talented bowler but more of a new ball bowler. If we want a seamer with the new ball that would still be Anderson for me. I hope that Stone gets chances in the home Tests against New Zealand and India. England will need a third seamer in Australia to back up Archer and Wood.

I rate Woakes but wouldn't pick him in India. I reckon he was on tour for the D-N Test and if he wasn't picked here I don't really see it happening elsewhere.

1.Sibley
2.Crawley
3.Bairstow
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes
6.Pope
7.Foakes (wk)
8.Bess
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

That's my best prediction.

One hope I have from this Test is that Root might bowl himself more.

Often when England's inexperienced spinners get hit I've thought that Root would be a good option to keep spin on but just try to break the batsman's rhythm. That's an important thing to do with Leach and Bess as if they tonked for a few overs their heads can understandably go down.

Leach improving Test on Test is definitely a positive from the series as a whole.

king_carlos wrote:For me I hope that England bring Wood in as he's a good reverse swing bowler. Stone is a really talented bowler but more of a new ball bowler. If we want a seamer with the new ball that would still be Anderson for me. I hope that Stone gets chances in the home Tests against New Zealand and India. England will need a third seamer in Australia to back up Archer and Wood.

I rate Woakes but wouldn't pick him in India. I reckon he was on tour for the D-N Test and if he wasn't picked here I don't really see it happening elsewhere.

1.Sibley
2.Crawley
3.Bairstow
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes
6.Pope
7.Foakes (wk)
8.Bess
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

That's my best prediction.

Pretty much agree with all that. With 20/20 hindsight I'd have had Bess and Woakes for Archer and Broad in the match just gone (not that it would have made much difference) but can't see much point in playing Woakes next week. Unless it is going to be such a crazy spin deck that he's basically playing as a batsman with Leach Bess and Root doing all the bowling !

Also note your comment re Root bowling more and would certainly endorse that. Won't be taking 5/8 too often ; but a very useful back up to the main attack.

I think Archer had to be in here, and is probably well rested, I wonder if they'd be tempted by a game with Wood and Archer.

So what time does play start today? Is it a rain delay ?

alfie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:For me I hope that England bring Wood in as he's a good reverse swing bowler. Stone is a really talented bowler but more of a new ball bowler. If we want a seamer with the new ball that would still be Anderson for me. I hope that Stone gets chances in the home Tests against New Zealand and India. England will need a third seamer in Australia to back up Archer and Wood.

I rate Woakes but wouldn't pick him in India. I reckon he was on tour for the D-N Test and if he wasn't picked here I don't really see it happening elsewhere.

1.Sibley
2.Crawley
3.Bairstow
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes
6.Pope
7.Foakes (wk)
8.Bess
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

That's my best prediction.

Pretty much agree with all that.  With 20/20 hindsight I'd have had Bess and Woakes for Archer and Broad in the match just gone  (not that it would have made much difference) but can't see much point in playing Woakes next week. Unless it is going to be such a crazy spin deck that he's basically playing as a batsman with Leach Bess and Root doing all the bowling !

Also note your comment re Root bowling more and would certainly endorse that. Won't be taking 5/8 too often ; but a very useful back up to the main attack.

I think in hindsight England wouldnt have bothered turning up for the last test.

Agree thats a likely side for the next test. Probably wont be any help for the spinners just when England go back to Bess. Ive been very understanding of their rotaion policies and the difficulties of some selections this winter, but even without relying solely on hindsight its pretty clear their handling of Bess ahs been a bit of an own goal. Mo getting Covid and not having the Sri Lanka "warm ups" to either show he could bowl consistently or prove he was unselectable played into the second test, but the last one its patently obvious they shouldve had two spinners, and that before considering the 5% he adds to the batting.

Top 6 runs though remains a bigger problem. Take out Roots big scores this winter and its dire reading. India scored as many batting in the worst of the conditions for half the wickets in that lats test without exactly covering themselves in glory. Englands batsmen havent put together a solid partnership since the first innings of the first test, pitches or not thats a massive problem.

So obviously its the bowlers who will get swapped out. Thats just standard test cricket though, and there certainly isn't any obvious change to make in the top 7 that wouldnt replace one problem with a bigger one.

Gooseberry wrote:

alfie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:For me I hope that England bring Wood in as he's a good reverse swing bowler. Stone is a really talented bowler but more of a new ball bowler. If we want a seamer with the new ball that would still be Anderson for me. I hope that Stone gets chances in the home Tests against New Zealand and India. England will need a third seamer in Australia to back up Archer and Wood.

