England's Winter of Cricket 2022/23

First topic message reminder :

Of course we have the World T20 covered in a separate thread, but I thought we should have a new one for England's upcoming games this winter, which feature:

Three ODIs in Australia (17th-22nd November)
Three tests in Pakistan (1st-21st December)
Three ODIs in South Africa (27th January-1st February)
Two tests in New Zealand (16th-28th February)
Three ODIs in Bangladesh (March)

Looking forward to the tests, but I think the ODIs will be instantly forgettable!

Leach has him LBW! YESSSSSSSSSSSSS! What a win!

BAZBALL INTO MY VEINS FOREVER

Bazball wins again. Perhaps even more importantly for the format it made what look a dead game into a thriller

Very well done to England, an unlikely win secured in fading light. Glad that Pope's 'miss' wasn't the key moment.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Leach has him LBW! YESSSSSSSSSSSSS! What a win!

BAZBALL INTO MY VEINS FOREVER

Welcome inside. Be careful not to dislodge those with their face up against the glass.

Declaration was absolutely brilliant , eh ? Sir Ben Stokes couldn't have timed it much more precisely

Duty281 wrote:England are actually going to lose a test where they scored 500 on the first day, barring a turnaround of some proportion. I believe the current record for a first innings score and going on to lose a test is 595, made by Bangladesh. This 657 would eclipse that.

Just a brainless and stupid declaration.

PoTM ?

Suppose it's Brook for two top scores ...but you could say Jacks , or Crawley ; or Anderson /Robinson for bowling on that strip.

Stokes for leadership ?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are actually going to lose a test where they scored 500 on the first day, barring a turnaround of some proportion. I believe the current record for a first innings score and going on to lose a test is 595, made by Bangladesh. This 657 would eclipse that.

Just a brainless and stupid declaration.

It was a brainless and stupid declaration, but sometimes stupid gambles pay off.

It's a batsman's game so Brook I expect. Anderson or Robinson though for me. Incredible win that didn't look very likely at lunch

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are actually going to lose a test where they scored 500 on the first day, barring a turnaround of some proportion. I believe the current record for a first innings score and going on to lose a test is 595, made by Bangladesh. This 657 would eclipse that.

Just a brainless and stupid declaration.

It was a brainless and stupid declaration, but sometimes stupid gambles pay off.

What a churlish, but predictable response. You're a 'young' guy. You'll learn to win and lose with dignity. Takes time, flower. I won't hold it against you.

Anderson MOTM. His economy rate compared to every other bowler was mind blowing - and he added the wickets on the final day.

Surely one of England’s greatest Test victories. What a game, what a team.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are actually going to lose a test where they scored 500 on the first day, barring a turnaround of some proportion. I believe the current record for a first innings score and going on to lose a test is 595, made by Bangladesh. This 657 would eclipse that.

Just a brainless and stupid declaration.

It was a brainless and stupid declaration, but sometimes stupid gambles pay off.

What a churlish, but predictable response. You're a 'young' guy. You'll learn to win and lose with dignity. Takes time, flower. I won't hold it against you.

Eh? I support England and I'm pleased they won. This was a reckless gamble that paid off.

Again, proof of how difficult it really is to chase 300+ in the 4th innings, even on a good batting track. Makes what England did last summer in all their run chases even more impressive.

What a match - looked to be swinging Pakistan's way at lunch, but we just kept nicking wickets frequently enough to keep in it, and then the burst after tea swung things completely. Valiant rearguard from the last two Pakistani batsmen, but just not quite enough to get them to the safety of darkness and the draw.

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are actually going to lose a test where they scored 500 on the first day, barring a turnaround of some proportion. I believe the current record for a first innings score and going on to lose a test is 595, made by Bangladesh. This 657 would eclipse that.

Just a brainless and stupid declaration.

It was a brainless and stupid declaration, but sometimes stupid gambles pay off.

