England's Winter of Cricket 2023/24

First topic message reminder :

After the disappointment of the World Cup, can England be the first away team in 11 years to win a test series in India?

Three ODIs v West Indies (3rd December-9th December)
Five T20s v West Indies (12th December-21st December)
Five Tests v India (25th January-11th March)

Think Stokes might be rather hoping Renan can grab the last as a confidence booster. Rather just try and finish this...

Need forty ...only Stokes would bring Rehan back to attack the two rabbits...

GSC wrote:Think Stokes might be rather hoping Renan can grab the last as a confidence booster. Rather just try and finish this...

Wouldn't mind seeing Hartley get his 7th.

Be half tempted to see if Wood can fire in a few at pace

I get the "give Rehan confidence " thing. But too much on this to mess about ...surely Wood to attack ten and eleven ? A straight fast one ought to do for Siraj ...

Just 32 needed now... They couldn't , could they ?

Siraj on 12 already. His average is 4.

Ah. Here's Wood...

Feel like I'm watching a repeat of earlier today, alfie. So England by 8 runs... or more likely 18 runs I think.  Or 28...

A bit of a turnaround in the tennis too... Sinner levels up at 2-2. Lots of comebacks today.  

There it is! Mega comeback, especially for Hartley given his test career ended after 2 days

Wonder how many times Australia and India have both lost at home on the same day

Thank the lord for that...didn't want to sleep on this one

Seven for the remarkable Mr Hartley

Pity he and Pope can't both be PoTM

Another wonderful triumph for McCullum and Stokes

And Duckett has the last laugh on those who mocked him on Thursday night

Deserved for Hartley to get the winning wicket.

A superb and very unlikely comeback, what else can you say? Pope scored about 150 runs in 9 innings in India, then knocks up 196 in his next innings. Hartley gets carted for 2/131 in the first innings, then manages 7/62. Stunning.

One of England's great away wins and one of their greatest ever comebacks. And they start the series off in India like they started the last one.

But can they go one or two better than 2021? It'll be interesting to see what pitch the next test will have.

We can now safely say that that Ollie Pope innings will go down as one of the greatest by an Englishman overseas. Stokes faith in Hartley paid off and then some.

Brilliant comeback.

Wow. What a comeback.

Had you told me that Pope would nearly make a double ton and Hartley take 7 in these conditions after their respective first innings then I'd have laughed. Remarkable stuff. How happy I am to be proven wrong.

Two insane results for Test cricket on the same morning!

Yes, Pope's innings is up there with Pietersen's massive century in Mumbai and Cook's in Eden Gardens, both of which also set up famous victories.

GSC wrote:There it is! Mega comeback, especially for Hartley given his test career ended after 2 days

Wonder how many times Australia and India have both lost at home on the same day

The Australian women were also beaten by SA in Canberra this morning.  So 3 Big losses, l*l.
The pink ball success rate of 100% is no more either. So a couple of monkeys off their backs in one day....  

That was a great win for England. Marvellous comeback and a huge boost for their confidence. This win sets up the series too... should make it more interesting and even more entertaining.

India just seemed at 6s and 7s for the last half of that match. So many bad reads and un-Indian-like prods and misses. Seemed to be asking for trouble trying to sneak runs too (I realise they had to try and scramble singles... but some were purely suicidal!) and it's not very often you see panic sweep through the lot of them in quick succession at home.

Still digesting all this. Certainly an astonishing victory after trailing by 190 : should be enough for even the perennial doubters to concede that the new mindset that McCullum and Stokes have brought to the England team really is a genuine transformation ?

Of course "bazball" - which is a lot more than just going out and bashing - will come unstuck at times (NZ second Test , Edgbaston) : but it gives far more than it costs . And the entertainment value is off the scale...

Four games to go and for all the euphoria tonight India could certainly bounce back and clean them up. But as I hoped (and I suspect I had rather more confidence than most on here ? ) it does look as if we might see a contest . Bet everyone is glad the TV rights got settled so England fans don't have to rely on VPNs

alfie wrote:Still digesting all this. Certainly an astonishing victory after trailing by 190 : should be enough for even the perennial doubters to concede that the new mindset that McCullum and Stokes have brought to the England team really is a genuine transformation ?