I rate Woakes but wouldn't pick him in India. I reckon he was on tour for the D-N Test and if he wasn't picked here I don't really see it happening elsewhere.

1.Sibley
2.Crawley
3.Bairstow
4.Root (c)
5.Stokes
6.Pope
7.Foakes (wk)
8.Bess
9.Wood
10.Leach
11.Anderson

That's my best prediction.

Pretty much agree with all that.  With 20/20 hindsight I'd have had Bess and Woakes for Archer and Broad in the match just gone  (not that it would have made much difference) but can't see much point in playing Woakes next week. Unless it is going to be such a crazy spin deck that he's basically playing as a batsman with Leach Bess and Root doing all the bowling !

Also note your comment re Root bowling more and would certainly endorse that. Won't be taking 5/8 too often ; but a very useful back up to the main attack.

I think in hindsight England wouldnt have bothered turning up for the last test.

Agree thats a likely side for the next test. Probably wont be any help for the spinners just when England go back to Bess. Ive been very understanding of their rotaion policies and the difficulties of some selections this winter, but even without relying solely on hindsight its pretty clear their handling of Bess ahs been a bit of an own goal. Mo getting Covid and not having the Sri Lanka "warm ups" to either show he could bowl consistently or prove he was unselectable played into the second test, but the last one its patently obvious they shouldve had two spinners, and that before considering the 5% he adds to the batting.

Top 6 runs though remains a bigger problem. Take out Roots big scores this winter and its dire reading. India scored as many batting in the worst of the conditions for half the wickets in that lats test without exactly covering themselves in glory. Englands batsmen havent put together a solid partnership since the first innings of the first test, pitches or not thats a massive problem.

So obviously its the bowlers who will get swapped out. Thats just standard test cricket though, and there certainly isn't any obvious change to make in the top 7 that wouldnt replace one problem with a bigger one.

Hi goose - you just beat me to similar thoughts about the batting. We get rolled for 112 and 81 and most/all of us opt for the same top seven next time around. I don't think that's particularly wrong but it points to how extraordinary everything is right now.

That is always the way though isn't it ? In fairness , the bowlers are generally swapped around due to (expected) conditions , even without all the rotation stuff. Batsmen on the other hand are usually given a couple of games to show what they can do even when they've failed dismally. Perhaps different if there was an obvious alternate selection becoming available ; but currently there ain't... Rather unlikely to want to immediately swap back the players they had just sent for a spell...

The reliance on Root is a ever more concerning problem. True they aren't always going to be playing India in India ; but NZ - and India - have some pretty good pace bowlers ...and then it is off to Australia. If they turn up there with only one man who averages north of 35 , I don't fancy their chances.

Can worry about that later. Hoping for some improvement next week anyway...they don't usually get battered three games in a row...

I’d drop Bairstow. And properly, I don’t like how they play with his head on this.

Just think England’s top three needs obstinance over ability. Crawley deserves to be settling into that three role, and I’d have brought Jennings for Sri Lanka and India.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I’d drop Bairstow. And properly, I don’t like how they play with his head on this.

Just think England’s top three needs obstinance over ability. Crawley deserves to be settling into that three role, and I’d have brought Jennings for Sri Lanka and India.

The theory behind selecting Bairstow was sound but using the same thought process they should also have selected Jennings who does actually have a better record in Asia.

Crawley I think is the long term option at three. If you combined Sibleys obstinance with Burns stroke making you'd have a pretty decent opener.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I’d drop Bairstow. And properly, I don’t like how they play with his head on this.

Just think England’s top three needs obstinance over ability. Crawley deserves to be settling into that three role, and I’d have brought Jennings for Sri Lanka and India.

The theory behind selecting Bairstow was sound but using the same thought process they should also have selected Jennings who does actually have a better record in Asia.

Crawley I think is the long term option at three. If you combined Sibleys obstinance with Burns stroke making you'd have a pretty decent opener.

They’re by no means a perfect pair, they’re basically just frustrating enough to do a job. I think being comfortable in your limitations is something English cricketers have not been good at for a few years, and those two, Sibley especially, do seem like two who will bat time if they can’t score runs. Slow 20 better than a quick 30.

Bairstow is just a problem. They can’t stick to their word with him and the message about dropping his has been so undermined by continuing to turn select him. Jennings was such an obvious pick, and that’s not with the hindsight of how the openers have struggled. That said, still doubt it would have changed much.

I can totally understand the Bairstow pick, and while I did note after Sri Lanka that I thought his exploits there were over egged, I don't have an issue with bringing him in for Burns/Lawrence...I think ultimately not ruining their careers helps England in the long run.

