England's winter of cricket 2024/25

First topic message reminder :

The squad for the tour of Pakistan has just been announced...Stokes and Crawley are back, with Dan Lawrence dropped. There are also recalls for Rehan Ahmed and Jack Leach, with Brydon Carse getting a tour also.

Full squad (likely XI then others);

Zak Crawley
Ben Duckett
Ollie Pope
Joe Root
Harry Brook
Ben Stokes
Jamie Smith (wk)
Gus Atkinson
Olly Stone
Jack Leach
Shoaib Bashir

Reserves:
Jordan Cox
Brydon Carse
Rehan Ahmed
Chris Woakes
Josh Hull
Matthew Potts

Will MacPherson noting they see Tom Hartley as more suited for the true turning wickets of SL/India/Bangladesh, hence his omission. Tests likely to be played at Rawalpindi, Multan, Rawalpindi. (Two Pindi tests...fun).

Extra seamers suggest Stokes might not be fit to bowl?

150 as par, KP_fan ? Not sure par would mean much to England But if one of these gets out soon I suspect they might find even 100 hard to cross !

And indeed Brook has gone now...gone on back foot to open up for a shot down the ground but beaten by Noman's quicker ball and stone dead lbw - wasted a review too but hardly relevant now I fear. This is finishing early . 78/5

For all the frenzy & frenetic approach, not 1 Eng batter has crossed 20
Look at Salman's inning yesterday....template of how one should play on such a pitch
.

Straight bat defense as stock....be ready to hit down the ground , cut , drive and sweep.only occasionally.

They've not played well at all . Almost the only plan being sweep in either direction, and a bit too indiscriminate for mine. Not much defence . Smith made a mess of his attempt to sweep and didn't detain them long...could he perhaps have settled down a bit before launching? Carse - after a review reprieve from a first ball decision - has produced a couple of terrific straight sixes and with Stokes so far sweeping effectively they've reached 113 so might yet threaten KP_fan's "par" of 150....small consolation.

Stokes played better than anyone , somewhat surprisingly give his Asia record. But he's gone now for 37 , dancing down the pitch and throwing his bat literally out of his hands...Rizwan doing the rest. That's five for Noman now and just mopping up left...127/7

Carse continues to entertain. A third six , this time over cow...all good clean strikes. And he's chosen the right balls to hit or defend. Pakistan thought they had him then but have just wasted a review...A good game for Carse , now 25 no after some good bowling...he's growing on me. 132/7

Oh well, not too worried about this. Losing the toss made the chance of winning about 20% at best, before a ball was even bowled. England won't exactly be thrashed in the end, and haven't played that well really

Well it does set up a decider, which is always interesting. My concern though is that England have looked so inept against spin here that if the next pitch is similar they might end up well beaten in the series by a Pakistan side widely derided as a basket case just a week ago...and one who hadn't won a Test at home for ages prior to this. One could say they lost an important toss ; but even so , it is probably only Duckett's excellent first innings hundred that has saved them from being totally thrashed. Ha . We lost the picture here for three minutes and I see it is all over...152 runs a fairly convincing margin.

Noman the silent tortoise crept up with 11 on his demonstrative rabbit mate Sajid with 9.
only 2 bowlers used by Pak and Eng crumble to sub-150 in very Old fashioned play by Pak with both bat & ball.

Winning was impossible for Eng but a better fight would have been to play straight, down the ground, drives, cuts, hit in the V and blend it with occasional sweeps atleast by the 3 technically competent batters Root, Smith & Stokes.
That might have taken them closer to 225-250.

Pak will do their best to make a rank turner next game and I hope Eng win the toss & test Pak's conventional brand with their sweeping & hacking.

Thought we did alright on day 1 and for most of day 2...but as soon as Duckett/Root fell end of day 2, we've been fairly pants bar a couple of players. Would definitely have been a good toss to win!

Need to reassess and if the pitch is similar in Rawalpindi (and why wouldn't it be from a Pakistan perspective...), then it would be handy if Stokes can call correctly!

You really never know what you are going to get with Pakistan , do you ? Eviscerated just a few days ago , dumping their senior batsman and both their leading pace bowlers for a host of second choice spinners and gambling on winning a toss on a wearing pitch...and they've seen everything go nicely to script. Not much doubt we will see similar conditions next week if humanly possible to produce another one without playing five days on it already

Of course things may be very different if England get first use next time. But the caution here is that England reached 211/2 at one point (mainly due to Duckett) and subsequently lost 18 wickets in scoring a further 224 ... while Pakistan , batting a second time on the same well worn pitch , managed 221/10... that does suggest a bit of difference not totally down to the luck of the toss, does it not ? England's spinners were OK (Bashir poor in the first innings but much improved on the more responsive surface second time around ) and he and Leach had 12 wickets between them overall : but they didn't exactly run through Pakistan ... England owed a lot to Carse in particular that they weren't chasing even more.

