England's Winter of Cricket 2020/21

First topic message reminder :

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wake up to hear Swann doing an Aussie impression. Can this be over in two days again?

Is that what it was? Couldn't fool me...

p.s. it was a 'nowhere in particular' accent.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Unlucky for Bess there.

A lot of that ball was hitting the stumps.

Are we sure enough wasn't hitting there?

Morning guilford and Tino.

The nature of umpires call is you win some and lose some, I think that's one of those.

England definitely got the rub on the very tight Rohit decision.

king_carlos wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Unlucky for Bess there.

A lot of that ball was hitting the stumps.

Are we sure enough wasn't hitting there?

Morning guilford and Tino.

The nature of umpires call is you win some and lose some, I think that's one of those.

England definitely got the rub on the very tight Rohit decision.

Morning gents.

Yes, horrible sporting cliche but these things tend to even themselves out but that is closest umpires call I can remember. Just seemed like too much of that ball was cannoning into the stumps. Must have been tiny fractions that one.

I really do dislike umpires call, just seem wrong that two identical balls can result in two different decisions, it's either out or it's not out.

king_carlos wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Unlucky for Bess there.

A lot of that ball was hitting the stumps.

Are we sure enough wasn't hitting there?

Morning guilford and Tino.

The nature of umpires call is you win some and lose some, I think that's one of those.

England definitely got the rub on the very tight Rohit decision.

What's the criteria? Is it 50% of the ball needs to be hitting? Just didn't think there was enough analysis.

Anyway, important for Bess and us how he reacts to that. Does he think I was good enough to get him there and his confidence improve or does he take the view that everything's against him and withdraw into his shell?

Think India need to be a bit more positive, transfer some pressure back on to the bowling. Runs are at a premium, India should give the sense that they are on a serious lookout for runs... Nothing reckless but a bit more intent.
Root and Bess against 2 left-handers. England being a bit formulaic. Leach is their better spinner, Bess is bowling too many full-tosses and overpitched deliveries. When that's the case, doesn't make much difference if you are an offspinner bowling to a left hander.

Soul Requiem wrote:I really do dislike umpires call, just seem wrong that two identical balls can result in two different decisions, it's either out or it's not out.

I agree. Umpire's call is not in line with the traditions of the game as some tend to argue, the tradition is benefit of doubt to batsman. What umpire's call works on, is benefit of doubt to umpire...

Deficit under 40. Crucial partnership this. There is Axar still to come. If they can bat sensibly, can still churn out a bit of a lead.

I in principal don't mind umpires call, but obviously it does sometimes make the players feel hard done by depending on if it's (half a ball - 1 pixel) hitting or only the last coat of lacquer flicking the stumps - if anything, I might narrow the margin that gives umpires call to favour the bowlers a bit more (maybe 1/4 ball diameter rather than half as currently). The original reason for including it was the acceptance that hawkeye was not perfect in projecting the path of the ball (still occasionally see implausible traces, typically for near-yorker length deliveries), so including some level of umpires discretion was reasonable. Also prevents any future arguments to suggest umpiring should be done by computer (as an interesting aside, did anyone see the Aussie Open tennis where for a few days Hawkeye was used as the line judge? Actually seemed to work quite well there, but is slightly different in that Hawkeye is being used to determine actual points of impact, not projecting them)

My point is though if it's umpires call the decision wasn't CLEARLY wrong, and I don't think anyone in cricket history (bar WG Grace) has ever really had an issue with not clearly wrong decisions, just the clearly wrong ones.

Good intent from Washington and Pant after tea. Deficit down to 34.

msp83 wrote:

alfie wrote:

msp83 wrote:England getting their selections all over the place in the 2nd game in succession. On a track that needed spinning options, they went in with 3 quicks and Stokes. Where they needed a 2nd seamer, they went in with the one, and Stokes, who was hardly used in earlier games, and giving him long spells even if he is carrying some health concerns.
Probably, KPF's theory, that someone like Woakes would have been more handy, in comparison to the batters they packed their side with. At least he could have contributed with the ball...

I don't really mind this selection , msp.  The batting desperately needed reinforcement ; and although Anderson and Stokes have done a lot if work here so far I reckon this pitch will give the spinners a lot of work in the second innings.
Be nice to have another fast man on hand but you can't have everything...