Bairstow's test career however...teetering. Since May 2018, 38 innings, 1 hundred, 24.33 average, bowled or LBW in 50% of his innings. As time passes, 2016 is the aberration year in his test career...think it might be best for all concerned if he's left to being an absolutely stellar ODI/T20 opener after this series is done

I understand why in terms of “has had success before” but it just ignores any context of his career.

What’s the point though? Since dropping him for being unfit for test cricket, he’s been named in squads for West Indies, Sri Lanka and India? I’m sure the message at the time was to let him go away and even refocus his efforts and fix errors or concentrate on white ball.

Jennings makes more sense as an Asia specialist as it’s clear he’s not gonna be used elsewhere. He got hundreds in both Sri Lanka and India? If you’re gonna mess someone around, do it for someone who probably would completely accept the role.

Granted, Bairstow wasn’t the only one to fail. Funnily enough, you could argue Jennings should be there anyway for the openers, and probably could have played both men.

Pope needs to play regardless, can’t teach the experience he’s getting, but would have been interesting to have an option to rotate him.

It just seems like Bairstow will always jump the queue for one reason or another. They have dropped him whilst finding constant reasons to pick him.

Jennings isnt on the cards and wouldve been a big backwards step for England. Which isnt to say Bairstow is truly a forward one or one that needed to be taken given he was always going to be concentrating his focus on the white ball formats. As with Mo theres undoubtably a small element of loyalty gone into his recall.

But Jennings wouldve been a bigger waste of a spot and less likely to be a success. Hes just not a very good cricketer full stop. Plus they have 3 openers in the squad, Bairstow offers the ore attacking option up the order. The only point to Jennings wouldve been that he couldve been with the squad for the whole tour rather than Bairstows in out flipping and possibly been better warmed up than a guy who just come out of quarantine. But thats all moot, the decision was made in regard to the tour party.

As it now stands dropping him would be bonkers, not only messing with his head but also would mean putting Burns back in who looks just as much like he's needs some time in county cricket to remember how to play.

Hopefully England will be using their time wisely over the next few days to get in the nets and get some serious plans worked out like not leaving massive gaps between bat and pad when playing defensives.

Bairstow like a number of others will be out for the NZ series regardless of how well they do in the next test because IPL. We will likely be default back to Burns Sibley Crawley for the summer, this time with all three having had a bit of cricket to get in the groove (injuries pending). Home pitches, all the excuses gone. Hopefully they will deliver to potential, whats likely to be another reduced squad is going to need these guys who are now reaching a point of reasonable experience to step up as the senior players.

Jennings has some pretty good scores in Asia. And you’re not playing Bairstow games by picking him.

It’s a worse pick, Bairstow, because it’s the same bad decisions they’ve always made. Over-reliance on “loyalty” and making a decision that really has little upside.

Least with Jennings you could argue they were picking specifically for where they were, Bairstow smacks of just doing the usual. And the usual is letting talent be lazy. That might sound unfair, but they have sent the message to Bairstow consistently that he doesn’t need to do much to be back in their plans.

It might go to s***, but considering how they’re rotating and managing things, talking about playing tours like they actually can plan ahead rather than turning up with the lads for whatever they’re given, it would have been worth seeing if maybe they do have a player they can pick just for these tours.

It's not a backwards step to select players based on conditions, nobody is saying select Jennings outside of Asia but for all his faults he clearly knows how to play spin and scores at a decent lick against it. You don't select a side in India with a view towards the Summer in England or the winter in Australia, each series needs to be looked at in isolation. If Burns can't play spin but Jennings can for instance, the choice is really simple.

I stated at the start of the year that i'd like to see the selectors pick a side that they think will win that series whether it's Jennings and Foakes in India or Malan in Australia or even Woakes in England.

Yeah I think the argument is that Jennings was less likely to be a success rhan bairstow who also was a horses for courses pick. You might disagree with he selectors on that but regardless its always a backwards step to go to failed players who aren't going to be around for the next Asian tour. That can be applied to bairstow too, just a lesser extent.

Its moot anyway since they decided that jennings having no form to get reselected (again) on wasnt equal to mo or bairstow. Small mercies denly isn't in the conversation.

The one chap in the top 3 who's done anything this winter is the one everyone had it in for. Crawley shown some signs of adapting in the first innings of the last test. So there's some signs the guys picked as core england openers for the future are learning and getting something from a forward looking selection.