But it is their batting against spin that really has to lift. On the evidence of this game , only Duckett and Root seem to offer a lot of confidence on this sort of pitch : some of the others will need to make a quick adjustment if they are going to encounter similar conditions again. And this week it will be England having to make some tricky decisions as to what might be their best bowling combination for game three . Going to be serious anticipation of a true contest - and plenty of doubts about the likely result - ahead of the match ; which was probably not the case before this upset ...

Mmm, a bit one sided in the end. Good toss to win in the end, bit like playing in England and timing your bowling efforts to when cloud cover is around. All part of test cricket. Pakistan managed a better effort with the bat than England did once it start ragging though. Certainly the fielding (catching) needs to improve substantially

Absolutely dire from England. That was one of the worst test performances I've seen from them in a while.

Let's not forget, they weren't playing India here, or Sri Lanka, or even Bangladesh, they were playing a Pakistan team in crisis mode, rife with internal division, the worst team in the WTC on form, and with a botched selection policy.

And England lost. Didn't just lose, got soundly hammered.

It really is the sign of a mentally weak team. Pressure comes in and England crumble all too readily. Seen it all before. England lost their last 18 wickets for 224 runs. Yes, it was turning, but so what? Test cricket is about tough conditions. England have become far too accustomed to playing on flat featherbeds. And they didn't collapse to some world class spell of bowling from Ashwin, or Bumrah, or Hazlewood...they collapsed to Sajid Khan and Noman Ali. Christ, that's bad.

England have also gone backwards in their sub continental approach. The amount of sweeps today took me right back to early 2012, when England played Pakistan in the UAE, and didn't have a clue to handle Ajmal. The pre meditation was a clear indicator they didn't have a clue then, and the same thing now.

Fielding, abject. Has been the case for a while. England put down too many simple chances. They did in the first test, it didn't cost them. Here, it definitely did. Smith's drop was so unbelievably bad that it raises questions as to whether he should keep.

I know Key/McCullum are trying to keep a settled team, but there's so many questions over numerous personnel. Pope is a tailender far too often. In classic Pope fashion, his last century is sandwiched in between 9 innings where he's averaging just under 10! That's what Pope brings. One big innings in a winter or summer, but then eight or nine other contributions where you'll be lucky to see him breach 20. Can England really carry such a player in a series against India or Australia? Stokes brings very little with the bat overseas. If he can't bowl at a good level, what's his value to the team overseas? And Bashir is only competent in helpful conditions. Pick him in Australia and he'll get annihilated.  Crawley, still very unconvincing. After a brief peak last year, he's back to averaging in the mid 30s, and it's well over a year since his last ton. He's a very ordinary option.

There are some good points. Carse has started excellently, Potts is improving, and Leach has shown his worth and why he should be England's number one spinner (as they refuse to pick Dawson). Duckett is sneakily becoming a very good test player. He's averaging 42 since the start of 2023. He will never be a good converter, as he'll always play one shot too many, but he's making the best of his talent and can always put England on the immediate front foot in a test. I'd still like to see more from Brook in testing conditions. I'm starting to think of him as a bit of a flat track bully.

Onto the third test. If England don't win that, serious questions need to be asked.

Duty281 wrote:
Duckett is sneakily becoming a very good test player. He's averaging 42 since the start of 2023.

I saw a stat flash on my screen in the Ind-NZ game listing highest SR batters in test cricket in this millennium with over 2,000 runs.
Yup, Duckett was on top followed by Sehwag
Duckett has generated enuf consistency to be getting on some prestigious lists and is making a difference.

For next game Pak are bound to attempt a rank turner at Pindy and I am not sure 3 seamers are warranted for Eng.
Carse & Pott do not deserve to be dropped and should be the 2 seamers...but cannot be as Stokes cannot be dropped.
This conundrum would see either 3 seamers again being played and some fluffy premise like continuity invented to justify
or Pott sat out for Rehan

Duty281 wrote:Absolutely dire from England. That was one of the worst test performances I've seen from them in a while.