Of course "bazball" - which is a lot more than just going out and bashing - will come unstuck at times (NZ second Test , Edgbaston) : but it gives far more than it costs . And the entertainment value is off the scale...

Four games to go and for all the euphoria tonight India could certainly bounce back and clean them up. But as I hoped (and I suspect I had rather more confidence than most on here ? ) it does look as if we might see a contest . Bet everyone is glad the TV rights got settled so England fans don't have to rely on VPNs

Nope, not yet*, but happy to revise my opinion if England win further tests. England were much more convincing in their first test win over India three years ago when they thrashed India. This is a great victory, but it's the equivalent of coming from 0-3 to win 4-3, when in Chennai in 2021 England eased to a comfortable 4-1 victory.

This was actually the most intelligent approach I've seen England take to a test match under Stokes/McCullum. During the Ashes the batting was frequently a bit dim, but here it was intelligent. England were going at around 3-3.5 an over for much of the first innings before Stokes' late assault lifted the rate to 3.8. Then in the second innings Pope was magnificent, but his magnificence wouldn't have been so pronounced without Foakes/Rehan/Hartley absorbing 184 balls to score 96 runs.

This was mostly a modern classic of test match batting, far removed from the nonsense at Lord's in the Ashes where England gifted wicket after wicket trying to keep the run rate at 5.

*Genuine transformation of mentality has obviously happened. If you mean genuine transformation of material results, not so.

My remarks were not really aimed at you , Duty. Though I do think you fail to give this leadership group the credit they are due for getting the results they have with essentially the same bunch of players that were getting clobbered everywhere before the changeover... There are a lot of idiots on BBC hys who would apparently prefer to bring back Boycott , or don't believe Stokes is worth his place in the side unless he can bowl twenty overs etc . I think they're wrong.

Never mind . Each to his own. But I hope you aren't losing money at the betting shop every time you declare England are going to lose the next match/series they play

It was a day when cricketing world saw two results that were stunning wins and would both classify as upsets.
The WI would rank higher for their cricket is in far deeper shyte and they have walked away with a drawn series.

We are though all more impacted by Eng's winning.
From a position of a possible innings defeat to come back and win by 20 odd is reminiscent of what Indians count to date as one of their greatest wins even in Kolkata 2001 vs Aus.

Eng had  self belief, cleverer on strategy and in mind ....out did india's superior bowling in the second inning.
And then the pressure demons raised their head to Choke India.

India on the other had was complacent, over confident , arrogant for carrying surplus passenger Siraj
"Whatever Eng do, we have enuf resources to overcome "
While the total normally should have been overcome with 4 or 5 wickets in hand......the Indians panicked and choked.
It was close...only one more batsman needed to go on and overcome the last 20 odd......but the lesson , once in, finish rhe game and don't leave it to the next guy applies.

Big Congratulations to England,  Pope and Hartley defied all critics and their own limitations to serve a memorable win.

INDIA  needs to make 3 decisions those on Gill, Iyer and Siraj.

IMO Gill.to be replaced by Patidar
Iyer one more go.
And kuldeep for Siraj
And if Jaceja has done his hamstring then Washington comes in  for him

alfie wrote:

My remarks were not really aimed at you , Duty. Though I do think you fail to give this leadership group the credit they are due for getting the results they have with essentially the same bunch of players that were getting clobbered everywhere before the changeover...   There are a lot of idiots on BBC hys who would apparently prefer to bring back Boycott , or don't believe Stokes is worth his place in the side unless he can bowl twenty overs etc .  I think they're wrong.

Never mind . Each to his own.  But I hope you aren't losing money at the betting shop every time you declare England are going to lose the next match/series they play

Only bet I had on this one was a tasty 4/1 that no century would be scored in this match. I was lured into the idea of it being a spin-fest from the first ball due to England picking three spinners. Didn't quite happen, but I was feeling confident after three separate Indian batsmen fell in the cursed 80s, only for Pope to score the most unlikeliest century you'll ever see.

If England do win this series, it'll be the greatest series win ever by England and I'll gladly give all the praise to McCullum and Stokes. But if they lose 3-1/4-1 then it's very much business as usual.

And some.more.thought
Indians need to get to the drawing board and do some strategizing/ tactical work.
4 more tests , a series and WTC points at stake.