Gooseberry wrote:Jennings isnt on the cards and wouldve been a big backwards step for England. Which isnt to say Bairstow is truly a forward one or one that needed to be taken given he was always going to be concentrating his focus on the white ball formats. As with Mo theres undoubtably a small element of loyalty gone into his recall.

But Jennings wouldve been a bigger waste of a spot and less likely to be a success. Hes just not a very good cricketer full stop. Plus they have 3 openers in the squad, Bairstow offers the ore attacking option up the order. The only point to Jennings wouldve been that he couldve been with the squad for the whole tour rather than Bairstows in out flipping and possibly been better warmed up than a guy who just come out of quarantine. But thats all moot, the decision was made in regard to the tour party.

As it now stands dropping him would be bonkers, not only messing with his head but also would mean putting Burns back in who looks just as much like he's needs some time in county cricket to remember how to play.

Hopefully England will be using their time wisely over the next few days to get in the nets and get some serious plans worked out like not leaving massive gaps between bat and pad when playing defensives.

Bairstow like a number of others will be out for the NZ series regardless of how well they do in the next test because IPL.  We will likely be default back to Burns Sibley Crawley for the summer, this time with all three having had a bit of cricket to get in the groove (injuries pending). Home pitches, all the excuses gone. Hopefully they will deliver to potential, whats likely to be another reduced squad is going to need these guys who are now reaching a point of reasonable experience to step up as the senior players.

Only applies to teams that get to the latter stages of the IPL, and may only apply for the first New Zealand test depending on the dates of the IPL.

alfie wrote:That is always the way though isn't it ?  In fairness , the bowlers are generally swapped around due to (expected) conditions , even without all the rotation stuff. Batsmen on the other hand are usually given a couple of games to show what they can do even when they've failed dismally. Perhaps different if there was an obvious alternate selection becoming available ; but currently there ain't... Rather unlikely to want to immediately swap back the players they had just sent for a spell...

The reliance on Root is a ever more concerning problem. True they aren't always going to be playing India in India ; but NZ - and India - have some pretty good pace bowlers ...and then it is off to Australia. If they turn up there with only one man who averages north of 35 , I don't fancy their chances.

Can worry about that later. Hoping for some improvement next week anyway...they don't usually get battered three games in a row...

I think we have to remember England are in a building phase with regards to the batting, they're far from the finished product, but there's certainly high-potential players around which is encouraging. England won't build on it by jettisoning them, though this is a very tough year of test cricket for still-developing players.

I think I would have gone with anyone else over Bairstow. Not only is he not worth it, but I really think it damages him.

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Jennings isnt on the cards and wouldve been a big backwards step for England. Which isnt to say Bairstow is truly a forward one or one that needed to be taken given he was always going to be concentrating his focus on the white ball formats. As with Mo theres undoubtably a small element of loyalty gone into his recall.

But Jennings wouldve been a bigger waste of a spot and less likely to be a success. Hes just not a very good cricketer full stop. Plus they have 3 openers in the squad, Bairstow offers the ore attacking option up the order. The only point to Jennings wouldve been that he couldve been with the squad for the whole tour rather than Bairstows in out flipping and possibly been better warmed up than a guy who just come out of quarantine. But thats all moot, the decision was made in regard to the tour party.

As it now stands dropping him would be bonkers, not only messing with his head but also would mean putting Burns back in who looks just as much like he's needs some time in county cricket to remember how to play.

Hopefully England will be using their time wisely over the next few days to get in the nets and get some serious plans worked out like not leaving massive gaps between bat and pad when playing defensives.

Bairstow like a number of others will be out for the NZ series regardless of how well they do in the next test because IPL.  We will likely be default back to Burns Sibley Crawley for the summer, this time with all three having had a bit of cricket to get in the groove (injuries pending). Home pitches, all the excuses gone. Hopefully they will deliver to potential, whats likely to be another reduced squad is going to need these guys who are now reaching a point of reasonable experience to step up as the senior players.

Only applies to teams that get to the latter stages of the IPL, and may only apply for the first New Zealand test depending on the dates of the IPL.

I thought they'd said they were leaving them out anyway? Im only half following all that stuff tbh, but what I'd seen was certainly pointing to reduced squads for both England and NZ.

Suspect we will see more and more of this, which may also mean more temporary "horses for courses" picks to gap fill


On another note Woakes has flown home, no word form the management yet on whether he chose to *cough* Feels a bit of a waste having had him there for the tests as a drink carrier, he's missing the T20s. I guess the justification of him being in the squad was the nearest thing to Stoke cover, but they couldve given him SL off. Anyway is what it is, at least he didnt have to go through all the effort of padding up twice for no reason in the last test.

