England's Winter of Cricket 2023/24

First topic message reminder :

I haven't seen a ball from today. Not sure I want to seeing the scorecard.

I woke up early for work, checked the score, saw the collapse, felt sad. Then didn't look again until after close.

It all looked so promising for a moment.

Root to have a go now. And he's done the trick immediately....fine catch at backward point by a diving 41 year old sees Jaiswal gone for 37...that one spun quite sharply : attempted drive flying off the edge ...and it's 84/1.

Still a pulse.

Hey good morning KP_fan...you might have jinxed Jaiswal there That ball turned quite appreciably so he might have called it a "demon"...

There will be enough balls that do something ...but not enough to imperil this chase , I think. We've seen a few keeping very low and might not be easy for new bats . But Rohit is playing beautifully to keep one end very secure. Might be glad they're not chasing 250 but this looks just about just a matter of time...

Root having got his man is whisked straight off in favour of Hartley. Gill playing a little hesitantly so far but getting full face of the bat to the ball. India still very much in charge. 93/1

alfie wrote:Hey good morning KP_fan...you might have jinxed Jaiswal there    That ball turned quite appreciably so he might have called it a "demon"...

There will be enough balls that do something ...but not enough to imperil this chase , I think. We've seen a few keeping very low and might not be easy for new bats . But Rohit is playing beautifully to keep one end very secure.  Might be glad they're not chasing 250 but this looks just about just a matter of time...

I think jaiswal was a bit casual and his replacement Gill has not found any fluency yet.
As rohit is stumped with 93 still needed

Runs have slowed. The young chaps are bowling quite well at the moment. But with just 93 to win there isn't the same pressure on the bats that Ashwin was able to exert yesterday.

But hey ! Well bowled Hartley . Sharp turn , beats the well set Rohit , straightforward stumping for Foakes who lifts the bails with delight...99/2

Ha ...apparently there was a f

ain't edge so caught not stumped ! Not sure Foakes even knew that ... You don't get a bonus for two wickets in one


Fine over from Hartley. Bit of pressure on Patidar who hasn't had a stellar series...And a worse one now ...three down as he's caught at short leg by Pope !

100/3 and the crowd is getting a bit excited...

Patidar seems to have given up mentally as Eng now have a whiff and Ind need a nerve smoothing partnership of about 30 odd runs

That was a wonderful catch by Pope , by the way. Test to forget for him with the bat : but that was brilliant.

Both these spinners bowling well now and of course when wickets fall the pitch seems to look dodgier by the minute...

Jadeja exactly the right man for India at this point. Wow : that ball ran along the ground but turned to avoid bat , stumps , and keeper ! If it had stayed straight he'd have had no chance...as it was - four byes.

106/3

When Rohit and Jaiswal were batting, India seemed in total control. Then Jaiswal, with the confidence of the kind of scores under his belt, went after Root in his first over of the day and was well caught by Anderson. Gill has been tentative since, and after Rohit went, the scoring has gown to a drip. That has let Hartley and Bashir settle on to a line and length and they are both bowling well. Just about 5 minutes to lunch, Jadeja and Gill will be intent on survival. If they manage to see the session through, hope they'll be able to show some intent in the next session. The door is pretty much not shut for England...

Root back on just before lunch. This partnership is crawling along : 17 off ten overs - and that includes a four byes and an edged three. But they have stayed in...think England need another one here to maintain the pressure...but it's certainly all pretty tense out there at present.

So 118-3 at lunch. From 84 without loss in 16 overs, India would have hoped for a bit more... 15 runs short and 1 too many wickets lost for India I'd say. That leaves England well in with a chance.

Lunch then. Two very different parts in that session... At 118/3 , India are within touching distance of their target. But the pressure has been very much on this last period and 74 more will still need application.

Game more "alive" than I'd expected to see at this stage.

Indians had a strategy to be attack and take india as far as possible with attacking approach until 2 wkts fall...and then "safely" nudge , plod to the target
Patidar is mentally shot and the game now looks tense .
Ind is trying to absorb pressure and bring requirement to less than. 50 and then nerves will ease

Well played by England so far, but one 30 or 40 partnership will kill this off. Plenty of batting left to deliver that, will be a shocking collapse if not!

Wicket ! Second over after lunch and Jadeja strikes a full toss from Bashir for a diving Bairstow to grasp cleanly at short mid on...

And is this another ? Not given but England are sure...review for catch at short leg...yes that's out ! Sarfaraz gone first ball , Bashir on a hat trick ...

120/5.