I'd say only 2 Tests ago was worse than this. That was a thrashing at home vs Sri Lanka, England's attempts to set a target were embarrassing. This was fairly bad, but England will tend to lose on spinning pitches, given we tend to have inferior spinners and only ever one or two players that can actually play well against spin

England were ok, certainly holes in their performance to be addressed but certain disasterclasses come to mind a lot worse than this. Pakistan gambled, won the toss and at the point when England probably got themselves ahead of the game the pitch started turning sideways on day 7. Fielding needs addressing but a bit ott imo

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  
Duckett is sneakily becoming a very good test player. He's averaging 42 since the start of 2023.

I saw a stat flash on my screen in the Ind-NZ game listing highest SR batters in test cricket in this millennium with over 2,000 runs.
Yup, Duckett was on top followed by Sehwag  
Duckett has generated enuf consistency to be getting on some prestigious lists and is  making a difference.

For next game Pak are bound to attempt a rank turner at Pindy and I am not sure 3 seamers are warranted for Eng.
Carse & Pott do not deserve to be dropped and should be the 2 seamers...but cannot be as Stokes cannot be dropped.
This conundrum would see either 3 seamers again being played and some fluffy premise like continuity invented to justify
or Pott sat out for Rehan  

Will be interesting to see if Pakistan can serve up a turner on demand.

VTR wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Absolutely dire from England. That was one of the worst test performances I've seen from them in a while.

I'd say only 2 Tests ago was worse than this. That was a thrashing at home vs Sri Lanka, England's attempts to set a target were embarrassing. This was fairly bad, but England will tend to lose on spinning pitches, given we tend to have inferior spinners and only ever one or two players that can actually play well against spin

That was a bad defeat, but it was a dead rubber, and SL are a half-decent team, unlike Pakistan.

GSC wrote:England were ok, certainly holes in their performance to be addressed but certain disasterclasses come to mind a lot worse than this. Pakistan gambled, won the toss and at the point when England probably got themselves ahead of the game the pitch started turning sideways on day 7. Fielding needs addressing but a bit ott imo

224/18 v 221/10 on the same pitch.

GSC wrote:England were ok, certainly holes in their performance to be addressed but certain disasterclasses come to mind a lot worse than this. Pakistan gambled, won the toss and at the point when England probably got themselves ahead of the game the pitch started turning sideways on day 7. Fielding needs addressing but a bit ott imo

Very much my view. Pakistan gambled with their selection, were more reliant on winning the toss. Which they did. The batting conditions changed drastically on D2, which was of course D7 for the pitch. Pakistan had

I felt that Pakistan largely just played a lot better. Sajid's bowling suited the pitch perfectly. Noman showed his experience of home conditions by finding the ideal pace to bowl and sticking to it. Ghulam batted excellently on D1. Agha batted really smartly to take advantage of England's drops on D3.

The drops of Agha were absolutely dire. That aside, I'd chalk more of this loss up to Pakistan playing much better after winning a vital toss than I would to England being terrible.

The England bowling was mostly really good again I felt. Stokes being half a 5th bowler at best definitely being the negative there. Carse impressed again. Bash was much better. Potts is a massively improved bowler with more pace. Leach did what we know Leach can and can't do.

Then with the bat, Duckett scored a genuinely brilliant ton on a pitch that was rapidly becoming brutal to bat on during D2. After Duckett was dismissed, the next highest scores in the rest of the Test were Agha's 63 and then Stokes' 37 today. It was really really tough to bat after D1. Agha's fifty, which he shouldn't have had the chance to hit, was the exception after the pitch broke up. It was very tough for both sides.

I think it's OK to just say the other team played well sometimes. There's something about the dialogue around this England Test team that means victories and losses seem to get much bigger responses than are actually needed though. Even by English sports standards too. Our press really do love a build 'em up, knock 'em down story. 'Bazball' has hit the overdrive button on both sides of that tiresome back and forth though.

GSC wrote:England were ok, certainly holes in their performance to be addressed but certain disasterclasses come to mind a lot worse than this. Pakistan gambled, won the toss and at the point when England probably got themselves ahead of the game the pitch started turning sideways on day 7. Fielding needs addressing but a bit ott imo

Yeah agree with this - some points to improve on, but nothing outrageously horrendous. They lost a bad toss (how often are you going to get to bat on a day 9 pitch!), and had a bad day and a bit.

And Pakistan deserve credit for altering plans, and doing so effectively. They made some bold selection choices, and looked a better outfit for it. Comparing what they put out here to what they put out in the 1st test, a clearly better side and gameplan for home conditions for them.

If you look at the scores in this game - 366, 291, 221, 144 - it is a neat illustration of how the pitch was getting harder and harder to bat on as the game went on.

The collapse in the first innings of 4/14 and the dropped catches are the obvious variables England can control. Albeit I would be interested to know how much you can improve catching in a few days! Not like these guys haven’t had enough practice at it. Hopefully just getting more acclimatised to the conditions helps their concentration as it’s unlikely to be a skill issue.