Alfie, it surely is not the most disastrous selection call by any means. What aggravates the issue though, is that Bess is not really doing his job, his confidence seem to have been shot. In a low-scoring game, runs, and containing runs is equally important. Bess is not chipping in with wickets, and he has gone for plenty under the circumstances.
And the larger point is about the processes by which the England team management read a pitch. They just don't seem to have much clue.

Haha .I will agree with that ...they never seem to read a pitch correctly. However the fact that that Bess is struggling to have an effect is something they were not exactly planning for ; and arguably can't be held as something they should have foreseen. If he were bowling really well - as they'd surely hoped - the selection would be pretty spot on , no ?
One could make a similar criticism of the Indian selection for the First Test , if we are to condemn selectors for picking a player who doesn't perform , rather than for picking the wrong type of player for the conditions.

Better sense from Root, Leach back on.
This could get very interesting though, lets see how Pant would go about dealing with Leach. He has been very restrained so far...
Pant should play this maturely, should be aware that his innings can be match defining here...

dummy_half wrote:I in principal don't mind umpires call, but obviously it does sometimes make the players feel hard done by depending on if it's (half a ball - 1 pixel) hitting or only the last coat of lacquer flicking the stumps - if anything, I might narrow the margin that gives umpires call to favour the bowlers a bit more (maybe 1/4 ball diameter rather than half as currently). The original reason for including it was the acceptance that hawkeye was not perfect in projecting the path of the ball (still occasionally see implausible traces, typically for near-yorker length deliveries), so including some level of umpires discretion was reasonable. Also prevents any future arguments to suggest umpiring should be done by computer  (as an interesting aside, did anyone see the Aussie Open tennis where for a few days Hawkeye was used as the line judge? Actually seemed to work quite well there, but is slightly different in that Hawkeye is being used to determine actual points of impact, not projecting them)

My point is though if it's umpires call the decision wasn't CLEARLY wrong, and I don't think anyone in cricket history (bar WG Grace) has ever really had an issue with not clearly wrong decisions, just the clearly wrong ones.

That matches my view on this matter. I would also be in favour of narrowing the margin

But I know many people have pretty entrenched views on this and will never be happy with it.

India moving ahead again...good batting from these two. Pant on to a fine 47 so that very close decision before tea is looming as a key point in this match...

Sundar doing a good job in support

msp83 wrote:Good intent from Washington and Pant after tea. Deficit down to 34.

Hi msp - I was just about to say this in response to your earlier post. 22 off 6 overs since tea, I think. One of the Indian commentators on Ch 4 was critical of Pant and Sundar for allowing Bess to have enough time to bowl what was the final over in the last session. I disagreed then and now. Ok, Bess could have had a wicket but they also had the opportunity to get on top of him more and I feel the latter was the right mindset to adopt.

alfie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:I in principal don't mind umpires call, but obviously it does sometimes make the players feel hard done by depending on if it's (half a ball - 1 pixel) hitting or only the last coat of lacquer flicking the stumps - if anything, I might narrow the margin that gives umpires call to favour the bowlers a bit more (maybe 1/4 ball diameter rather than half as currently). The original reason for including it was the acceptance that hawkeye was not perfect in projecting the path of the ball (still occasionally see implausible traces, typically for near-yorker length deliveries), so including some level of umpires discretion was reasonable. Also prevents any future arguments to suggest umpiring should be done by computer  (as an interesting aside, did anyone see the Aussie Open tennis where for a few days Hawkeye was used as the line judge? Actually seemed to work quite well there, but is slightly different in that Hawkeye is being used to determine actual points of impact, not projecting them)

My point is though if it's umpires call the decision wasn't CLEARLY wrong, and I don't think anyone in cricket history (bar WG Grace) has ever really had an issue with not clearly wrong decisions, just the clearly wrong ones.

That matches my view on this matter. I would also be in favour of narrowing the margin

But I know many people have pretty entrenched views on this and will never be happy with it.