Funny ; after all the bowled and lbw wickets we've seen for three days , all five today have gone to - rather good - catches. You'd think there must be a couple of low ball lbws in the offing , no ? But credit to the Indian bats for largely playing straight and forward to lessen that danger.
Jurel has started well. 130/5

27 overs since a boundary has been struck. And 50/5 in that period. But these two are nibbling away at the target , single by single. Cut the tension with a knife. Just the one near thing lately as Jurel sliced Hartley in the air but Bashir couldn't quite make it to the ball.

India still favourite, for mine. But a wicket would maybe change that...

Good Test Match

Ah now...boundary at last ! Bit loose from Bashir and Jurel takes advantage with a fine cover drive. Think he's bringing India home as the young fellows tire a bit. (19 now from 39 and looking good)

Getting to miracle required time for England again now , after a period where they had real hope.148/5.

Bit late now but England might be wishing they had a third spinner. Impractical anyway as no spares ; and Robinson at least provided useful runs. But it's clear Bashir and Hartley are running on fumes by now after bowling for hours. Still bowling well , mind : but the odd one allowing easy runs. Haven't had a helpful shooter yet , unfortunately.

Very impressed by Jurel. Skill and temperament

Just 36 needed.

So gone past drinks. It seems England fans have all not chosen to set an alarm this morning...probably weren't expecting much ? Not going to get a win , I'm afraid ; but you've missed a real dogfight. I blame Vaughan for declaring England were favourite at 120/5

29 needed. Might come in a rush now.

oh you're here then , VTR...hope you've enjoyed the battle ? Obviously wanted the win ; but this has been way better than a tame capitulation.

Does look like India will inch home. Shame as England played well for 3 of the 4 days in this test but the one they didn't was an absolute horror show

alfie wrote:So gone past drinks. It seems England fans have all not chosen to set an alarm this morning...probably weren't expecting much ?  Not going to get a win , I'm afraid ; but you've missed a real dogfight. I blame Vaughan for declaring England were favourite at 120/5

29 needed.  Might come in a rush now.

How did this man ever lead us to ashes victory?
Kasprowicz’s hand was off the bat. Go back and change the result

Fifty stand . Bringing it home without fuss at the end for India

They've played very well : believe me , it was in the balance when they came together. But they've done the job really professionally.

No doubt about PoTM. Jurel has arrived...

and a... 6 0 6... obviously in acknowledgment of your fine contributions on here, alfie.

KP_fan wrote:India has one hand grip on the game and finger tips of the other hand too.
Tomm not the cliched 1st session or first hour, but the first 40 minutes will be make or break for Eng.

Rohit & Jaiswal are Ind's two best hitters and since they have 10 wkts in hand, they will continue to attack and hit over the top.
If they bat 40 minutes they would have added 35 to 50 runs leaving required between 100-115ish, which then will be accomplished hassle free in auto-pilot mode.

Eng on the other hand have to get 1 in first half hour and 2 in the hour minimum to make a game out of it....and make it 70-2 -ish at the end of first hour.
Then Indians will go in safe mode, pushing, nudging scratching and accumulating and lose more wickets. Even in this case I think Ind will win by about 4 wkts ....but the game will be on the edge with a "you never know"  hanging in the air until the end.

And for Eng to do that their last & only throw of dice has to be Anderson & Bashir for the first hour
(unless Stokes will unleash the promised spell of 140kph reverse swing )

The pitch would have been light roller rolled again tomm morning which will settle it for another hour, i.e 15 odd overs in addition to 8 overs under the effect of roller today.
And if the two openers bat the hour required runs will be down to about 80 odd.
If when chasing smallish 4th inning total a team gets about 25ish overs of pitch settled by roller than then it's not as difficult as a 4th inning chase normally sounds on a worn wicket.

I don't get excited or concerned by MOM award generally......but here if India go on to win, MoM should be Jurel...it was a solid, sensible stroke filled inning under tremendous pressure.
Otherwise it will be one of Bashir or Hartley that would have collapsed Ind to a defeat.

THE  game  today more or less followed the script in red.

It looked tight and any thing can happen air hanging in, but Indian had decided to knock off in singles safely after the fall of 2nd wicket and were confident...and achieved a good win in the end coming from behind.

Patidar's handling was to me the only mistake. The guy instead of being spurred by "my last chance, let me show what I am made up off and make it count" had frozen into "Ohh my god I I don't make it count, its the end"
was quite visible and he was a walking wicket.
The captain and coach should have had a word & given him a license to attack, sweep, reverse sweep and go for his shots.

After his uninhibited debut, pressure got to Sarfaraz and he has to show he can overcome and I believe he has the temperament to cope.

A coming of age inning in cool maturity from Gill to anchor a tricky chase.
While rock like solid Jurel increasingly making a case for either himself or Pant to play as a specialist batter, when the latter is back.