If it’s a similar pitch for T3, it does seem a no brainer Stokes should bat 3 and Rehan should play for Pope…

If it is a similar pitch, Rehan absolutely must come in for Pope, but it's unlikely to happen. I'd also look at getting Cox in for Stokes, because I'm not sure Stokes' bowling adds anything at the moment, and his batting is a dead loss overseas and in Asia especially, but this definitely won't happen!

Will be interesting to see what England do with the pace bowlers. They've got Woakes, Stone and Atkinson fresh and in reserve, but equally they've got Potts and Carse in form. If Stone doesn't play then it will have been a torturous series of trips - England to Pakistan, back to England, and back to Pakistan again, just to not play!

Pakistan were right with some of their selection, getting Ghulam in for Babar proved to be inspired, but the selection of Zahid was completely wasted, and the spot would have been better going to Naseem.

Seeing what pitch is produced is going to be very interesting. If it's one similar to the first test, then perhaps it shows that it is really difficult to prepare bowling friendly wickets in Pakistan, and the PCB get a bit of slack. But if they can suddenly drum up a classic sub continental turner on demand, without having to play a game on it beforehand, then it shows how foolish the PCB have been in the last few years, preparing roads for no conceivable benefit to their side.

Whatever the pitch is, it would be really nice if England can win the toss. Despite my heavy criticisms, I do think England would have triumphed if they batted first in this test, because it was quite kind to bat on for the first five sessions.

Duty281 wrote:  
Pakistan were right with some of their selection, getting Ghulam in for Babar proved to be inspired, but the selection of Zahid was completely wasted, and the spot would have been better going to Naseem.

Seeing what pitch is produced is going to be very interesting. If it's one similar to the first test, then perhaps it shows that it is really difficult to prepare bowling friendly wickets in Pakistan, and the PCB get a bit of slack. But if they can suddenly drum up a classic sub continental turner on demand, without having to play a game on it beforehand, then it shows how foolish the PCB have been in the last few years, preparing roads for no conceivable benefit to their side.
 

Geo News reported that selection committee ordered the curator in Pindi to stop watering not only the pitch but the entire square also since yesterday.
And if they shave off the grass down to 1 mm & use a Heavy Roller, sure it will produce a big turner.
I think in the best case Pindi will be like the India series pitches gentle turner on D1 to slow to moderate to big turn by D4.....still slow and  low but Day 4 & 5, variable bounce too....some scoot & some jump off a length.
Worst case would be if they use heavy roller too much...it cracks the dry pitch & it could like the D4 pitch from 1st Day.
They may  by design or err more likely  towards the worst case.

Why they didn't do this before?
I think as a nation with proud legacy of fast bowling & revere swing they felt their differentiation were their fast bowlers who could get more out of flat pitches.
On paper Naseem, Afridi, Harris Rauf, Mohd Amir looks a world class attack if fit and playing with team spirit.
Resorting to designer rank turner is regression necessitated by  desperate need to avoid ignominy of defeats & build some esteem among cricket fans thru wins.
It's a step back that will hurt in endeavors to be an all condition team.

I see little chance of Pak playing Naseem who is not even in the squad or even Hamza the seamer in the squad.
They might play a batter for Zahid or more likely bring in young SLA Mehran Mumtaz who is in the squad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c8rdznnyd6go

Smith likely to be absent for tests two and three in NZ, so Cox is in line to make his debut then.

After flourishing on a tired, cracked pitch in the second Test, Pakistan are employing every method at their disposal to get the surface for Thursday’s deciding encounter in Rawalpindi in a similar state – with the aid of a pair of giant windbreaks, two outsized fans and six patio heaters.

The fans were used before the second Test to accelerate the deterioration of the pitch in Multan, with the intention of creating a surface that would offer Pakistan’s spinners maximum turn and grip.

On Sunday they had positioned three gas-fuelled patio heaters at each end of the pitch to get the air as hot as possible, a giant fan behind each of them to send the freshly baked air rolling across the surface, and a windbreak at each end to stop it escaping, allowing it to be reheated and recycled. Pakistan will hope not only that three more days of roasting makes the pitch perfect for spin, but also that England don’t spoil everything by winning the toss to give their own spinners the best of conditions.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/oct/20/cricket-pakistan-patio-heaters-giant-fans-pitch-third-test-england

Pakistan pulling out all the stops to get a sharp turning surface.