What a churlish, but predictable response. You're a 'young' guy. You'll learn to win and lose with dignity. Takes time, flower. I won't hold it against you.

Eh? I support England and I'm pleased they won. This was a reckless gamble that paid off.

OK, champ. I'd give you a little hug if I knew you. I can sense you need one.

KP_fan wrote:
Eng has given themselves a chance by taking 2 this afternoon out and those are 2 big ones...and Pak have a longish tail that will panic if they are required to close out the game.
So if the game gets to 50 needed with 6 wkts down in 15 odd overs tomm... and basically bowlers left facing new hard ball....Eng will be 90% probably to win it from there

Overall I think
Eng win ~60%
Draw ~30%
Pak win ~10%

I have to say...I told ya......Pak's chance of winning was very slim.
The better team won, playing some very aggressive and bold cricket showing self-belief.....manufacturing a win out of a certain drawn game otherwise.

The series is not done yet...I expect Pak to come back strongly

JDizzle wrote:Anderson MOTM. His economy rate compared to every other bowler was mind blowing - and he added the wickets on the final day.

Surely one of England’s greatest Test victories. What a game, what a team.

Wouldn't like to decide a MOTM in this one! Certainly one of England's greatest test victories. Perhaps their best in the subcontinent, one to rival Mumbai 2012.

There was nothing reckless about the declaration at all. In fact it would have been brain dead not to go for the win having batting so aggressively on the first day, would have undone all that hard work settling for a draw. A Pakistan win never really looked likely, all it takes is one or two wickets and the brakes go on, they do not have someone capable of doing what Bairstow did in the summer.

Robinson and Anderson by all accounts were superb on the final day. You've got two examples of how important putting the work is; the young gun who struggled in later spells and the old man still going strong at 40.

All around another win for the ages, feel like we've said that a few times under McCullum and Stokes.

dummy_half wrote:Again, proof of how difficult it really is to chase 300+ in the 4th innings, even on a good batting track. Makes what England did last summer in all their run chases even more impressive.

What a match - looked to be swinging Pakistan's way at lunch, but we just kept nicking wickets frequently enough to keep in it, and then the burst after tea swung things completely. Valiant rearguard from the last two Pakistani batsmen, but just not quite enough to get them to the safety of darkness and the draw.

I think the afternoon session confused Pakistan. They wanted to see off the seam and attack the spin, as they had done in the morning quite successfully, but the seam was virtually non-stop in the second session, so they got a little stuck and weren't sure how to approach it. And England got the ball reversing pretty much all day.

Soul Requiem wrote:There was nothing reckless about the declaration at all. In fact it would have been brain dead not to go for the win having batting so aggressively on the first day, would have undone all that hard work settling for a draw. A Pakistan win never really looked likely, all it takes is one or two wickets and the brakes go on, they do not have someone capable of doing what Bairstow did in the

Precisely. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story though.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are actually going to lose a test where they scored 500 on the first day, barring a turnaround of some proportion. I believe the current record for a first innings score and going on to lose a test is 595, made by Bangladesh. This 657 would eclipse that.

Just a brainless and stupid declaration.

It was a brainless and stupid declaration, but sometimes stupid gambles pay off.

What a churlish, but predictable response. You're a 'young' guy. You'll learn to win and lose with dignity. Takes time, flower. I won't hold it against you.

Eh? I support England and I'm pleased they won. This was a reckless gamble that paid off.

OK, champ. I'd give you a little hug if I knew you. I can sense you need one.

I don't, 'flower', but thank you for the offer.

I actually think it was a good sporting declaration myself. Very positive and i admire that from Stokes. Its decisions like this that bring results into play in Test Matches that keep this format alive and entertaining.

I still struggle to get my head around some of the numbers from this game; England scored over 900 runs off 137 overs, that's ordinarily halfway through the afternoon session on day two. We will never see anything like that again.