Eng can look back in disappointment as another  opportunity missed....as they did when collapsing from 220-2 in T3.
and 3 times in T4.
-When they let India come from an arrear of 180 to 46 with only 3 wkts in hand
-When they could muster only 148 in 2nd inning....that's the one inning where all-out bazballing was the order of the day.
-and then last evening the 40 cheap runs they gave away, allowed India to roll.

Any-way there are no IFFS & BUTS in cricket, when dust settles, scorelines are all that posterity remembers and it will not see how close Eng were in T2 and T4.

Not to overlook Gill , who has made a careful fifty. But he was going nowhere until Jurel came in. If England had got the new keeper early , I reckon they might have actually won this.

And there it is...five wicket win for the hosts...well played , congrats.

alfie wrote:oh you're here then , VTR...hope you've enjoyed the battle ? Obviously wanted the win ; but this has been way better than a tame capitulation.

Yes, decent fight again, but ultimately India's greater overall quality has got them through the match. I do feel England are doing better than the last tour, but the scoreline is likely to end up the same

Well done to India. Thoroughly outplayed England in this series, so it's a well deserved series win.

But for those bizarre outliers from Pope and Hartley, England would be four down.

England should have won this one, but weren't ruthless enough with bat or ball. They were in a completely commanding position, but failed to convert. The pitch was exactly what England needed to compete. A flat one would have seen them burnt by several hundred runs again. This was closer to a lottery, which gave them a chance, and they won a good toss. There were many places where England lost this test, perhaps the most crucial was when they let India escape from 177/7 to 307 in the first innings.

Just one batsmen averaging over 40 for the series. No bowlers averaging under 30 for the series. No surprise as to why England have lost the series.

For those of us who didn't buy into the cult of Bazball, this just goes to prove what we were saying. There has been no improvement under Bazball in terms of results. Yes, the style has changed and it's excited viewers who are maybe not so keen on test cricket (and those who are), but in terms of actual results, England are in the same place they were under Root/Silverwood. Regularly beat the mid-tier and below teams. Fall short against the top table.

England 2-2 Australia in 2019; England 2-2 Australia in 2023 (Australia probably win in 2023 if Lyon doesn't get a freak injury).

India 3-1 England in 2021; India 3-1 England in 2024 (An objectively worse tour for England this time than three years ago. England won their test by 200+ runs in 2021. India had several absences in 2024, with Kohli/Pant/Shami missing the whole series, and Bumrah/Jadeja/Rahul/Ashwin missing 1 or a few tests, in Rahul's case. India also won by a record margin in the third test in 2024).

The Bazball cult will, I'm sure, continue to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears; this being their final, most essential, command to the rest of us. And when England beat some middling opposition in the summer, they'll be back to proclaiming England the best in the world.

I hope Stokes/McCullum work on their media strategy. As I've mentioned before, the appalling arrogance with which the England test team carries themselves makes them thoroughly unlikeable and motivates the opposition further. Alright, it can be kind of understandable if you're the best in the world, but when you lose five out of nine to the best in the world, it only serves to make England look ridiculous.

Some talk about Foakes. Foakes is only in the team because of Brook's injury. He's tolerated, not especially liked, in the Bazball setup.

All that nonsense about players having the confidence of the coaching setup to play as they wish, not be burdened by the fear of failure etc. It only applies to a select few favourites, such as Crawley, Duckett and Bairstow. It didn't apply to Lees, and it doesn't apply to Foakes (or Rehan, most probably).

It's not a new thing, either. All coaching setups have players they particularly love. Bairstow is loved by all coaching setups, despite only having two good years out of 12 in the test arena, and the old Root/Silverwood lot had a lot of love for Buttler and Burns.

Bairstow's test career needs to be over today, but I fear it won't be. Unless he calls it a day, I can envisage him in the team for the summer.

Pope, despite his heroics in one innings, should never populate an England side going to the subcontinent again. He got 196 in one innings. In the other seven innings combined he hasn't even made half of that! He's scored just 89 runs in those other seven innings, including a run now of two ducks. What an outlier.

Hartley, similar, his bowling average outside of his magical 7-for is over 45, which is more reflective of his limited ability.  Hartley looks very limited, though Bashir bowled well on a receptive surface, but I worry for both bowling in non-subcontinental places. I'm curious about what happens to Rehan after this tour. He's the most talented of the three.

Robinson's test career should be ended, because of his inability to get fit, despite repeated warnings.

Stokes has had a tough tour with the bat, averaging below 25, but this is of little surprise given his previous struggles in Asia. He's still got that x-factor presence with the bat, though it's less reliable these days. His captaincy, again, left a lot to be desired. Stokes has made huge captaincy blunders throughout his captaincy career, but is forgiven by the aforementioned cult that pervades in the media. This series he bowled Root a ridiculous amount, including at the start of India's chase which basically handed them an easy start. Root bowled a staggering 115 overs in this series, all for 8 wickets @ 50, and it was something that couldn't have helped his batting, which struggled for the most part.