I would agree that narrowing the margin would make sense, if the technology is there...but generally I am very much in favour of umpires call. If we start giving everything that is slightly clipping the stumps out with technology, we're going to have even shorter test matches than we currently have...(and it also essentially makes standing umpires redundant in international cricket).

Good partnership against the older ball from Pant and Sundar so far...India edging ahead again

Don't like that graphic they just showed with more than 50% of the ball needing to be under the black line at the top of the stump(s).

Surely the black line should be at the equator of the bail(s) in section? That would make more sense I believe. Currently, it's as if the bails are not part of the technical 'equation'. I'm not having a go at the umpires - I agree it can work both ways. It's simply a purely technical note I think should be considered by the ICC.

alfie wrote:

msp83 wrote:

alfie wrote:

msp83 wrote:England getting their selections all over the place in the 2nd game in succession. On a track that needed spinning options, they went in with 3 quicks and Stokes. Where they needed a 2nd seamer, they went in with the one, and Stokes, who was hardly used in earlier games, and giving him long spells even if he is carrying some health concerns.
Probably, KPF's theory, that someone like Woakes would have been more handy, in comparison to the batters they packed their side with. At least he could have contributed with the ball...

I don't really mind this selection , msp.  The batting desperately needed reinforcement ; and although Anderson and Stokes have done a lot if work here so far I reckon this pitch will give the spinners a lot of work in the second innings.
Be nice to have another fast man on hand but you can't have everything...

Alfie, it surely is not the most disastrous selection call by any means. What aggravates the issue though, is that Bess is not really doing his job, his confidence seem to have been shot. In a low-scoring game, runs, and containing runs is equally important. Bess is not chipping in with wickets, and he has gone for plenty under the circumstances.
And the larger point is about the processes by which the England team management read a pitch. They just don't seem to have much clue.

Haha .I will agree with that ...they never seem to read a pitch correctly.  However the fact that that Bess is struggling to have an effect is something they were not exactly planning for ; and arguably can't be held as something they should have foreseen. If he were bowling really well - as they'd surely hoped - the selection would be pretty spot on , no ?
One could make a similar criticism of the Indian selection for the First Test , if we are to condemn selectors for picking a player who doesn't perform , rather than for picking the wrong type of player for the conditions.

Indian team management, in my view rightly criticised for picking Nadeem over Kuldeep for the first test. Not just because Nadeem had an appalling game, but on that track, you needed a leg/wrist spinner who could have got more out of a dead track than a finger spinner 2 of whom they any ways had in Ashwin and Sundar.
As for England, you should have better balance in your lineup, particularly when playing only 4 bowlers, when one of the 4 is an all-rounder, when that all-rounder was effectively playing as a batsman only for 3 of the 4 tests, when that all-rounder is not a hundred percent...
Think it is the same formulaicness that saw Root and Bess operating together to 2 left handers just because they both bowl offspin, not because they necessarily are bowling well.

I have no problem with umpires call but the different outcomes it can result in. With the Pant one whether he's given out or not out after review by either batsman or bowler you need to end up with the same outcome, so either umpires call is taken away or it simply becomes not out.

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:Good intent from Washington and Pant after tea. Deficit down to 34.

Hi msp - I was just about to say this in response to your earlier post. 22 off 6 overs since tea, I think. One of the Indian commentators on Ch 4 was critical of Pant and Sundar for allowing Bess to have enough time to bowl what was the final over in the last session. I disagreed then and now. Ok, Bess could have had a wicket but they also had the opportunity to get on top of him more and I feel the latter was the right mindset to adopt.

It was Sunny G, Guildford.
Think I'd go with Sunny there though, Think it was a matter of the game situation. Washington was quite new to the crease, Ashwin had got out and Sundar had just 1 to his name and was early in his innings. A break usually can be the undoing of many a batsman. So if you could rush back to the hut and take a long breath at that point, think I would have taken that. and as Gavaskar observed, it was just a matter of seconds...

Pal Joey wrote:Don't like that graphic they just showed with more than 50% of the ball needing to be under the black line at the top of the stump(s).

Surely the black line should be at the equator of the bail(s) in section? That would make more sense I believe. Currently, it's as if the bails are not part of the technical 'equation'. I'm not having a go at the umpires - I agree it can work both ways. It's simply a purely technical note I think should be considered by the ICC.