Obviously it was an excellent declaration - because it produced victory. One can argue until the cows come home about whether it was "too risky" but the proof lies in the result.

Yes on another day it "might" have gone wrong : and there were certainly times when Pakistan looked to be taking a grip ... but one of the arts of captaincy is taking decisions that balance risk and reward ; and getting them right often enough. This declaration was a bigger choice than just when to change a bowler or move the field in or out ; but the same principle applies.

England were quite clear that they were prepared to risk defeat in the pursuit of victory ; they thought last day nerves and reverse swing would give them a chance to take the wickets they needed - so they took a calculated risk and won.

Sorry Duty , but continuing to insist it was a "reckless "decision that got lucky is just looking sillier by the minute.

There's a lot of talk about this being England's greatest ever Test victory. We do see a lot of recency bias with these sort of statements, but here I am not so sure. I suppose they could do with now winning the series to put it at or near the top

Only our third ever test victory in Pakistan isn't it?

VTR wrote:There's a lot of talk about this being England's greatest ever Test victory. We do see a lot of recency bias with these sort of statements, but here I am not so sure. I suppose they could do with now winning the series to put it at or near the top

Terrific match and great fun, but in no way measures up to Jack Leach's 1* at Headingley, Edgbaston 2005 or Headingley 1981

All good shouts. I think this was more from the angle of quality of performance rather than drama. Edgbaston 2005 should never have got that close, but do appreciate the nail-biting finish, and what it ended up meaning in the context of the series. I suppose though if we're going down the road of quality performances, some of those in the 2010/11 Ashes have to be in the conversation

The ashes series we won down under I constantly had to check if I'd fallen asleep and started dreaming

56 wickets in 12 tests now for Ollie Robinson, that includes five overseas tests and a brief period when his fitness wasn't up to scratch. Why he wasn't selected years earlier is something i'll never quite understand.

Evening all

Well, that was exhilarating, nerve-wracking, and satisfying in just-about equal measure. Fantastic performance by England, and definitely right up there with their best wins in terms of quality of performance IMO.

I'll admit I thought the declaration was... risky. The pitch was still very flat with hardly any spin or uneven bounce to speak of, and the outfield lightning fast, so I though 340-odd in 100 overs (give-or-take) was quite a generous offering. And of course, England really only had three front-line bowlers.

Balanced against that is, as dummy_half reminds us, the weight of history. Chasing 300+ is still very difficult for teams not coached by Brendon McCullum, and a stat that was doing the rounds a fair bit on TV is that only 13 captains have ever declared in the third innings and lost. At least one of which was a "desperation" declaration by Graeme Smith against Aus with a lead of barely 200+, in the last game of a 3-match series in which they were 1-0 down. Another interesting stat that I just saw on Cricinfo is that this is the 5th most generous (lowest) target offered by teams declaring at or before tea on the 4th day. All other declarations also resulted in wins, so perhaps there's a lesson there?

I did feel that given the light issues England would always have the option of slowing things right down and going seam-heavy to dry up the runs, and I do wonder what would have happened had Pakistan still been 5 down an hour after tea...

Anyway, a simply brilliant effort to force a win on a dead pitch, that too in a game where over half a day was lost to light issues (couldn't they start earlier??). Set up of course by remarkable batting. You really have to admire the mentality of saying "Right, we need loads of time on this pitch to get 20 wickets, so let's get to 650 as quickly as possible, eh?" or words to that effect. Then Anderson and Robinson simply superb today with the ball. A word of course for Jacks's six-fer in the first innings (and his utterly selfless second-innings cameo), and Pope who kept generally very well on a tough pitch (standing much closer than he would normally) and for very long stretches. But really this was a team effort with contributions from everyone, and a thoroughly deserved win.

Soul Requiem wrote:56 wickets in 12 tests now for Ollie Robinson, that includes five overseas tests and a brief period when his fitness wasn't up to scratch. Why he wasn't selected years earlier is something i'll never quite understand.