Gooseberry wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Only applies to teams that get to the latter stages of the IPL, and may only apply for the first New Zealand test depending on the dates of the IPL.

I thought they'd said they were leaving them out anyway? Im only half following all that stuff tbh, but what I'd seen was certainly pointing to reduced squads for both England and NZ.

I was looking at that stuff the other day (and I may be reading too much into it) but I got the feeling that there might still be ongoing discussions there.

Some have reported that there is an agreement for franchises to release players for Tests who aren't part of the starting XI if requested. Whilst Sangakarra talking about the Royals (Stokes, Buttler, Archer) said that it extends to "core team members", but Sanga also mentioned that the Royals have signed Liam Livingstone as cover for instance.

As well as Stokes, Buttler and Archer the Royals have Livingstone, Chris Morris, David Miller, Mustafizur Rahman and Andrew Tye as overseas players. With a maximum of 4 overseas players in the XI that is plenty of depth, which suggests some contingency planning. Miller and Rahman have excellent T20 records. Livingstone's exploits in the Big Bash wont be going unnoticed either.

I get the feeling that the IPL, BCCI and ECB are still in discussions to some extent about being flexible there given two IPLs are happening in quick succession courtesy of covid.

In short I reckon it's a situation that isn't 100% set in stone just yet. The IPL and ECB have both benefited from working together more in recent years to ensure that the England players are available for all England games and as much of the IPL as possible. It's mutually beneficial long term for them continuing to work together. Going back to the KP era of them or us would lead to players missing more games for England (bad for the ECB) and other players missing the IPL completely (bad for the IPL).

My 2 cents of observation on Eng's batsmen:

-The rot starts with Pope. He looks horrible with an organic / endemic problem of lack of feet movement to spinners. And that aghast face he makes when being knocked off is not good for team's morale either
Ind noted an endemic problem with highly rates Prthvi shaw's feet movement against Cummins & Co......twiced bowled through the gate with bat no where near......he was dumped...and for good

--Bairstow....he thrw hs bat around literally like a man possessed, something has gone in his his head......he won't last 30 deliveries against Ashwin & Axar if played in next test.
Pope & Bairstwow should be dumped.....not good for team's morale. ...it's better to put bowling allrounders like Woakes, Bess, Curran, Moeen ( I know latter two are not in ahemdabad)....but as a principle if eng does not have enuf spare pure batsmen...they should play 6 or 7 bowling/ Wk-ing all rounders

-Crawley got easy runs because Kohi misread the pitch initially and gave him an overdose of seamers ....and semaers in turn gave him too many half volleys trying to get hil LBW with inswing.
His troubles started when he was confronted with spin from both ends and he had turned into jelly by the time he came out to bat in 2nd inning

But he will play...it's not easy to drop who 50 was worth a 150 runs and Eng probably do not have to many replacement

--Foakes looks good.....but doesn't get on......either he needs to find a way to play more shots...or they should move him to No. 3 or 5 and Stokes to 6...or let him Open..
Butler can still be in playing 11....even if Foakes keeps.....Butler has looked accomplished compared to Sibley, Burns, Pope, Lawrence etal

Sibley got runs in T1...but hasn't looked comfortable against spin at all

I dunno who else have they got .......


-

Woakes is no longer in India.

With Buttler gone home the batting options are recalling Burns or Lawrence.

Bottom line is England have a weak batting lineup with limited experience playing quality spin and they are up against the best spinner in the world bowling in his element.

Ashwin has been outstanding and Axar has done a very good Jadeja impression. They deserve a lot of credit despite how poor England's batsman have been since Root, Sibley and Stokes built partnerships in T1.

For all of the English batting woes, when the last Two Tests have been a contest in in the first innings, India outside of Rohit are 247-18. Averaging 14 a wicket! It’s really, really tough for batting.

That doesn’t excuse the English batting, especially in the first innings in T3 as they should have ground their way to 200 from 74-2. The only change I would consider for the final Test is Lawrence for Pope in the batting order. Puts Lawrence in a more favourable position to succeed and takes Pope out of the firing line as I agree he does have the look of someone who is mentally shot at the moment.

I’m not sure what changes they can implement before the final Test. I think it all has to be mental really. They know Axar’s arm ball in particular has caused the biggest issue so how do they counter that? How do they stop that being the ball that beats them? Make Axar show something else. He almost certainly has it, but just don’t let him carry on doing what he has been doing. If he rips the outside edge off, then say fair play.

JDizzle wrote:For all of the English batting woes, when the last Two Tests have been a contest in in the first innings, India outside of Rohit are 247-18. Averaging 14 a wicket! It’s really, really tough for batting.