Proper pitch tampering this. Great stuff. None of the cloak and daggers bulls**t from the CWC. Veiled statements about whether pitches were changed at the last minute. Nah, f**k that. Get me every patio heater you can and two massive fans. Let's go to town.

I genuinely like it given how god awful pitches in Rawalpindi usually are. T1 gave me my fill of watching batters breaking records for 4 days then seeing if one team might crumble on D5.

Duty281 wrote:After flourishing on a tired, cracked pitch in the second Test, Pakistan are employing every method at their disposal to get the surface for Thursday’s deciding encounter in Rawalpindi in a similar state – with the aid of a pair of giant windbreaks, two outsized fans and six patio heaters.

The fans were used before the second Test to accelerate the deterioration of the pitch in Multan, with the intention of creating a surface that would offer Pakistan’s spinners maximum turn and grip.

On Sunday they had positioned three gas-fuelled patio heaters at each end of the pitch to get the air as hot as possible, a giant fan behind each of them to send the freshly baked air rolling across the surface, and a windbreak at each end to stop it escaping, allowing it to be reheated and recycled. Pakistan will hope not only that three more days of roasting makes the pitch perfect for spin, but also that England don’t spoil everything by winning the toss to give their own spinners the best of conditions.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/oct/20/cricket-pakistan-patio-heaters-giant-fans-pitch-third-test-england

Pakistan pulling out all the stops to get a sharp turning surface.

Its Tragicomic

Looks like good progress. Might be a three dayer?

Maybe a little ott but I suppose part of touring is dealing with home cooked pitches.

Be funny if England won the toss

GSC wrote:Maybe a little ott but I suppose part of touring is dealing with home cooked pitches.

Be funny if England won the toss

If it's a square turner from 1st session then it renders the toss moot

KP_fan wrote:

GSC wrote:Maybe a little ott but I suppose part of touring is dealing with home cooked pitches.

Be funny if England won the toss

If it's a square turner from 1st session then it renders the toss moot

If they really can turn this one into an absolute bunsen then England are in some trouble I think. Pakistan bats were not as hapless against Leach and Bashir as England's were against their spinners (once the ball started to do a lot on day two). To the extent that Pakistan didn't need seamers at all , while England were reliant on Carse and Potts to a fair extent even late in the game. Hopefully some of the bats might have learned a bit about what not to do on a spinning pitch -and maybe Root will come up with a big one.

Like KC , I would rather see a pitch that gives the bowlers a bit of help than a total road. Not sure Rawalpindi can be turned into a minefield overnight , so we might see something in between these first two surfaces - which could make for a very interesting contest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c99v9vd7r53o

Buttler out of the white ball tour of the West Indies as his troublesome calf injury refuses to heal. Not looking good for Buttler.

England XI announced

Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Brook, Stokes, Smith, Ahmed, Atkinson, Leach, Bashir.

Carse rested for Atkinson, Ahmed in for Potts. England expecting another huge turner, Brook said apparently the groundsmen have been "raking" the wicket!
Be handy to win the toss please Ben.

It's a long batting lineup. Well earned rest for Carse after his efforts

Long on paper, but definite question marks over how many Crawley, Pope, Stokes and Smith might make in these conditions. Then probably unfair to ask too much of 8 and lower. Still, if any of those 4 even make it to 50, that could make a huge difference

"I think we got a bit late": Saud Shakeel  
He says they should have realized moving to, preparing & practicing on spin pitches vs Eng much before start of series.

Well better late then never, they stand a good chance of taking this 2-1

The 2 enforcer-role bowlers in last test for Eng are out.
Atiknson might have effect similar to Carse, affect of Rehan unknown, Stokes didn't bowl much anyway in last game

Think it's a bit risky going for only one specialist quick. If it's like the second test, two quicks might be needed for the first couple of days. I'd have probably got Pope out for Stone. Batting wise there probably isn't too much difference, with Pope only reaching 30 once in his last 11 innings in Asia.

Good to see Rehan back. Hope Stokes actually utilises him. In India, Rehan often didn't get the ball until the third session, and Root often got the ball before him!

I'm generally not a big fan of 1 quick in the XI but given reports on the pitch it may make sense. An offie, SLA and leggie who can turn it both ways is all bases covered on options. Quality is more iffy at current.

Iffy quality spin basically been the case for England since Underwood retired in the 80s though. Even then, Underwood started his F-C career when there were still uncovered wickets and spin was more prevalent. For players who came entirely after covered wickets, Swann is the exception rather than the rule for English spin. It's probably a debate between Monty or Leach for second after Swann. Then it's into debates around Emburey, Tuffers and Moeen with averages nearer 40 than 30. Slim pickings.