On the positive side, the openers are doing alright. They had an OK series, but OK is the best you're going to get from England in this series. Crawley and Duckett topped the England averages and run columns. It was the middle order that faltered badly.

One more test to go, a dead rubber. Atkinson might get a token test. India might keep Bumrah on the sidelines, with the series won and limited over cricket around the corner, with the IPL and World T20.

India, overall, look in a good place. The discoveries of Jurel, Sarfaraz (finally) and Jaiswal seems to indicate a bright future. Bumrah's arguably the best in the world, and Yadav has also been fantastic. Gill, somewhat maligned, has had a good series, though Rohit wasn't at his best. The door might be closing on Siraj? And agree that Ashwin showed signs of decline.

Duty, is it fair to say you want the current England set up to fail, as you disagree with their approach to Test cricket? Certainly you seem to be be revelling in the defeat.

Eng may consider many changes but in the end they might only realistically replace Robinson with Wood or Atkinson
.
Although in FC cricket Dharamsala is a seamers paradise by Indian standards, there is. O chance of it being a seaming pitch.
It will be more of the same black soil, slow pitch.
The only way for Eng to fulfill their need for 3rs seamer if it arises will be for Stokes to bowl

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, is it fair to say you want the current England set up to fail, as you disagree with their approach to Test cricket? Certainly you seem to be be revelling in the defeat.

Duty has correctly predicted at least twelve of England's last six defeats ; so fairly clear he does like an opportunity to push his theory that the team has made no improvement under Stokes and McCullum. Have to say I find that view ludicrous but have just about given up arguing.

No one that I know of has called England "best in the world" lately. They clearly have weaknesses (as do most teams at present , to be honest) ; but having watched them all round the world for many years I am happy to say the current side has given more hope for continued success than anything since the Flower/Strauss days. Obviously have work to do ; but if anyone reckons they aren't an improvement on the rather up and down efforts we've seen over much of the previous ten years I'd question whether they've really been watching...

Fortunately , Duty isn't a selector ; so they won't toss out half the side and start again. Or drastically change their approach. I remain a fan - while acknowledging there is more improvement needed to satisfy supporters and cynics alike.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, is it fair to say you want the current England set up to fail, as you disagree with their approach to Test cricket? Certainly you seem to be be revelling in the defeat.

Yeah it might appear he spent the night writing rhe speech in preparation and hope.of a defeat.
But no I don't think he is revelling in defeat

India won so I posted happily...if Ind had lost I  would have put out a similar blast Dravid long post.

It's a sign of deep love and passion for your side.

Although on the theme of content itself I have a difrering view
That Bazballign has delivered more wins from extreme situations and that Stokes and Mccullem are punching above their weight inspite of resource limitations.

And that the pitch was not a lottery.....it was same as Vizag, Rajkot except for some.cracks that were hard to hit and acted up only sometimes

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, is it fair to say you want the current England set up to fail, as you disagree with their approach to Test cricket? Certainly you seem to be be revelling in the defeat.

No, this is unfair to say. I want England to win every test they play. I wanted England to win this series 5 zip and prove me wrong. I even dared to dream after the first test, and with all of India's absences for the second test.

It's also worth noting I don't disagree with their approach to test cricket. I merely don't think it's resulted in improvements to the England side, and England are in the same place they've been for the past decade or so. Regularly beat the mid-tier and below teams. Usually come up short against the top teams.

England's new approach has worked well for the openers, but it does require refinement and a greater ability to adapt to match conditions (which I think Root and Foakes demonstrated well in this test).

I think it always comes down to players, and it's still ultimately not a super talented generation of players honestly. I think it's a credit to the approach that Crawley and Duckett are a successful opening pair, and picking Bashir, Hartley and Renan may pay dividends in the future over just picking off the top of the county championship wicket takers list as some might prefer. I don't think there's really any comparison between 2-2 in 2019 and 2023, one England needed a one in a million innings to keep the series alive after 3 games, the other Australia were doing a rain dance to get out of the series.

There is a trend though that England have a chance to really get themselves ahead in games and implode from a position of relative strength. Not sure if it's overconfidence or something else but the great teams don't let up in those positions

alfie wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, is it fair to say you want the current England set up to fail, as you disagree with their approach to Test cricket? Certainly you seem to be be revelling in the defeat.

Duty has correctly predicted at least twelve of England's last six defeats ; so fairly clear he does like an opportunity to push his theory that the team has made no improvement under Stokes and McCullum. Have to say I find that view ludicrous but have just about given up arguing.