I think you've kind of answered your own question. He's a player with great ability but has taken a long time to learn about the application needed to make the most of it. It's why sometimes players who are a little less naturally gifted often go on to have the better careers, because they have to dedicate themselves to their game - I won't think anyone would argue that one Waugh twin was more gifted than the other, but that the less gifted achieved more.

Fantastic performance by England and a thoroughly-deserved victory.

I, too, was a bit concerned about the declaration. But England were prepared to risk defeat to bring victory.

Even when Pakistan needed fewer than 100 with only five down I thought England could do it. As has been said above, 340 in the last innings is a big ask, even on a wicket as bland as this one.

We knew this side could chase down big 4th innings targets. Now we know they can bowl sides out in the last innings - even on an unhelpful surface.

If this was the Great War, Stokes would be the first man over the top, urging his colleagues on despite the mud, the blood and the bullets.

He's instilled a great team spirit and that will only get better. For as anyone knows who has played cricket at any level, there's nothing like victory to improve team spirit.

A few thoughts to reflect on now the dust has cleared after that explosive day of action...

Interesting point raised by MFC above (nice to hear from you , by the way !) about the low target declarations by tea on day four - I saw that myself on Cricinfo and it does indeed seem significant that the 100% success rate continues . I guess on extremely flat pitches like this one , a bit of carrot dangling actually is the way to go - while on more bowler friendly surfaces it isn't generally necessary as the team in command of the situation either has more time at their disposal and can bat their opponent right out of contention , or is bowled out themselves in the third innings. Also suggests that the apparent risk of setting these tempting targets is more ... apparent... than real !

I see KP_fan managed the best prediction for the final day : pretty good bit of crystal ball gazing as he said he hadn't been able to actually watch much of it Suspect he is also correct in saying that Pakistan should not be counted out of the series just yet.

Presume given their general approach England are not going to sit on a 1-0 lead : will be interesting to see what the remaining pitches are like and how they handle them. Team selection being a big factor : Pakistan are surely going to make a few changes (Rauf is out anyway for one) and may be expected to bring in one or more experienced bowler perhaps ? While England - presumably replacing Livingstone with a fit again Foakes - have to consider the effects of fatigue on their bowling stocks and whether they can indeed go again with basically only three full time bowlers .
Options all have some difficulties : if you want to bat six Crawley Duckett Pope Root Brook Stokes (and why wouldn't you ?) plus Foakes , you have limited scope to expand bowling forces ; so do you settle for rotating fast men , or could you look at adding a bowler and asking Pope to do the keeping again ? Questions for management...

Incidentally I thought Pope's contribution to this match was immense : he took up the mantle after that great opening stand in the first innings , kept for 150 odd overs and still put himself on the line again second time around with no rest ... and ended up making a couple of vital and excellent takes in the deciding innings. Sure he missed the odd chance ; but to do as well as he did in a less than familiar full time role was a huge factor in the victory

alfie wrote:Obviously it was an excellent declaration - because it produced victory. One can argue until the cows come home about whether it was "too risky" but the proof lies in the result.

Yes on another day it "might" have gone wrong : and there were certainly times when Pakistan looked to be taking a grip ... but one of the arts of captaincy is taking decisions that balance risk and reward ; and getting them right often enough. This declaration was a bigger choice than just when to change a bowler or move the field in or out ; but the same principle applies.  

England were quite clear that they were prepared to risk defeat in the pursuit of victory ; they thought last day nerves and reverse swing would give them a chance to take the wickets they needed - so they took a calculated risk and won.

Sorry Duty , but continuing to insist it was a "reckless "decision that got lucky is just looking sillier by the minute.

Of course it was reckless! That's the entire point of Bazball. Throw out the rationality and embrace the madness.

It's fun to watch at the moment, although when England inevitably hit a few defeats - and it will happen, there will be times England get rolled cheaply and times when these daft declarations result in defeats - I'm not looking forward to the reaction of the hypocrites in the media, and some fans.