It might be humbling to think but Indians need work on

1) how do our spinners counter their entire batting lineup well prepared for executing good reverse sweep. If it means Ashwin kind of innovative thinking of leg slip and short fine leg and short third man and slip..so be it. Reverse their tactic on its head. Let them go to plan B
2) most importantly how our batters come up with ways of attacking. Maybe no need to copy their reverse sweep...but find own ways....but cannot rely on hope and choke if the game.gets close.

And the worst case outcome is collective denial which is in line with Dravid's character as he showed after the World Cup final.
Shrugged his shoulder and attributed the loss to pitch not being like we wanted.

He might simply blame this one on Bcci curator did not do his job properly and pitch did not spin enuf on D3.
And this ridiculous might lead to a lottery pitch in the next test

I imagine England will drop Renan regardless, wasn't trusted to bowl over Root or injured Leach in the second innings makes that clear. Jimmy probably returns but the rest of the bowling attack will depend on Leach's knee and the pitch I guess

Today was the latest in a series of astonishing results in the Baz/Ben era.

But was the scarcely believable victory the finest of all for England? It surely must be ONE of the finest. England were missing one of their main batsman, were fielding two rookie spinners and had their main spinner operating with an apparent injury.

Chuck into the mix the little matter of a 190-run first inning deficit and the fact that one of the guys who would be needed if India did have to bat again had been whacked all around the ground in the first innings.

Then you have to consider that England were still 27 behind when their 5th wicket went down. To conjure a win from there was little short of miraculous.

No doubt India will bounce back and they'll have Kohli for the last three Tests. But England will savour today for a very long time.

Duty281 wrote:Yes, Pope's innings is up there with Pietersen's massive century in Mumbai and Cook's in Eden Gardens, both of which also set up famous victories.

KPs ton in Columbo in 2012 is right up there too for me. Not a spin attack on par with this one but Herath was a marvellous and underrated bowler, that wasn't an easy pitch in scorching hot conditions. From a good Sri Lanka batting side only Mehela, one of the best players of spin I've seen, looked that comfortable in either innings. Strauss, Cook and Trott scratched out a platform in England's innings but it didn't look pretty. Then Pietersen came out and blasted 150 at nearly a run a ball.

Considering the quality of batters on either side, that was one of the more impressive examples of one batter looking like he was on a different skill level if it clicked.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ind-vs-eng-1st-test-stats-a-landmark-test-for-england-pope-hartley-and-reverse-sweeps-1418766

Some fun stats here from Cricinfo.

England have now more tests in India than any other away team. Interestingly, England, for all their historical troubles in the subcontinent, have the third best win/loss record of visiting teams to India.

The West Indies (!) are the best test visitors to India, and the only ones with a positive record, with 14 wins and 13 losses (20 draws). At one point that record was 13 wins and 3 losses (!), but recent times have gone heavily against the West Indies. Pakistan have 5 wins and 7 losses (21 draws), and England a respectable 15 wins and 22 losses (28 draws; recent times have also seen a lot of losses). Australia 14 wins and 23 losses. NZ have only managed 2 wins from 36 attempts, and Zimbabwe/Bangladesh/Afghanistan/Sri Lanka (0 wins in 22 attempts) have never won tests in India.

This was England's fourth largest first innings deficit overcome to force a victory, if you include the infamous Centurion test. This is England's 8th consecutive series in Asia where they haven't lost the first test (six wins; two draws), dating back to 2015. That's a strange one, because England around the 2006-2012 time had a reputation for being slow starters in test series.

Ollie Pope also got the fourth highest second innings score by a visiting batsman in India. Second highest is McCullum, top is Flower. Third highest is Sobers, but I don't imagine he'll become head coach of the test team.

Obviously, there were more draws in the past, but, the high draw counts there do make you wonder how many more Tests that India could've won on average had they not played on absolute roads for a while at home. Incidentally, you'd probably have seen the great batters from the Noughties have noticeably lower averages and guys like Kohli, Pujara and Jinx, who played on a fair few s**t tips recently, with appreciably better Test numbers. Jinx averaged 36 at home, which is very low for a guy that averaged 38 overall in Test cricket and scored 12 tons.