No one that I know of has called England "best in the world" lately. They clearly have weaknesses (as do most teams at present , to be honest) ; but having watched them all round the world for many years I am happy to say the current side has given more hope for continued success than anything since the Flower/Strauss days. Obviously have work to do ; but if anyone reckons they aren't an improvement on the rather up and down efforts we've seen over much of the previous ten years I'd question whether they've really been watching...

Fortunately , Duty isn't a selector ; so they won't toss out half the side and start again. Or drastically change their approach. I remain a fan - while acknowledging there is more improvement needed to satisfy supporters and cynics alike.

See, this is exactly what I mean by the Bazball cult. The evidence is directly in front of you.

England 2-2 Australia in 2019. England 2-2 Australia in 2023. India beat England 3-1 in 2021. India beat England 3-1 in 2024.

Yet, you still insist improvement has been made, in spite of the evidence. The Ashes, as I said, was either static or slight regression from 2019. I think Australia would have won in 2023 had Lyon stayed fit, but all that is arguable.

This current series is unarguable. India are weaker than in 2021. And not only have England achieved the same scoreline, but they actually managed to lose by 400+ runs on this tour (a record win for India), plus they couldn't beat India by 200+ runs in this tour, as England did under Root (when England were supposedly worse off than they were today).

I also don't want England to throw out half the side. That would be bizarre. Bairstow and Robinson, yes, anyone else can remain.

I also don't think England should change their approach. They should apply greater awareness of the match situation when required, which Root/Foakes did well in this test, and England could do with a little more humbleness off the field, but otherwise carrying on as they are is OK with me.

But let's not pretend improvement has happened when it clearly hasn't.

GSC wrote:I think it always comes down to players, and it's still ultimately not a super talented generation of players honestly. I think it's a credit to the approach that Crawley and Duckett are a successful opening pair, and picking Bashir, Hartley and Renan may pay dividends in the future over just picking off the top of the county championship wicket takers list as some might prefer. I don't think there's really any comparison between 2-2 in 2019 and 2023, one England needed a one in a million innings to keep the series alive after 3 games, the other Australia were doing a rain dance to get out of the series.

There is a trend though that England have a chance to really get themselves ahead in games and implode from a position of relative strength. Not sure if it's overconfidence or something else but the great teams don't let up in those positions

I can kind of agree about picking Bashir/Hartley/Rehan with the idea of future development in mind, though I would have still picked Dawson for the tour, however it flies in the face of what England did during the Ashes, where they picked a short-term stop gap instead of looking for a long-term option.

I'm not sure about the trend of England being ahead in games and then imploding. England have been massively behind in three out of four games on this tour, pulling one out of the fire due to a one in a million innings, and only ahead in this game, which they lost, which was incredibly poor.

I tend to think of this England team as being behind most of the time, then pulling off a great comeback, as it was for most of the 2022 summer. The Ashes, also, England only had a definitive first innings lead in one of the five tests.

KP_fan wrote:Eng may consider many changes but in the end they might only realistically replace Robinson with Wood or Atkinson
.
Although in FC cricket Dharamsala is a seamers paradise by Indian standards, there is. O chance of it being a seaming pitch.
It will be more of the same black soil, slow pitch.
The only way for Eng to fulfill their need for 3rs seamer if it arises will be for  Stokes to bowl

Probably be Atkinson and Wood, unless Jimmy really wants to get 700 (and retire?). Lawrence might get a test, also, because why not?

Before Stokes replaced Root, England were 6th in the world rankings with a rating of 88.
They are currently 3rd with a rating of 115.
Is that not considered an improvement?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before Stokes replaced Root, England were 6th in the world rankings with a rating of 88.
They are currently 3rd with a rating of 115.
Is that not considered an improvement?

I imagine England were that low on the world rankings because they had undergone a punishing run of 14 tough tests out of 17 (with the other three in the West Indies; where England have never done well). They had little opportunity to pad their record against middling teams like South Africa or Pakistan, as Stokes' side have. As we know, Root/Silverwood used to regularly beat the mid-tier sides, just like Stokes/McCullum have been doing.

England's ranking of 3rd was before this series started, also, so I imagine it will be lower now.

You're also using the old rankings, which no one really cares about anymore since the inception of the WTC. It's a selective argument.

Root's last full WTC campaign saw England finish 4th (2019-2021)...England are currently 8th for 2023-2025. That's equally selective and with context removed!

If you just look at the direct comparison of results v Australia and India, you'll see the same series scores.

Don't worry, though. The toughest hurdle of the year is nearly over. West Indies and Sri Lanka at home, plus Pakistan and NZ away. That's next. England should be able to go on another good run and we can all pretend improvement has occurred once more...until England get smashed in Australia again.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before Stokes replaced Root, England were 6th in the world rankings with a rating of 88.
They are currently 3rd with a rating of 115.
Is that not considered an improvement?