I think that is just a "virtual" representation though , PJ , rather than an accurate picture of ball and stumps ? I think the bails are counted as part of the "target" by the tracking.

Certainly it did make it look more out than in...

Good fifty for Pant And a vital one for India...perhaps a match winner.

Mature, important half-century for Rishabh Pant.

Pant has been superb fun this series, and playing another crucial hand for his side here.

This partnership also showing the benefit of being able to get to the older ball...while India's top order didn't score many runs, they did take some time out of the game to allow the lower order here to be facing a ball 60+ overs old. What England would give if Sibley can soak up 100+ balls in the 2nd dig with some support from Crawley/Bairstow before the likes of Stokes/Pope/Lawrence get in

This partnership has really given India the upper hand , after a pretty tight two sessions in which England had several times threatened to take charge.
Lead for India now looking odds on ; and even if it isn't a big one (still might be !) the previous match shows how scoreboard pressure can derail England in a third innings , especially as the pitch takes more spin.
England looking a bit bereft of ideas right now. Root not threatening , and Leach is so much less effective against the left handers , though he's not bowling badly. Six more overs to the new ball...they'll be in front by then.

alfie wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:Don't like that graphic they just showed with more than 50% of the ball needing to be under the black line at the top of the stump(s).

Surely the black line should be at the equator of the bail(s) in section? That would make more sense I believe. Currently, it's as if the bails are not part of the technical 'equation'. I'm not having a go at the umpires - I agree it can work both ways. It's simply a purely technical note I think should be considered by the ICC.

I think that is just a "virtual"  representation though , PJ , rather than an accurate picture of ball and stumps ? I think the bails are counted as part of the "target" by the tracking.

Certainly it did make it look more out than in...

I realise it's "virtual", Alfie. Just suggesting a bit more "reality" in this day and age.

This partnership is absolutely vital and England need to break it.

Pant is a terrific player but Washington is applying himself well too.

It feels like England are waiting for the new ball. I think around the 68 over mark we should have seen a 2 over burst from Stokes or Jimmy. Yes, they need to be fresh for the new ball but England also needed to keep that pressure on.

Fifty partnership up. India back in control and a very good hand from both these batsman.

This partnership between Washington and Pant is the first 50 partnership of the match...

Just 4 more overs to the new ball. England would be hoping that Anderson will be able to help them fold this innings up.
But here's Stokes, ahead of the new ball...

Pal Joey wrote:

alfie wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:Don't like that graphic they just showed with more than 50% of the ball needing to be under the black line at the top of the stump(s).

Surely the black line should be at the equator of the bail(s) in section? That would make more sense I believe. Currently, it's as if the bails are not part of the technical 'equation'. I'm not having a go at the umpires - I agree it can work both ways. It's simply a purely technical note I think should be considered by the ICC.

I think that is just a "virtual"  representation though , PJ , rather than an accurate picture of ball and stumps ? I think the bails are counted as part of the "target" by the tracking.

Certainly it did make it look more out than in...

I realise it's "virtual", Alfie. Just suggesting a bit more "reality" in this day and age.

Yeah I guess it just looks "neater" the way they have it...to be honest I've never really noticed the black line before but the important thing is , I suppose , that you can compare different decisions to see how unlucky your batsman was as against the opponents

MSP
Interesting point about wrist spin. It's a real shame for England that Rashid is unable to bowl in Tests now because of his shoulder issues - with his ability, particularly for bowling the googly, he's have been a handful on the 2nd and 3rd Test wickets, and likely more threatening than Bess (and probably a bit more expensive) in the other games.

Oh, and a good contribution with the bat again from India's lower order, turning the game a bit in their favour.

king_carlos wrote:This partnership is absolutely vital and England need to break it.

Pant is a terrific player but Washington is applying himself well too.

It feels like England are waiting for the new ball. I think around the 68 over mark we should have seen a 2 over burst from Stokes or Jimmy. Yes, they need to be fresh for the new ball but England also needed to keep that pressure on.