It's always been a part of cricket I find fascinating that. It's such a stats rich game but so often players, especially when retired, are judged largely on simplistic metrics such as average. Which taken out of context can be misleading. Strauss and Atherton are perhaps two interesting examples. Batting averages across the board in the 90s were fairly low. Pitches were tougher in general and ball tampering was even more rife. Then in the Noughties batting averages sky rocketed. Lots of nations started playing roads to get games lasting 5 days to maximise international cricket revenue as domestic earnings were dropping. England under Fletcher started using Dukes that didn't swing as much to help their tall and fast bowlers. The Kookaburra was at its worst then asw well. It basically had no seam on it and went soft after a few overs. A useless thing in terms of balance between bat and ball. Strauss and Athers' averages are exactly 3 runs apart, due to his average being the right side of 40 Strauss is likely viewed as the significantly better player. I often wonder whether that gap was simply the difference in eras they batted in though. As metrics such as weighted averages, that take more things into account, come into the game it will be interesting to see how perception might change in time.

Cricket has a giant data set but has broken it down in a remarkably simplified way until very recently. It's a cool area of sudden change for stats nerds like myself.

It was a busy weekend for me and couldn't sit with the laptop for too long, though did follow the cricket in parts.
What a sensational turnaround for England, as their skipper put, the best win under his captaincy so far. Even at 163 for 5 in their 2nd innings, India wouldn't have expected anything more than 50 to chase...
The innings of his life from Oliver Pope. He has absolutely silenced his detractors with this absolutely brave innings. Reverse swept 2 of the best spinners in the world in their own backyard to distraction for so long! That too on the back of averaging 17 in the previous 9 innings in India...
Then Tom Hartley, more likea club level slow bowler, ripped through the Indian batting lineup to close out the win. Remarkable start for Bazball in India. And India will have a real fight on their hands for the rest of the series...

While absolutely nothing can be taken away from England, India will have to face up to some real tough question. A 3rd innings 196 was scored by England's weaklest link in the batting lineup. And the Indians froze against a club level left-arm slow bowler on a track that had a bit of life in it but by no means unplayable. In fact the spin available was on the slower side. They were waiting for that one ball with their name on it for most of the innings and just didn't challenge the bowlers.
Coach Rahul Dravid spoke about the 70 80 runs left behind in the first innings. Of the batters who got set, only Ravindra Jadeja, who applied himself the most throughout the innings, got a real rough one in terms of a very borderline umpiring call. KL Rahul, Shreyas Iyer, the skipper and even young Jaiswal all gave it away. And when they needed to take a chance or 2, they all froze and played like headless chickens.
Both Shreyas Iyer and Shubman Gill have had poor games. Who will make way when Kohli returns?

There are reports that Ravindra Jadeja may have picked up a hamstring niggle that may put his participation in the next test in a bit of doubt. Without Jadeja, India's balance will be gone Axar Patel won't be out of place batting 7 on a pinch, and R Ashwin will be a capable number 8. But who will bat 6? Srikar Bharat can't be anyone's idea of a number 6 really. If Jadeja isn't available, they'll have to call up Washington, and play him in place of Siraj.

Coming back to Pope and Hardley, what make this special, is as KPF put it, they both overcame their limitations to put up a performance of this magnitude. I wouldn't have been so surprised had Root, Stokes or even Bairstow played an innings like this. Hardly I am not as much surprised, this is not the first time the Indian batters have done this. While Warne and Murali struggled over here, we've had some average, and mediocre spinners enjoying some success. Pope and Hartley will most certainly take a lot of confidence from their performances, but I am not sure this is the beginning of a career altering turnaround for either.

K- carlos: Always felt Atherton's Test average of around 37 was misleading. England, then, tended to play not just five-Test series against Windies and Aus but sometimes six-Test ones.

Also, Atherton was batting in a poorly-performing team for much of his Test career. Strauss, in contrast, came in to the side at the height of the Vaughan-led boom and then also capitalised from one of England's most-powerful batting line-ups of recent years including himself, Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Prior.

Averages don't always tell the whole story. Take Zak Crawley, for example. He may end up with a modest Test average but he can be a match winner.

msp83 wrote:There are reports that Ravindra Jadeja may have picked up a hamstring niggle that may put his participation in the next test in a bit of doubt. Without Jadeja, India's balance will be gone Axar Patel won't be out of place batting 7 on a pinch, and R Ashwin will be a capable number 8. But who will bat 6? Srikar Bharat can't be anyone's idea of a number 6 really. If Jadeja isn't available, they'll have to call up Washington, and play him in place of Siraj.