It’s a selective argument.

That's equally selective and with context removed!

.

Just gonna leave the irony of those two sentences to marinate…

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before Stokes replaced Root, England were 6th in the world rankings with a rating of 88.
They are currently 3rd with a rating of 115.
Is that not considered an improvement?

It’s a selective argument.

That's equally selective and with context removed!

.

Just gonna leave the irony of those two sentences to marinate…

That's the entire point! You can be selective and take the context out in either circumstance should you wish.

I don't think Stokes/McCullum have improved things because England are higher on the world rankings. Equally, I don't think they've made things worse because England are lower in the WTC standings.

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before Stokes replaced Root, England were 6th in the world rankings with a rating of 88.
They are currently 3rd with a rating of 115.
Is that not considered an improvement?

It’s a selective argument.

That's equally selective and with context removed!

.

Just gonna leave the irony of those two sentences to marinate…

That's the entire point! You can be selective and take the context out in either circumstance should you wish.

I don't think Stokes/McCullum have improved things because England are higher on the world rankings. Equally, I don't think they've made things worse because England are lower in the WTC standings.

No I mean you trot out the 1 in 17 test losses for Root/Silverwood line with the caveat of we never do well in the West Indies line included…yet simultaneously completely overlook the 3-0 test away series win in Pakistan (somewhere England had won literally one test match in history beforehand - that’s not doing well somewhere) and also our first test victory in New Zealand in our last four tours over there (since 2008), swatted away as achievements and described as beating “middling fodder”

Not going to get involved in the debate, but I can't believe we are away to Pakistan and New Zealand again later in the year, absolutely crazy scheduling!

VTR wrote:Not going to get involved in the debate, but I can't believe we are away to Pakistan and New Zealand again later in the year, absolutely crazy scheduling!

Yes, it's been squeezed due to the Champions Trophy. I think otherwise England would go to Pakistan in October/November and then NZ in Feb/March. But the Champions Trophy has been scheduled for Feb/Mar 2025, so a squeeze it has to be.

Not even sure the Champions Trophy will happen, in truth, with Pakistan as hosts and India probably going to pull out. All going to be a drama.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before Stokes replaced Root, England were 6th in the world rankings with a rating of 88.
They are currently 3rd with a rating of 115.
Is that not considered an improvement?

It’s a selective argument.

That's equally selective and with context removed!

.

Just gonna leave the irony of those two sentences to marinate…

That's the entire point! You can be selective and take the context out in either circumstance should you wish.

I don't think Stokes/McCullum have improved things because England are higher on the world rankings. Equally, I don't think they've made things worse because England are lower in the WTC standings.

No I mean you trot out the 1 in 17 test losses for Root/Silverwood line with the caveat of we never do well in the West Indies line included…yet simultaneously completely overlook the 3-0 test away series win in Pakistan (somewhere England had won literally one test match in history beforehand - that’s not doing well somewhere) and also our first test victory in New Zealand in our last four tours over there (since 2008), swatted away as achievements and described as beating “middling fodder”

It is fair to say England don't do well in the West Indies, but it was a poor result, no doubt about that.

I haven't overlooked those two series, I've spoken about them before.

Pakistan and New Zealand are middling teams, I'm not sure what you want me to add to that.  I didn't describe them as fodder, however.

NZ have won just two of their last nine test series (home to South Africa's B team and home to Sri Lanka), failing to beat the Bangladesh team home and away in series played. The NZ England played in NZ were very mediocre, with the likes of Ticker and Kuggelsomething in the attack. The NZ during and before the WTC win were a formidable side with a superb record, so no surprise England's couldn't notch up wins then.

The win in Pakistan was nice to see, but as a point of comparison I didn't see it as any more impressive than Root's England winning six in a row in the subcontinent (five v Sri Lanka and the thrashing of India in Chennai). The Pakistan that England played were the third worst team in the WTC cycle for those two years, and they failed to win any of their eight home tests, all v non subcontinental opposition. A very middling side.

As said, I'm not knocking Stokes/McCullum. They've given everything a new coat of paint and are largely achieving the same things as their predecessors. It's good to see England continually dominate teams in the mid-tier and below, but the top table is where England have fallen short in the recent past, and it's where they're falling short again.  As I said before this series, if England managed to draw the series, or even win the series here, I would have credited it as an definite improvement on the old regime, but it hasn't happened.

Surely the point of Stokes/McCullum was to firstly stop the rot that had set in with players lacking confidence, the team lacking direction and results dropping off a cliff. Winning six in a row in the subcontinent had become a long time ago (metaphorically) and the path was only going downhill.