If they're expecting a proper Bunsen, then stacking the deck with options probably makes sense if you aren't sure how they might go as individuals on a certain day. Leach is the most rounded but can be 'got after' and remains far better against RHBs. Bashir can bowl magic balls but needs the accuracy that comes with experience and looks more comfortable against LHBs. Rehan can rip it both ways and has that wrist-spinners knack of getting wickets even if he's not bowling great. Root can bowl a bit quicker, round arm, some will skid and some will turn. Rudimentary but effective with the right matchup and conditions.

Given that Leach looks far more controlled and accurate overall, I think it's interesting that him and Bashir have basically the same economy in the series. Agha in particular has seemed to target Leach in the situations where he wants to put his foot down.

If it's a proper s**t tip type pitch then I'd definitely want the 7th batter over dropping Pope to fit in 3 spinners and 2 seamers. Even if he is questionable against spin. If the scoring is going to be low enough that one aberrational big knock can win a Test then I'd prefer the specialist batter. Even when that batter isn't good against spin, he's more likely to score that unexpected and all important knock than a bowler who can hold a bat. Unless you've got a bowling all-rounder who is excellent batting against spin compared to seam, such as Ashwin for India. Then it's a different discussion. I don't think Rehan or Carse fall into that bracket though! So, I'd stick with Pope from the squad out there.

The old "pick Keaton Jennings in the subcontinent" debate and whether batters should be selected based on conditions like we do with bowlers is again a different discussion. It's one I wish cricket considered more though. Having someone like Jennings on these tours, even if you start with your 'first choice' batters, would allow them to take struggling players out the firing line for a game if needed. You don't even have to refer to it as dropping the player missing out. If Stokes/Pope/whoever is looking like hot garbage against spin and you're expecting a Bunsen, just say they've got a niggle and bring in Jennings as a specialist like you would the extra spin bowlers.

king_carlos wrote:

Iffy quality spin basically been the case for England since Underwood retired in the 80s though. Even then, Underwood started his F-C career when there were still uncovered wickets and spin was more prevalent. For players who came entirely after covered wickets, Swann is the exception rather than the rule for English spin. It's probably a debate between Monty or Leach for second after Swann. Then it's into debates around Emburey, Tuffers and Moeen with averages nearer 40 than 30. Slim pickings.

.

Phil Edmonds was good...he was better than Leach & Tufnell IMO.
He did not have the luxury of bump in averages due to playing some cricket on "rank turners" of subcontinent.
When he played the pitches in India and Pak were quite dead.

For same reasons of not getting the bump-up on Rank turners, John Emburey was better than his average 38 would suggest.

KP_fan wrote:

king_carlos wrote:  

Iffy quality spin basically been the case for England since Underwood retired in the 80s though. Even then, Underwood started his F-C career when there were still uncovered wickets and spin was more prevalent. For players who came entirely after covered wickets, Swann is the exception rather than the rule for English spin. It's probably a debate between Monty or Leach for second after Swann. Then it's into debates around Emburey, Tuffers and Moeen with averages nearer 40 than 30. Slim pickings.

.

Phil Edmonds was good...he was better than Leach & Tufnell  IMO.
He did not have the luxury of bump in averages due to playing some cricket on "rank turners" of subcontinent.
When he played the pitches in India and Pak were quite dead.

For same reasons of not getting the bump-up on Rank turners, John Emburey was better than his average 38 would suggest.

I'd honestly forgotten about Edmonds. I didn't see him bowl but was aware of him having been such a stats guy growing up. A similar record to Leach and Monty. Very solid at home. His averages against Oz (37.16), India (40.78) and Windies (86.66 albeit a 3 game sample size) are all relatively poor though. Whilst he averaged 25 against NZ and Pakistan, taking 53 of his 125 wickets against them. Which is interesting.

NZ didn't have great batting then. Glenn Turner should've been but often didn't play Tests. Then Crowe came along as their first great batter in the 80s, followed by Jones, who started just after Edmonds played the Black Caps. A few good batters around Crowe, but, NZ historically struggled for batters until they flattened their pitches recently.

Pakistan had mixed batting line-ups. Miandad is a true great, I sometimes think his impact on how batters attacked is understated. Saleem Malik has a fantastic record but is a somewhat forgotten cricketer due to the latterly quashed match fixings charges. Sadiq Mohammad was stylish whilst lacking the output of Hanif. Then Hanif's son Shoaib was more obdurate but carved out a very good career through it. Imran Khan also had that incredible decade long spell where he average over 50 with the bat and under 20 with the ball. There were a good few batters in those Pakistan teams that Edmonds played with mixed records though.