Jadeja pulled up, holding that hammy in a bit of discomfort after the runout. He didn't look in huge pain such as Lyon going off in the Ashes though. He may well recover in time.

If he's unavailable then might we see India drop Siraj, play Kuldeep in a 4-man attack, then simply bring in the batter for Jadeja? That combined with a proper raging turner must be a potential response. In 2021 there was a clear shift in pitches after the 1st Test loss. Kuldeep looks a far better bowler now that he's added a bit of pace through the air, his Test record in these conditions was already excellent as a slightly slower wrist spinner.

Still digesting that. I had compared Tom Hartley to Chris Schofield, clearly that has turned out to be unfair and he appears to be a better version of Daniel Vettori.

Will be interesting to see what pitches are now served up, I can see some 2 days Tests and really England could nick one of those. Whatever happens from now, England have already won one more Test than a lot of people would have quite reasonably expected

Tom Hartley, Chris Schofield and Dan Vettori in one sentence. This is why I keep coming back to 606v2. Give the people what they want.

Some credit must be given to the selectors for looking at attributes that many, myself included, had made fun of as well. When the pitch really started to go Hartley did get a lot of purchase both in terms of turn and variable bounce due to his height and being able to fire it in that bit faster. Fair enough, the somewhat amusing selection meeting logic of, "Hey, that Axar boke is pretty tall isn't he?", worked out well in that 4th innings.

I'll be interested to see how Shoaib goes when he likely gets a go at some point. Whilst Rehan got a very useful 41 runs at number 8, he barely bowled on D4 whilst Root opened and injured Leach got overs before him.

My prediction was 3-1 with England nicking a Test on a lottery pitch, then one draw when India had already secured the series and a road gets rolled out for T5 to let the batters eat. I really wasn't expecting a 'proper' win on a pitch such as this. I couldn't be happier to be eating my words though. The last Ashes series was incredibly grim to watch. I was very worried that this series could be even less competitive.

Well what Tom Hartley proves is that the likes of Chris Schofield, Simon Kerrigan, Ian Blackwell and Scott Borthwick weren't bowled enough. They'd probably all be legends by now if Stokes was captain for them.

I can give a number for help if anyone finds that list of names too much

Lost England spinners is quite a category of cricketer.

Zafar Ansari
Samit Patel
Mason Crane
Matt Parkinson....?

Not to mention Shaun Udal and Gareth Batty getting callups when they were about 57.

Dom Bess (confidence destroyed when KP_Fan proclaimed himself to be a better spinner)
Adil Rashid (hero of the white ball, forgotten with the red ball)
Liam Dawson ( )
James Tredwell (actually played two tests five years apart)
Will Jacks (seemingly forgotten with the red ball)
Ian Blackwell (another left-armer for the ranks)
Liam Livingstone (played a test)
James Anderson (unknown figure, seen bowling left-arm spin in the nets during the first test)

king_carlos wrote:Obviously, there were more draws in the past, but, the high draw counts there do make you wonder how many more Tests that India could've won on average had they not played on absolute roads for a while at home. Incidentally, you'd probably have seen the great batters from the Noughties have noticeably lower averages and guys like Kohli, Pujara and Jinx, who played on a fair few s**t tips recently, with appreciably better Test numbers. Jinx averaged 36 at home, which is very low for a guy that averaged 38 overall in Test cricket and scored 12 tons.

It's always been a part of cricket I find fascinating that. It's such a stats rich game but so often players, especially when retired, are judged largely on simplistic metrics such as average. Which taken out of context can be misleading. Strauss and Atherton are perhaps two interesting examples. Batting averages across the board in the 90s were fairly low. Pitches were tougher in general and ball tampering was even more rife. Then in the Noughties batting averages sky rocketed. Lots of nations started playing roads to get games lasting 5 days to maximise international cricket revenue as domestic earnings were dropping. England under Fletcher started using Dukes that didn't swing as much to help their tall and fast bowlers. The Kookaburra was at its worst then asw well. It basically had no seam on it and went soft after a few overs. A useless thing in terms of balance between bat and ball. Strauss and Athers' averages are exactly 3 runs apart, due to his average being the right side of 40 Strauss is likely viewed as the significantly better player. I often wonder whether that gap was simply the difference in eras they batted in though. As metrics such as weighted averages, that take more things into account, come into the game it will be interesting to see how perception might change in time.