That doesn’t excuse the English batting, especially in the first innings in T3 as they should have ground their way to 200 from 74-2. The only change I would consider for the final Test is Lawrence for Pope in the batting order. Puts Lawrence in a more favourable position to succeed and takes Pope out of the firing line as I agree he does have the look of someone who is mentally shot at the moment.

I’m not sure what changes they can implement before the final Test. I think it all has to be mental really. They know Axar’s arm ball in particular has caused the biggest issue so how do they counter that? How do they stop that being the ball that beats them? Make Axar show something else. He almost certainly has it, but just don’t let him carry on doing what he has been doing. If he rips the outside edge off, then say fair play.

That was what cost England the test. Though they weren't to know it at the time, batting conditions were at least manageable on the first day, compared to the lottery of day two. An extra 70 runs in the first dig would have made a big difference.

How to do they counter Axar? Use their feet, get to the pitch of the ball, disrupt his length. England allowed him (and Ashwin) to land it in the same spot time and again in this test. Plus the arm ball should be easier to pick with a red ball.

Using their feet more is important against the spinners but against Axar I think the right-handers should play for the straight ball. As JD says if he rips one perfectly so that it takes the outside edge and goes to slip then fair play. Axar can turn the ball enough on these pitches to beat the bat no doubt but learning to turn the ball 'just enough' to challenge both edges is a skill most spinners need more experience than Axar to have. I'd look to challenge Axar in that regard. Try to take the LBW and bowls out the equation, it will bring the potential for being caught into things much more but at least forces the impressive young man to take his wickets by a different means.

Ashwin is a brilliant case of bowler who can turn his off-break quite big but often holds back slightly in favour of control and 'just doing enough'. Between his offie, carrom ball and hard to read under-cutter that skids on Ashwin is consistently challenging in just about every manner he can.

Rohit aside India have had half centuries from Kohli x 2, Rahane, Pujara and Sundar. Alongside the century from Ashwin - albeit that came against a beaten looking attack with Ashwin throwing the bat around.

Root aside England have half centuries from Crawley, Stokes and Sibley. Since the first innings of T1 England's highest partnership is the 47 Root and Crawley scored together in the first innings of T3. So no fifty run partnerships in 5 innings now. That's the real concern for me. The players really seem lacking in means of building any sort of pressure on the spinners.

Suppose it depends what kind of pitch they doctor up

king_carlos wrote:Woakes is no longer in India.

With Buttler gone home the batting options are recalling Burns or Lawrence.
.

Woakes also sent him when there was a genuine chance for him and need by the team for him to play

Tail wagging the dog comes to mind here....seeing pre-decided breaks override the needs on ground in games

I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

I'd agree. I rate Woakes and have for a long time but these pitches aren't where he's needed. I reckon he was on tour for the day-night Test had there been more grass on the wicket similar to the India vs Bangladesh D-N Test and as potential cover for Stokes.

The rest and rotate policy will continue to divide opinion but it's something that's difficult to judge too much until the end of the year in my opinion. They are resting players because 18 Test matches including away series in Australia and India (the hardest nations to tour), a T20 CWC and covid in one year is just ridiculous.

If the whole year falls apart then critics of the policy will have more basis for criticism but as of now we have won in Sri Lanka and did still win T1 - which was only India's second home loss in the last 8 years - so it hasn't been abysmal thus far.

I've been in favour of the rotation due to bubbles and also in favour of the ECB working with the players around IPL availability as whilst it's not a perfect situation it's better than burnout or further KP vs ECB type fallout which is no good for either party.

Whilst the last two performances have been disappointing and the situation with Mo picked then leaving, Bairstow looking all at sea after his break, etc won't have helped it would feel hypocritical for me to criticise the rotation too much when I backed them on giving the players time with family before the losses.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

As I see as an outsider.....Moeen, Woakes, and Curran have batting skills better than some of the top-6 pure batters

Bumrah has been rested for T4 would give the inclination.......Indian team expects absolutely no assistance whatsoever for seamers.

I have a an inkling that India might play Pandya as the second seamer

KP_fan wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

As I see as an outsider.....Moeen, Woakes, and Curran have batting skills better than some of the top-6 pure batters

In which case you haven't looked very hard. Moeen has been in terrible form with the bat for years, Curran is little more than a pinch hitter and whilst Woakes has talent he's done relatively little with it.