I should have included Edmonds in there, no doubt. Another mid thirties average being in the discussion with Leach and Monty for second best after Swann since covered pitches took over doesn't really change the greater point though. Whilst there was cricket played on uncovered pitches, England were producing strong Test spinners regularly. Deadly Derek being the tail end of that where he learned on uncovered pitches but still thrived on covered ones. Since covered pitches, we've had Swann, plus a shortlist of good spinners but not standout ones.

Embers is interesting as looking back he seems almost like a prototype for Ashley Giles and Paul Harris type spinners we saw for a while around the Noughties. Tall, strong guys who were difficult to sweep as they got bounce but also harder to pull as they could fire it in if batters looked to sit on the back foot. Emburey bowled slower and with more loop than those guys, as that's how spin was bowled then. Bounce was a big weapon of his though. Whilst he often bowled defensively in the face of unhelpful pitches of the time. Using that height and bounce to limit scoring areas and control the economy more than taking wickets. At the top level of course. His F-C career is prolific.

Has been Swann - Daylight - host of others ; about whose relative merits one could debate for hours. Though of course Underwood was himself a mile ahead of those around and shortly before him : had been a while since Laker/Lock/Wardle .

Certainly right now , as KC says , it makes sense to have three , all imperfect , but different spinners on duty for what seems likely to be a pitch which offers nothing to the pace men. Stokes is probably ready now to take on a bit of donkey work alongside the now refreshed Atkinson : the rotating and resting on this tour has generally made sense - though one wonders why they bothered to bring Stone at all given his documented interrupted availability ?

Would certainly help if Stokes could win a toss : England are about due , surely ? Either way , some of the bats will need to show they have learned from their experience in the latest match , or else the home side will fancy their chances again. Makes a nice change to have a best of three decider up at the end of a Test Series anyway ...

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

king_carlos wrote:  

Iffy quality spin basically been the case for England since Underwood retired in the 80s though. Even then, Underwood started his F-C career when there were still uncovered wickets and spin was more prevalent. For players who came entirely after covered wickets, Swann is the exception rather than the rule for English spin. It's probably a debate between Monty or Leach for second after Swann. Then it's into debates around Emburey, Tuffers and Moeen with averages nearer 40 than 30. Slim pickings.

.

Phil Edmonds was good...he was better than Leach & Tufnell  IMO.
He did not have the luxury of bump in averages due to playing some cricket on "rank turners" of subcontinent.
When he played the pitches in India and Pak were quite dead.

For same reasons of not getting the bump-up on Rank turners, John Emburey was better than his average 38 would suggest.

I'd honestly forgotten about Edmonds. I didn't see him bowl but was aware of him having been such a stats guy growing up. A similar record to Leach and Monty. Very solid at home. His averages against Oz (37.16), India (40.78) and Windies (86.66 albeit a 3 game sample size) are all relatively poor though. Whilst he averaged 25 against NZ and Pakistan, taking 53 of his 125 wickets against them. Which is interesting.

NZ didn't have great batting then. Glenn Turner should've been but often didn't play Tests. Then Crowe came along as their first great batter in the 80s, followed by Jones, who started just after Edmonds played the Black Caps. A few good batters around Crowe, but, NZ historically struggled for batters until they flattened their pitches recently.

Pakistan had mixed batting line-ups. Miandad is a true great, I sometimes think his impact on how batters attacked is understated. Saleem Malik has a fantastic record but is a somewhat forgotten cricketer due to the latterly quashed match fixings charges. Sadiq Mohammad was stylish whilst lacking the output of Hanif. Then Hanif's son Shoaib was more obdurate but carved out a very good career through it. Imran Khan also had that incredible decade long spell where he average over 50 with the bat and under 20 with the ball. There were a good few batters in those Pakistan teams that Edmonds played with mixed records though.

I should have included Edmonds in there, no doubt. Another mid thirties average being in the discussion with Leach and Monty for second best after Swann since covered pitches took over doesn't really change the greater point though. Whilst there was cricket played on uncovered pitches, England were producing strong Test spinners regularly. Deadly Derek being the tail end of that where he learned on uncovered pitches but still thrived on covered ones. Since covered pitches, we've had Swann, plus a shortlist of good spinners but not standout ones.

Embers is interesting as looking back he seems almost like a prototype for Ashley Giles and Paul Harris type spinners we saw for a while around the Noughties. Tall, strong guys who were difficult to sweep as they got bounce but also harder to pull as they could fire it in if batters looked to sit on the back foot. Emburey bowled slower and with more loop than those guys, as that's how spin was bowled then. Bounce was a big weapon of his though. Whilst he often bowled defensively in the face of unhelpful pitches of the time. Using that height and bounce to limit scoring areas and control the economy more than taking wickets. At the top level of course. His F-C career is prolific.