As Joe Root put it this week - "It has 100% been a mindset shift that has got the best out of players that have been in and around this team for more than the time Baz and Stokesy have been involved as coach and captain."

I don't see what more can be done than getting the best out of players. If the players at their best still aren't good enough (which against India, in India, they aren't) then that is simply the nature of sport.

The Bazball 'cult' is simply a media invention that some people think equates to bashing the ball around, and is not 'proper' cricket. Both of those assumptions are incorrect. Liverpool teenager Bobby Clark said this of Jurgen Klopp after the cup final - "Klopp fills you with confidence, gives you freedom, really lets you do your thing.". That is effectively what Bazball is - the cricket equivalent of Kloppball. And surely everyone can see that it has the most potential to lead to great success, whatever sport it is applied in.

Again from Joe Root, on his reverse sweep dismissal - "It's not just 'oh, I fancy it', a careless un-thought-out decision in a split second. You're looking at how it's going to really affect the scenario of the game. People will look at this dismissal and think it was arrogant or stupid, but I'm trying to play how I think is the best way to score runs against a very good team. I didn't execute it well enough on that occasion. That's how it goes sometimes. I could have dragged on trying to drive through extra cover and it wouldn't have been a media storm, would it?"

It's not just hit and hope.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Surely the point of Stokes/McCullum was to firstly stop the rot that had set in with players lacking confidence, the team lacking direction and results dropping off a cliff. Winning six in a row in the subcontinent had become a long time ago (metaphorically) and the path was only going downhill.

As Joe Root put it this week - "It has 100% been a mindset shift that has got the best out of players that have been in and around this team for more than the time Baz and Stokesy have been involved as coach and captain."

I don't see what more can be done than getting the best out of players. If the players at their best still aren't good enough (which against India, in India, they aren't) then that is simply the nature of sport.

The Bazball 'cult' is simply a media invention that some people think equates to bashing the ball around, and is not 'proper' cricket. Both of those assumptions are incorrect. Liverpool teenager Bobby Clark said this of Jurgen Klopp after the cup final - "Klopp fills you with confidence, gives you freedom, really lets you do your thing.". That is effectively what Bazball is - the cricket equivalent of Kloppball. And surely everyone can see that it has the most potential to lead to great success, whatever sport it is applied in.

Again from Joe Root, on his reverse sweep dismissal - "It's not just 'oh, I fancy it', a careless un-thought-out decision in a split second. You're looking at how it's going to really affect the scenario of the game. People will look at this dismissal and think it was arrogant or stupid, but I'm trying to play how I think is the best way to score runs against a very good team. I didn't execute it well enough on that occasion. That's how it goes sometimes. I could have dragged on trying to drive through extra cover and it wouldn't have been a media storm, would it?"

It's not just hit and hope.

I'm not sure anyone who does think of it as 'hit and hope'. Certainly, there has been some carelessness and a lack of respect for the match situation/conditions at the time, such as in this series when England were 220/2 and ended up losing by 400+ runs.

Root's shot was ridiculous, I don't think there's any real argument. The difference between a reverse sweep and a drive through extra cover is one is very, very high-risk, the other is much more low risk, so naturally one of those is going to come in for more criticism in a format where you must prize your wicket. It's just media spin, though. Root knows he messed up in that situation, and so in this test he shelved the lunacy and carved out a gritty hundred - the slowest hundred of his career, but necessary in the context of the situation and conditions. That's the more intelligent approach that should be applauded. Sometimes it will be a road and England will be facing an average or worse attack, as in Pakistan for example, so attacking is understood. Other times, grit and tenacity is required. Such is test cricket and why it's separated from the limited overs stuff.

And I think, to expand on that, we understand Crawley, for example, attacking more. He hasn't got much in the way of defensive technique, so he may as well play a few shots. But Root is superb and should bat in his classical, normal fashion, rather than trying to reverse sweep Bumrah. Across these last nine tests against the best two teams in the world, Root has only got two centuries, which is a disappointing return for a player of his standards.

The Bazball cult, as I refer to, are the people who have strange recollections of England's test history, generally ignore context, and refuse to believe anything other than a great improvement has happened under Stokes/McCullum, despite the evidence showing otherwise.

That stuff about 'giving you freedom. filling you with confidence etc.'....this is nothing new.

And, as I mentioned a bit before, this freedom and confidence etc. only applies to a select few players. Crawley, for example, he has lots of freedom. He's been told you're not getting dropped no matter what. But do you think Lees was told the same thing? How about Foakes? The select few get the backing of the coaches/captain, other players do not. Under Root/Silverwood, for instance, Buttler was given that freedom. Burns, too, to an extent. Every coaching set up has their favourites.