Soul Requiem wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

As I see as an outsider.....Moeen, Woakes, and Curran have batting skills better than some of the top-6 pure batters

In which case you haven't looked very hard. Moeen has been in terrible form with the bat for years, Curran is little more than a pinch hitter and whilst Woakes has talent he's done relatively little with it.

Sadly the case with Mo. Since 2016 when he scored all 4 of his Test centuries he has averaged around 20 with the bat from 24 Test outings.

Woakes has scored valuable runs for England and averages nearly 30 which is excellent for a number 8 but not higher. The only Test where he has scored runs in conditions where it was spinning at all was the win against Pakistan at Old Trafford when Yasir Shah got 4 wickets during England's chase. Outside of that the only game he's scored a fifty in where spin factored in the game was against Sri Lanka when Rangana Herath took 4 wickets in the first innings at Lords largely by bowling accurate arm balls - sounds familiar that...

Sam Curran has a lot of talent with the bat but no first-class centuries leaves him with less pedigree with the bat than Washington Sundar or Axar Patel. I really rate Sam's ability with the bat but he needs time in the middle for Surrey in county games to develop into more than a pinch hitter against the red ball.

As is often the case in India this tour has once again highlighted how little the county circuit allows strong spinners to develop and in turn batsman to learn how to play spin. The only wicket that has turned in recent years is Somerset, hence Leach and Bess being the spinners on tour, but producing those wickets has largely led to condemnation for producing poor wickets. I like that we are seeing county out grounds coming back into cricket again as the wider variety of pitches that get played on the better. Until CC games aren't played early and late in the summer we won't see anything other than English seamers dominate though.

Soul Requiem wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

As I see as an outsider.....Moeen, Woakes, and Curran have batting skills better than some of the top-6 pure batters

In which case you haven't looked very hard. Moeen has been in terrible form with the bat for years, Curran is little more than a pinch hitter and whilst Woakes has talent he's done relatively little with it.

and yet all of them can do no worse than Pope, Burns, Lawrence, Foakes, Sibley have performed on this tour
and they bowl too

KP_fan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

As I see as an outsider.....Moeen, Woakes, and Curran have batting skills better than some of the top-6 pure batters

In which case you haven't looked very hard. Moeen has been in terrible form with the bat for years, Curran is little more than a pinch hitter and whilst Woakes has talent he's done relatively little with it.

and yet all of them can do no worse than Pope, Burns, Lawrence, Foakes, Sibley have performed  on this tour
and they bowl too

Sibley played a key role in the T1 victory to be fair and Foakes was 42* when he ran out of partners in T2, so they showed ability fleetingly. Burns, Pope and Lawrence have had a torrid time though.

The batsman though at least have the potential to do better than they have thus far, even if they may well not do. The bowlers who can bat have even less likelihood of succeeding with the bat and their bowling on these tracks wouldn't be much use.

Picking extra bowlers as they can't do any worse with the bat in spinning conditions but can bowl would be like selecting RP Singh to open the batting ahead of Sehwag on the 2011 tour of England on the basis Singh would score no fewer runs but might get wickets.

That 2011 series was that England team at its absolute best, we talk about domination in the past two tests but that was on another level. Scores of 450+ in every match whilst limiting India to 300 or less 8 innings in a row. Cook, Bell and Pietersen all produced career defining innings too, the good old days.

The 350 partnership between Bell and KP in less that 80 overs was something else.

That batting lineup feels like a long long time ago sadly after the last couple of matches.

I often feel like periods such as that can warp peoples views of what a good Test player is as opposed to an excellent one. In those days with a top 7 who all averaged over 40 younger fans might have looked up Atherton, Stewart or Hussain's record and wondered why they were stalwarts.

With this lineup I would lie down in the Melbourne sun completely naked with a magnifying glass suspended above my junk in return for Atherton or Stewart opening the batting or Nasser at 3 averaging in the high thirties with that open bat face. None of them were excellent Test players but they were good ones who scored hard fought runs against some very good bowlers on tough wickets.

Players such as Ian Bell sometimes get remembered less favorably than they should because of the great things we thought they might do at a very young age as opposed to very good things they actually achieved. When I first saw Bell I thought he could average high forties in Test cricket batting at 3. In the end he averaged low forties batting in the middle order. Not quite what I expected but still a fabulous career and lord knows we could do with a middle order batsman averaging 43 in this lineup.

Agree with KC above.

As to the Woakes thing : I have a lot of sympathy for him being messed about to stay a reserve for England for all these weeks (bit like Leach last summer) but his chance was the pink ball,game I would have picked him over Broad and Archer for that one , not that it would have changed the outcome , but that is now history.