I also didn't say England were lucky. Stokes, Robinson and Anderson put in some of the best bowling performances of their careers, perhaps the best, to get England over the line.

You also can't say it was obviously a great declaration just because it produced victory.

Did the declaration expedite a great victory? Yes, therefore it was a great declaration, ifs and buts don't matter, they're just used by people upset they called the result wrong... again.

Soul Requiem wrote:Did the declaration expedite a great victory? Yes, therefore it was a great declaration, ifs and buts don't matter, they're just used by people upset they called the result wrong... again.  

No, that isn't how it works. That's judging by hindsight. If, in the same game, England had declared with a lead of 99 and somehow bowled Pakistan out for 50, you wouldn't say 'oh yes, such a brilliant declaration'. Or if England had declared with a lead of 700 and 60 overs left, managing to bowl Pakistan out in 50 overs, it also wouldn't have been a great declaration.

Sometimes good declarations don't get good results, and sometimes bad declarations get good results. That's the way it is.

Duty281 wrote:

Sometimes good declarations don't get good results, and sometimes bad declarations get good results. That's the way it is.

I do very much agree with this sentence. The result to some degree is irrelevant - was it a good decision at the time? But that is where MFC and Alfie touch on, captains are far too cautious. Teams barely ever lose after third innings declarations (unless you are playing Shai Hope, obviously)… there is definitely plenty of room for captains to be far more attacking with declarations. As long as, similar to the white ball mindset after 2015, you accept that you might lose a few more games but you will win a lot more games.

JDizzle wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Sometimes good declarations don't get good results, and sometimes bad declarations get good results. That's the way it is.

I do very much agree with this sentence. The result to some degree is irrelevant - was it a good decision at the time? But that is where MFC and Alfie touch on, captains are far too cautious. Teams barely ever lose after third innings declarations (unless you are playing Shai Hope, obviously)… there is definitely plenty of room for captains to be far more attacking with declarations. As long as, similar to the white ball mindset after 2015, you accept that you might lose a few more games but you will win a lot more games.

Might end up being an irony of Bazball that a more aggressive approach from England in fourth innings chases leads to other nations not being afraid of 300/350 chases and we start to see such chases completed with more regularity. This, in turn, leads to more conservative third innings declarations and more draws in test cricket.

As we’ve seen from ODI cricket though, it’s one thing England showing teams it is possible to score 300+ regularly - it is another thing countries having the batting to do it.

Interesting, Dizzle, that you bring up Root's declaration at Leeds v Windies. I still get upset about that.

First, England had fought very hard to get out of a losing position. Secondly the target, although quite steep, could be reached without the Windies having to go mad. And third England were already one up in a three-match series.

I also take Duty's point about a declaration still being considered bad even if victory ensues. Leeds would have been a bad declaration by Root even if England had bowled out the Windies.
Similarly leaving it, seemingly, far too late to declare and then getting the win is also a bad declaration.

But I don't think Stokes' call in Rawalpindi was bad. OK, Pakistan could, and at one time looked as if they would, win. But Stokes reckoned the only route to victory was a carrot-dangling close of the England innings.

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Did the declaration expedite a great victory? Yes, therefore it was a great declaration, ifs and buts don't matter, they're just used by people upset they called the result wrong... again.  

No, that isn't how it works. That's judging by hindsight. If, in the same game, England had declared with a lead of 99 and somehow bowled Pakistan out for 50, you wouldn't say 'oh yes, such a brilliant declaration'. Or if England had declared with a lead of 700 and 60 overs left, managing to bowl Pakistan out in 50 overs, it also wouldn't have been a great declaration.

Sometimes good declarations don't get good results, and sometimes bad declarations get good results. That's the way it is.

You're talking about extremes which aren't relevant here. You called it wrong and resort to doing your usual, it gets tiresome after a while.