Probably the time the lack of a third seamer has been felt at last... Unfortunate that Bess just wasn't able to exert the pressure needed as it has all been a bit too easy for these two lately. Old ball , tired bowlers , and perhaps a bit of loss of belief in the England camp. Root not really looking likely to get a wicket this time though he hasn't been slaughtered ; and the pressure has indeed largely disappeared.

Suspect this partnership is the one that will ultimately win the match for India. Largest in the match so far by some distance - and the potential to turn this into a very solid lead. Stokes trying hard but he looks weary. Not sure whence a wicket will come unless one of these two gets careless...

Stokes looks exhausted. It will be even more important than usual that the top order can soak up some deliveries so he can have something of a breather before he's in the middle again.

king_carlos wrote:Stokes looks exhausted. It will be even more important than usual that the top order can soak up some deliveries so he can have something of a breather before he's in the middle again.

Still got to take four wickets too ! Won't just be Stokes : when this innings is over it will be essential that England bat long to enable Anderson to get some recovery time before the final innings. Trouble is I'm not sure they have it in them to play a long innings on a spinning pitch...

New ball : Anderson ...do they ever need some of his magic now !

Pant down the wicket to the first ball from Anderson. He is a remarkable cricketer.

Whilst T20 cricket and the IPL getting so huge has hurt Test cricket in some ways without it we wouldn't have as many players like Pant who perform like this, Test cricket would be worse for it. As an England fan this is painful to watch as the position is slipping away but Pant is just outstanding fun to watch.

king_carlos wrote:Pant down the wicket to the first ball from Anderson. He is a remarkable cricketer.

Didn't quite get all of it (watch the bat turn in his hand because he got it on the outer half)- a fraction away from slicing to mid off, which would have looked very foolish. Fine margins between genius and insanity.

king_carlos wrote:Pant down the wicket to the first ball from Anderson. He is a remarkable cricketer.

I love him, he’s going to be great fun for the next decade in all formats

I'm going to be contrary here but I don't like Pant and nor do I enjoy the way he bats. Unlike Gilchrist he relies so heavily on getting lucky, I can imagine though that Indian fans enjoy it either way.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Pant down the wicket to the first ball from Anderson. He is a remarkable cricketer.

I love him, he’s going to be great fun for the next decade in all formats

He's the type of cricketer that brings new fans into the game. Test cricket needs that.

And as I typed that he reverse scoops Jimmy over the slip cordon.

This would be up there with KP against South Africa or Gilly against England for the most destructive Test century I've seen.

Soul Requiem wrote:I'm going to be contrary here but I don't like Pant and nor do I enjoy the way he bats. Unlike Gilchrist he relies so heavily on getting lucky, I can imagine though that Indian fans enjoy it either way.

He's been getting lucky for 20 Tests now if that's the case Soul...

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I'm going to be contrary here but I don't like Pant and nor do I enjoy the way he bats. Unlike Gilchrist he relies so heavily on getting lucky, I can imagine though that Indian fans enjoy it either way.

He's been getting lucky for 20 Tests now if that's the case Soul...

He's been getting lucky on occasion in those 20 tests. I just prefer watching a technically correct batsman, whether it's Kohli, Root or a Williamson, personal preference.

Unbelievable innings from Pant, match defining. Superb!

Fairy muff, Soul. I love watching classical batsman bat as well as guys like Pant. Variety is the spice of life.

Pant brings up his century with a maximum. Incredible. Pant has turned the game on his bat.

The way Pant bats, like the way Pietersen did on occasion, there is a bit of luck involved. When it comes off, it is great entertainment. The sort of batsman who can change a match very quickly, as he is dong here.

Pant gone. Finally England get the breakthrough. England need to wrap the India innings up for around 280, a lead of 75. Then bat out of their skin.

Mishit pull shot on a ball that was probably not short enough and too wide. A bit toe end / bottom edge to Root at shortish mid wicket. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Magnificent hundred from Pant...reached in the classic manner with a six

Gone now...and still cross with himself . Needn't be. Barring a miraculous reversal of form from England's batsmen he's won India this match.

Partnership of 113 . Can't be certain , of course ; but I reckon if this pair had been separated early on they'd have struggled to make 200.
Brilliant stuff

That's a glorious back foot drive from Washington.

This is still a reasonable batting track. Whether England have anything left in the tank is the worry.