The rotation business is messy. I have a bit of an argument with the overdone prioritising of white ball over red (would it really have hurt , after the Sri Lanka Tests , to have kept Buttler and Bairstow on for the Indian Tests , and miss the ODIs and t20 ? We know they are playing in the WC , so why not give the fringe players a go?) But it isn't a huge big deal...India were always going to be a very tough target at home and we should be thankful it is 1-2 and a chance still there to draw the series.

These pitches are certainly spin crazy and that ain't changing so they have to just do the best they can and not allow whatever happens next week to weigh them down for next year. Though I really do hope they can bounce back from this latest horror...I truly believe they are a bit better than that.

An issue with resting for the one day games would be how quickly those series are getting played, hence not much time off by resting for them. The 5 T20is and 3 ODIs are being played from 12th to 28th March. So just over a fortnight. Whereas resting Buttler after T1 (which ended on 14th Feb) until the first ODI means he had nearly a month between games from 15th February to 12th March.

Quarantining, travel time and preparation for the one dayers means Jos wont have all that time at home but it will be a good chunk more than he'd get from missing just the white ball stuff.

With Stokes and Jof I think they got it spot on. Missing the Sri Lanka series and theoretically being available for all the India Tests.

With Moeen I think playing the Sri Lanka Tests to see where he was at then being available for the start of this series would have been a good balance but catching covid threw a spanner in the works and from there on it's been a bit of a fuster cluck really with Mo.

Bairstow is the one that frustrated me. I'd have preferred them to either keep Jonny out the Test side completely, as realistically he hasn't proven red ball form since being dropped, or if he's vital in these conditions have him available for all of both series and miss the white ball stuff as you say. The one day batting has cracking depth anyway.

Overall I think they've done pretty well coming up with the rotation plan in tough circumstances, but do agree it hasn't been perfect as you say Alfie.

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I mean there is no way Woakes should be playing if the pitches have been as they are, he’d be zero threat with the ball and while he’s a decent 7 in test cricket he’s hardly some batting maestro they’re leaving on the bench

He averages 19 with only one fifty in his 25 innings overseas

As I see as an outsider.....Moeen, Woakes, and Curran have batting skills better than some of the top-6 pure batters

In which case you haven't looked very hard. Moeen has been in terrible form with the bat for years, Curran is little more than a pinch hitter and whilst Woakes has talent he's done relatively little with it.

and yet all of them can do no worse than Pope, Burns, Lawrence, Foakes, Sibley have performed  on this tour
and they bowl too

Sibley played a key role in the T1 victory to be fair and Foakes was 42* when he ran out of partners in T2, so they showed ability fleetingly. Burns, Pope and Lawrence have had a torrid time though.

The batsman though at least have the potential to do better than they have thus far, even if they may well not do. The bowlers who can bat have even less likelihood of succeeding with the bat and their bowling on these tracks wouldn't be much use.

Picking extra bowlers as they can't do any worse with the bat in spinning conditions but can bowl would be like selecting RP Singh to open the batting ahead of Sehwag on the 2011 tour of England on the basis Singh would score no fewer runs but might get wickets.

So for Sibley and Foakes you want to pick an "odd" inning where they scored......and those you don't like you pick their performance over a period of time?

any way my contention is "This series" and those I named can't do worse than ones on this list (Eng batting stats for this series)

England batting averages
Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
JE Root 3 6 0 333 218 55.50 595 55.96 1 0 0 31 2
DM Bess 1 2 0 59 34 29.50 160 36.87 0 0 0 9 0
JC Buttler 1 2 0 54 30 27.00 91 59.34 0 0 0 7 1
Z Crawley 1 2 0 53 53 26.50 85 62.35 0 1 1 10 0
MM Ali 1 2 0 49 43 24.50 48 102.08 0 0 0 4 5
BA Stokes 3 6 0 146 82 24.33 273 53.47 0 1 0 16 3
DP Sibley 3 6 0 129 87 21.50 405 31.85 0 1 1 17 0
BT Foakes 2 4 1 64 42* 21.33 202 31.68 0 0 0 5 0
OJ Pope 3 6 0 109 34 18.16 225 48.44 0 0 0 10 0
RJ Burns 2 4 0 58 33 14.50 106 54.71 0 0 2 6 0
DW Lawrence 2 4 0 53 26 13.25 157 33.75 0 0 1 3 1

Pope is the "Horriblest of them all ........averaging 18 over 6 innings...including 2 innigs he got on the featherbed of  T1
and he looks Horrible also whn out there to spinners

And what a player Root is...tops the batting and bowling averages