Hi KC,

When looking at players with similar test numbers across eras I further look at following

1- The FC figures of Edmonds for example puts him 5 & 7 points on average ahead of Tufnell & Monty respectively.
And he played in an era when English county standards were quite high. The Who's Who of world cricket were playing or vying for county contracts in 80s & pitches were not conducive for spinners. Pitches were worldwide including subcontinent at their flattest in 1980s.

2- Qualitative.
Visually Edmonds with balding Pate rotund & tubby waist always looking like a pleasant gentleman in mid 40s even when in 30s.... used a lot of shoulder, biceps & triceps to control flight & impart revs ,a bit like Bedi & suhc bowlers get drift also when nothing else is helping them.
Unlike Tufnell, Leach, Maninder, Nomal Ali type SLAs who largely rely on fingers only needing more in the pitch to be effective.

Monty though could use shoulder /biceps and was an excellent spinner.
His problems were more off the field I think, bitter failed marriage, inability to strike further relationships and as I hear from acquaintances in UK familiar with him....a general inability to assimilate /integrate into British Society unlike what Nasser & Ramprakash type South Asians were able to achieve.

Going further back there were two excellent but not typical but rather freak spinners that Eng had tht I have heard of

Syd Barnes ( not to be confused with his name sake Aussie opener) was probably the greatest mystery bowler who could swing, seam and spin across the stumps in both direction on the most unhelpful surfaces as legend would have it...often in the air in one direction and off the pitch in another.
His 189 wkts @16 average & 7wkts / test & more than 700FC wkts at 17 average are unparalleled.

I saw ( or maybe  read) a Boycott interview rating Barnes as the greatest English bowler ever who according to Boycott  bowled very  fastish spin / cutters  although Boycott himself too would not have seen Barnes in action, but had probably heard first hand accounts, stories & larger than life myths about Barnes from those who had seen him.

And then Underwood who bowled cutters,  and mixed seam up with traditional SLA, specializing in exploiting the overnight moisture / dampness in the pitch was more in the freak category.
We don't have slowmos and zoomed in images, but I suspect India's Chandra although classified as a leggie was also a freak who bowled cutters and seam-ups quite a lot with traditional legbreaks and googlies.

Pakistan unchanged for the third test. They might have brought Hamza in for Zahid, but Hamza suffered an injury.

Interesting to note that this will be England's last sub continent test for a short while. They're not scheduled to play a sub continent test again until February 2027, about 27 months away.

England's overseas tests will be filled up until then by New Zealand (next month), Australia (late 25/early 26) and South Africa (Christmas/New Year 2026). Actually seems very sparse in general, that England will only be playing five away tests between January 2025 and November 2026.

Thoughts seems to be this should be better than the second test and hold together for a few days before it starts falling apart. Good news for when England lose the toss

If it does turn out that way then picking three spinners was definitely a mistake, and heaps more pressure on England to win the toss and not be bowling on day one. Seven tosses lost in a row.

Apparently the record is ten lost tosses in a row, set by Nasser. Nasser losing the toss was actually a good thing, because when he won it he did things like putting Australia into bat on a beauty of a wicket in Brisbane.

And it'll be Crawley's 50th test. 50 tests and averaging 32.

alfie wrote:
...

Certainly right now , as KC says , it makes sense to have three ,  all imperfect , but different spinners on duty for what seems likely to be a pitch which offers nothing to the pace men. Stokes is probably ready now to take on a bit of donkey work alongside the now refreshed Atkinson : the rotating and resting on this tour has generally made sense - though one wonders why they bothered to bring Stone at all given his documented interrupted availability ?

...

I fully accept you never know for sure how a pitch is going to play until you get on it. However, you normally have a better idea the closer to the start time. It seems unnecessarily premature (which is a polite way of saying nuts) to name an unusual mix of bowlers forty-eight hours in advance when the wicket is still being actively worked on. Although England's current management have regularly chosen to do that, one of their mantras is not to be afraid to do things differently and I feel that should have been the case here.

If Stokes can take on a decent workload it's ok I feel. Not likely to use the seamers for long spells rather than short bursts while the spinners handle the workload.

Woakes does seem to have been picked as stokes insurance

GSC wrote:If Stokes can take on a decent workload it's ok I feel. Not likely to use the seamers for long spells rather than short bursts while the spinners handle the workload.

I'm not saying the selection is necessarily wrong but settling on it so early is.