I do agree with Duty and sfp that a declaration can be good, or bad, regardless of the result. But the data we have suggests that Stokes's declaration here can't be regarded as bad. Risky/generous, yes, but not ridiculously so. At the end of the day, I would say a calculated risk that paid off handsomely.

I also found it interesting that England's batters were reportedly telling the dressing-room that batting in the second innings wasn't all that easy, which apparently played some part in the decision.

Anyway, changing the topic slightly to the next test, and England's selection. Livingstone obviously out, and the logical move is to bring Foakes in. What else? Ideally they'd want Wood in there for his extra pace, but I'd be reluctant to play Wood + A.N.Other as your only two frontline seamers, especially when A.N.Other has just bowled rather a lot of overs (and may be 40 years old!). But if you pick the three seamers who misses out? I see alfie has mentioned the option of leaving Foakes out (so Wood for Livingstone). Somewhat reminiscent of the old '90s conundrum when England tried to fit 12 into 11, and would inevitably leave out Russell and give Stewart the gloves instead. I can't see it this time though, Stokes and McCullum are very loyal (Crawley's detractors might say to a fault), and Foakes is their number one choice. Also, for all that Pope did admirably behind the stumps, he was responsible for 2 or 3 missed chances (understandable, given the tough conditions) which could have cost England on another day.

Maybe best is to see how Anderson/Robinson/Bowler-Stokes all pull up, and take a look at the pitch, before making a decision?

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Did the declaration expedite a great victory? Yes, therefore it was a great declaration, ifs and buts don't matter, they're just used by people upset they called the result wrong... again.  

No, that isn't how it works. That's judging by hindsight. If, in the same game, England had declared with a lead of 99 and somehow bowled Pakistan out for 50, you wouldn't say 'oh yes, such a brilliant declaration'. Or if England had declared with a lead of 700 and 60 overs left, managing to bowl Pakistan out in 50 overs, it also wouldn't have been a great declaration.

Sometimes good declarations don't get good results, and sometimes bad declarations get good results. That's the way it is.

You're talking about extremes which aren't relevant here. You called it wrong and resort to doing your usual, it gets tiresome after a while.

The extremes are used to point out that your statement that a victory must mean the declaration was correct is simply wrong. I think this was an incorrect declaration that got a good result. It happens.

I disagree that I called it wrong. I'd expect Pakistan to win more times in that scenario than England, it was just a world-class bowling performance from Stokes, Robinson and Anderson that turned the tide yesterday.

No you got it wrong and instead of admitting that you're making excuses, like you do every single time.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I do agree with Duty and sfp that a declaration can be good, or bad, regardless of the result. But the data we have suggests that Stokes's declaration here can't be regarded as bad. Risky/generous, yes, but not ridiculously so. At the end of the day, I would say a calculated risk that paid off handsomely.

I also found it interesting that England's batters were reportedly telling the dressing-room that batting in the second innings wasn't all that easy, which apparently played some part in the decision.

Anyway, changing the topic slightly to the next test, and England's selection. Livingstone obviously out, and the logical move is to bring Foakes in. What else? Ideally they'd want Wood in there for his extra pace, but I'd be reluctant to play Wood + A.N.Other as your only two frontline seamers, especially when A.N.Other has just bowled rather a lot of overs (and may be 40 years old!). But if you pick the three seamers who misses out? I see alfie has mentioned the option of leaving Foakes out (so Wood for Livingstone). Somewhat reminiscent of the old '90s conundrum when England tried to fit 12 into 11, and would inevitably leave out Russell and give Stewart the gloves instead. I can't see it this time though, Stokes and McCullum are very loyal (Crawley's detractors might say to a fault), and Foakes is their number one choice. Also, for all that Pope did admirably behind the stumps, he was responsible for 2 or 3 missed chances (understandable, given the tough conditions) which could have cost England on another day.

Maybe best is to see how Anderson/Robinson/Bowler-Stokes all pull up, and take a look at the pitch, before making a decision?