Cricket has a giant data set but has broken it down in a remarkably simplified way until very recently. It's a cool area of sudden change for stats nerds like myself.

I would in response to that though point out that Strauss' overseas average was 44.4 compared to 35.85 for Atherton whilst at home they're both around the 39 mark.

KL and Jadeja out of Vizag test
Sarfaraz, Washington and Saurabh Kumar.added
This means Patidar or Sarfaraz wi replace kL
Washington Should replace jadeja

Kuldeep Yadav shud replace siraj

Stokes is being played just for his batting and IMHO he would be worth his place as a batter, captain or not.

Some, jokingly, referred to Brearley as "non-playing captain" and you get the feeling that a case could be made for Stokes leading the side even if he couldn't bowl OR bat.

His belief in his players and in their tactics is immense. Wood has said he'd run through a brick wall for Stokes.

sirfredperry wrote:Stokes is being played just for his batting and IMHO he would be worth his place as a batter, captain or not.

Some, jokingly, referred to Brearley as "non-playing captain" and you get the feeling that a case could be made for Stokes leading the side even if he couldn't bowl OR bat.

His belief in his players and in their tactics is immense. Wood has said he'd run through a brick wall for Stokes.  

These days the Coach is potentially a Non Playing captain...and can have a big influence if he gets a captain only smart enough to execute his strategies session by session.
Which makes me wonder is it really Stokes 's brilliance / genius as a leader or is it McCullum the brain and Stokes only the front end.

We though Kohli was a great leader when he was on a world conquering spree in tests....only to find that the team delivered without Kohli one of the greatest test series wins in Aus against mayn odds ...and Shastri was found to be the real deal and steel behind the team.
We thought Dhoni was a brilliant captain who drew / won series in SA , NZ and won the world cup.....only to see his feet of clay and mediocrity once Gary Kirsten left as coach.


I am a big fan of bazballing and a big backer of Stokes even in his "down-moments" as people here might have read often. But I am not sure if its Stokes 's brilliance / genius as a leader or is it McCullum the brain and Stokes only the front end.

KP_fan wrote:KL and Jadeja out of Vizag test
Sarfaraz, Washington and Saurabh Kumar.added
This means Patidar or Sarfaraz wi replace kL
Washington Should replace  jadeja

Kuldeep Yadav shud replace  siraj

Those are quite significant absences for India, when you also include that they're missing Kohli and Pant.

Obviously got the depth to cover the losses, but it's very unwelcome news, Jadeja especially.

Will be interested to see Sarfaraz play a test and hope he does. For those unaware, he is a monster of the first-class game. Averages 69.85 (from 66 innings, so not a small sample size), has a strike-rate of 70, 14 centuries and 11 fifties, and one treble hundred, plus (I think) at least two more double hundreds. In the games against the England Lions recently he has amassed 96, 4, 55 and 161 (from 160 balls).

In spite of those great statistics, however, he is yet to play a test, so there might be something missing. But there's only one way to find out...

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:KL and Jadeja out of Vizag test
Sarfaraz, Washington and Saurabh Kumar.added
This means Patidar or Sarfaraz wi replace kL
Washington Should replace  jadeja

Kuldeep Yadav shud replace  siraj

Those are quite significant absences for India, when you also include that they're missing Kohli and Pant.

Obviously got the depth to cover the losses, but it's very unwelcome news, Jadeja especially.

Will be interested to see Sarfaraz play a test and hope he does. For those unaware, he is a monster of the first-class game. Averages 69.85 (from 66 innings, so not a small sample size), has a strike-rate of 70, 14 centuries and 11 fifties, and one treble hundred, plus (I think) at least two more double hundreds. In the games against the England Lions recently he has amassed 96, 4, 55 and 161 (from 160 balls).

In spite of those great statistics, however, he is yet to play a test, so there might be something missing. But there's only one way to find out...