A full-strength India I'd say England can't get near. But this was an India side that was somewhat vulnerable and with a fair few absences, and I do think England have thrown away a great opportunity. As said, England achieved the same result (3-1 India after four) in 2021, and that was a stronger Indian team than this year's vintage, so it's bizarre to argue that this is all an improvement.

In terms of getting the best out of players, and what more can be done, there have been numerous captaincy mistakes to focus on. Errors in selection, strange bowling choices and odd bowling plans to the tail, particularly. The fielding is still not at an elite level, something that predates Stokes/McCullum. They definitely haven't got the best out of Root in these last nine games (averaging 42, just two tons); whether that's a Root issue or a mentality issue. Also worth adding they're not getting the most out of the bowlers either - Anderson's averaging 54 across his last 7 tests - and I'm still unconvinced by England's strategy of putting up great batting tracks at home, instead of the usual haven for seamers (England's natural advantage). But there's two key players there, Anderson and Root, who haven't delivered to their level across these last two test series.

Agree England's confidence was on the floor after the 17 test debacle, but we'll never know if it would have stayed there had Root stayed on. England's confidence was pretty floored after losing 5 out of 7 tests in the winter of 17/18, but they rebounded to thrash India a few months afterwards. Root's time was up, though, I agree with that.

Duty281 wrote:That's the more intelligent approach that should be applauded.

Yes, and so-called Bazball includes that approach. If the batter believes that is the best approach for him, the captain and coach back him to play that way. The same way Duckett's much more rapid century should also be applauded, despite presumably being in your view, less intelligent. A slower scoring rate does not always equate to a more intelligent approach.

Root, I think, has suffered from being so good, yet still trying to work out a way to get better, rather than resting on his laurels. Sometimes you have to go down before you go up to new heights. Who are you to tell Joe Root how to bat?

Duty281 wrote:And, as I mentioned a bit before, this freedom and confidence etc. only applies to a select few players.

I hadn't realised you had such inside knowledge of the England dressing room and training sessions.

Duty281 wrote:But this was an India side that was somewhat vulnerable and with a fair few absences.

 
Unlike England? Remind me who our world class spinners are that can consistently bowl out sides for low scores on the subcontinent?

Duty281 wrote:The fielding is still not at an elite level, something that predates Stokes/McCullum.

Agreed - and this contributed significantly to the defeats on this tour.

I'm not saying things are perfect, I'm saying the current sporting philosophy of Stokes/McCullum is one that has the most potential of being successful, and this is hardly unique to cricket.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:That's the more intelligent approach that should be applauded.

Yes, and so-called Bazball includes that approach. If the batter believes that is the best approach for him, the captain and coach back him to play that way. The same way Duckett's much more rapid century should also be applauded, despite presumably being in your view, less intelligent. A slower scoring rate does not always equate to a more intelligent approach.

Root, I think, has suffered from being so good, yet still trying to work out a way to get better, rather than resting on his laurels. Sometimes you have to go down before you go up to new heights. Who are you to tell Joe Root how to bat?

Duty281 wrote:And, as I mentioned a bit before, this freedom and confidence etc. only applies to a select few players.

I hadn't realised you had such inside knowledge of the England dressing room and training sessions.

Duty281 wrote:But this was an India side that was somewhat vulnerable and with a fair few absences.

 
Unlike England? Remind me who our world class spinners are that can consistently bowl out sides for low scores on the subcontinent?

Duty281 wrote:The fielding is still not at an elite level, something that predates Stokes/McCullum.

Agreed - and this contributed significantly to the defeats on this tour.

I'm not saying things are perfect, I'm saying the current sporting philosophy of Stokes/McCullum is one that has the most potential of being successful, and this is hardly unique to cricket.

1) I didn't say scoring quickly was less intelligent. I said trying to attack in testing conditions was less intelligent, and drew comparisons between the varying types of situation where attack could be encouraged or discouraged. If Root had tried his reverse sweepathon in this test, he's very unlikely to have made a century which gave England a great chance. Root can bat how he likes, I just think he doesn't need to reconfigure his approach.

2) " If the batter believes that is the best approach for him, the captain and coach back him to play that way"...I didn't realise you had such inside knowledge either!

3) Well, England left one of their better spinners at home (no, I don't mean Moeen!). England also have their absences, of course, but managing the same result (with some inferior margins) as three years ago v a weaker India side is not a step forward.

4) Yes, so it's a disappointment that after nearly two years of Stokes/McCullum, the fielding hasn't improved.

I disagree that this approach has the most potential of being successful. It probably has the same potential as if they were playing in a more orthodox fashion, as evidenced by the results v Aus/Ind. But this is the last of the top tier teams England have to play for about 16 months, so it's a little while to wait before another crack at the elite.