I imagine Anderson and Robinson will be very fatigued with not a lot of rest time. England spent nearly the equivalent of three full days in the field, Anderson getting through 46 overs and Robinson 43, so neither may be fit enough for another push in Multan in just a few days time...especially if England end up bowling first this time. I imagine one of Anderson/Robinson will be rested. But Wood and J Overton are the only possible replacements, I think. Shame Potts hasn't been taken along.

Was it Jacks or Livingstone picked because of Foakes' unavailability? Because it might be the case that England replace both with Foakes and Ahmed for the next test. Jacks had a so-so debut - six wickets in the first innings, very good, but also very expensive and hit out of the attack early on in the second innings.

I see for Pakistan that Haris Rauf is out of the rest of the series. Might mean another debutant for Pakistan next time coming in, or going back to someone like Abbas.

Babar Azam, meanwhile, has criticised the pitch. He said he wanted a turning pitch but obviously didn't get one. The destructive capabilities of England's batsmen was one of the primary reasons why I thought before the series that Pakistan would be mad to have the same pitches as they had v Australia. Doubt we'll see much difference for the second test, though.

Soul Requiem wrote:No you got it wrong and instead of admitting that you're making excuses, like you do every single time.

I disagree, for the reasons previously stated.

It was Jacks who came in for Foakes. Livingstone was named in the initial XI. Ended up being a good thing with Livingstone unable to bowl of course.

I still feel they got their selection wrong in T1. Having Jacks (or Foakes, if he was fit) batting 8 was an unnecessary luxury on that wicket when an extra seamer was needed. Albeit, assuming everyone was fully fit, would have meant Brook missed out in my team!

But when Australia won out in Pakistan, they won T3 which meant that Pakistan were happy to prepare three roads. I’m no curator, so not sure how much they can do given the game in Multan starts on Friday, but they’ll surely need something with more life in it? And a much better spinner as Mahmood was terrible.

If the wicket does have more life, then the longer batting order makes more sense. With Foakes for LL being a straight swap and then your seamers based on who is fit. Jacks is locked in now for me, as I don’t want Root bowling too many overs - unless it is an absolute green top when you can have no3 seamer in for Jacks. Which seeing some images of pitches in the Pakistani domestic comp, they can produce.

On the subject of whether declaration was a bad decision that Eng got away with due to a good result?

I won't call it bad...but injudicious, too risky......risk percentage higher than a measured captain / CEO/Business leader aught to take when managing his enterprise.

Wasn't measured, but rather bordering on gamble...a gamble that he got away with....
The timing also didn't make the gamble right.....gamble could have been justified if this was the last test and you are down 2-1
Losing from such position of dominance in T1 would have meant a morale bust for the team & rest of tour...

KP_fan wrote:On the subject of whether declaration was a bad decision that Eng got away with due to a good result?

I won't call it bad...but injudicious, too risky......risk percentage higher than a measured captain / CEO/Business leader aught to take when managing his enterprise.

Wasn't measured, but rather bordering on gamble...a gamble that he got away with....
The timing also didn't make the gamble right.....gamble could have been justified if this was the last test and you are down 2-1
Losing from such position of dominance in T1 would have meant a morale bust for the team & rest of tour...

You're comparing apples with oranges. It isn't a business/CEO decision. I own a business. If I made decisions based on one evenings thought process I'd be in all sorts of sh*t.

The timing was right as England won. All the rest is periphery. Its rare in business, or sport for that matter, where the results play out in front of you so directly. England declared, England won. Had they not declared when they did, they would not. It is very simple and the rest is just people defending their narrative.

I'm just glad England have a couple of visionaries in charge and not the majority of the English sporting public. Some people are brave and courageous thinkers who can change the course of history, however small that change is in the scheme of things, others are constrained by the limitations of their own thinking. We all know which box we fit in and there is no shame in either. But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.