At home India indeed has enough depth to cover these losses ( with the exception of Pant to some extent)
Kohli IMO is past his prime and would not have given more than 30s and 40s......and whichever one of Patidar or Sarfaraz plays....will match that 30/40 most likely....but offers the upside of cracking a 100 or a daddy's 100....which Kohli is unlikely to do.
I hope they play both and leave out Gill....but Dravid is too conservative for that.

If there is one guy who can be a like for like replacement for Jadeja as a batsman who is also a competent spinner it's Washington....in fact I think he is just a shade better than Jadeja as a batter
He offers additional value as he might open the bowling as he does in White ball format when India will go in with some bazbal countering tactics like bowling leg side with 8 fielders on the leg.
There is a risk though that over analytical Dravid might play SLA Saurabh Kumar for Jadeja as a like for like.
I had noted a couple of times that Saurabh and Shams Mulani are the best spinners in India who have not played international and Saurabh had a 8-fer against Lions in a flat pitch in addition to for 2 to 3 seasons being Ranji topper along with Shams....and a super Irani trophy last year against some top batters.

I think bowling wise he is different from Jadeja but will fill the void as a bowler and is more a 30 / 40 runs type batter unlike Jadeja and Washington both capable of 100s.

The worst that Dravid can do is bring Kuldeep in for Jadeja instead of for Siraj and leave India woefully short of batting .
He is daft Dravid is but no so much I think and there are saner voices of captain and other support staff to stop him from going down this route.

Jadeja a massive blow for India, as big as Pant or Kohli. Or even bigger in these conditions. Yes he missed the last England series as well and India won in the end. But Axar was an u quandity then
and England had not entered Bazball era. Axar seems to be finding some with the form, but I wouldn't be confident going in with him as the 2nd spinner... Kuldeep has to now come in for Siraj.
KL Rahul's recent form makes him a massive loss as well. Particularly since both Shubman and Iyer are struggling... I'd want Sarfaraz to be given a go in the next test. Yes he hasn't batted consistently below 5, and in fact there were suggestions that perhaps that might in fact be a reason for his continued non-selection besides doubts about his game against pace, particularly the short ball. But he has been excellent against spin, and pace is unlikely to do a lot of damage...
As for completing Jadeja's replacement, Washington Sundar has to come in, offer a 4th spinner option besides batting quality. Washington has the potential to be a better bat than even Jadeja, though I'd not consider him there yet.
Rohit
Jaiswal
Gill
Sarfaraz
Iyer
Washington
Axar
Bharat
Ashwin
Kuldeep
Bumrah

msp83 wrote:
Rohit
Jaiswal
Gill
Sarfaraz
Iyer
Washington
Axar
Bharat
Ashwin
Kuldeep
Bumrah

Why Sarfaraz msp and not Patidar as the later was picked ahead in the Peking order.
And Patidar can bat at 3 , drop Gill down to 4.
Yes going by Peking order kuldeep Plays ahead of  Saurabh and won't let Jadeja's absence be felt.
From what I have  seen of Saurabh....he is different from jadeja but will be equally effective on spinning pitch....he imparts far more revs and Zipp.....almost a SLA version of Warne

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Obviously, there were more draws in the past, but, the high draw counts there do make you wonder how many more Tests that India could've won on average had they not played on absolute roads for a while at home. Incidentally, you'd probably have seen the great batters from the Noughties have noticeably lower averages and guys like Kohli, Pujara and Jinx, who played on a fair few s**t tips recently, with appreciably better Test numbers. Jinx averaged 36 at home, which is very low for a guy that averaged 38 overall in Test cricket and scored 12 tons.

It's always been a part of cricket I find fascinating that. It's such a stats rich game but so often players, especially when retired, are judged largely on simplistic metrics such as average. Which taken out of context can be misleading. Strauss and Atherton are perhaps two interesting examples. Batting averages across the board in the 90s were fairly low. Pitches were tougher in general and ball tampering was even more rife. Then in the Noughties batting averages sky rocketed. Lots of nations started playing roads to get games lasting 5 days to maximise international cricket revenue as domestic earnings were dropping. England under Fletcher started using Dukes that didn't swing as much to help their tall and fast bowlers. The Kookaburra was at its worst then asw well. It basically had no seam on it and went soft after a few overs. A useless thing in terms of balance between bat and ball. Strauss and Athers' averages are exactly 3 runs apart, due to his average being the right side of 40 Strauss is likely viewed as the significantly better player. I often wonder whether that gap was simply the difference in eras they batted in though. As metrics such as weighted averages, that take more things into account, come into the game it will be interesting to see how perception might change in time.

Cricket has a giant data set but has broken it down in a remarkably simplified way until very recently. It's a cool area of sudden change for stats nerds like myself.

I would in response to that though point out that Strauss' overseas average was 44.4 compared to 35.85 for Atherton whilst at home they're both around the 39 mark.

It wasn't just at home that it got easier though. Windies pitches were generally pretty poor in the 90s, then got a lot flatter in the Noughties and early 2010s as well. SA shifted to much flatter pitches in that period. India rolled out roads. Australia also erred towards flatter pitches to take advantage of McGrath and Warne's absurd ability to get wickets on good batting decks when they had the bounce of Aussie wickets.

The other interesting impact was umpiring. The Noughties were mostly pre-DRS of course, but, as early ball tracking came in umpires saw that a lot of LBWs that had previously been given out to seam bowling were actually going well over the stumps. Cricket quickly realised that seamers, particularly taller and faster ones in Tests, needed to bowl fuller than previously realised to threaten LBWs. Umpiring caught up but seamers hadn't yet adjusted. Which they then did across the 2010s when the average length seamers shifted nearly a metre up the pitch and wobble ball was developed. That also led to the 2000s and early 2010s being a really batting friendly era.

Throughout the 90s the average runs per wicket was a bit below 30. In that period Strauss played in it shot up into the mid-30s. Which was the highest it's ever been outside of the 1940s, which was of course a small sample size due to the war.

Around a third of batters with averages over 50 played most their cricket in the 2000s and early 2010s when averages got that high. Obviously, they'd have still been brilliant batters in a different era. Several averaging over 50 still, though perhaps low-50s rather than mid-50s. I just find it interesting how the era you play in can change a batters average by a few runs and that in turn can lead to a significantly different perception of them.

The Strauss and Atherton discussion might not be the most fruitful one for demonstrating this to you specifically though Soul given your views of Atherton are frequent and less than glowing! 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Patidar and Sarfaraz both play, Kuldeep replaces Siraj with very spin friendly wickets to suit?

1.Rohit (c)
2.Jaiswal
3.Gill
4.Iyer
5.Patidar
6.Sarfaraz
7.Bharat (wk)
8.Axar
9.Ashwin
10.Bumrah
11.Kuldeep

Properly Bunsen these pitches up and go with that. One offie, one SLA and a wrist-spinner who can turn it both ways on true raging pitches. Along with a long batting lineup.

I rate Washington, but it just feels unlikely that they'll pick 4 spinners rather than 3 and the extra batter? Whilst I'd also be surprised if Washington played but Kuldeep didn't given the later was in the original squad.

king_carlos wrote:
I rate Washington, but it just feels unlikely that they'll pick 4 spinners rather than 3 and the extra batter?

Shastri rates Washington as India's long term test match No.6 batting material.....and given his stature as ex-coach his recommendations are taken seriously.
Washington if picked it will be as a batter....whose bowling is a bonus
And I won't be surprised if they open the bowling with him, like he does in T20s

Lots to think about for India with these absences. No question they have a lot of options to replace injured players ; but with one or two incumbents already under some pressure for their spots picking the best combination may not be easy.
Whatever they decide on , I reckon Jadeja is a massive loss. He offers so much in all three departments I'm not sure he can be altogether adequately replaced.

We have yet to see how well Leach pulls up so England are also likely to have a bit of thinking to do about their lineup for the second game. Throw in the usual " what will the pitch be like" business and we will have plenty to speculate about for the next couple of days

I think Rahul is harder to replace then Jadeja for this test.....the reasons for that is, India have so many spin options, Sundar is a very useful all-rounder can bat 6 no problem at all, and is a solid off spinner, also Kuldeep is around and can come in so they are covered there...

The batting is a different story, India's middle order options are struggling especisally, Gill and Iyer, so to have those guys and potentially 2 middle order debutants means India's batting line up becomes very fragile....

Had Kohli been there and an inform Gill or Iyer, then 2 debutsnts yeah no problem..given the lack of form, im suprised Pujara and/or Rahane haven't been recalled