The cricket thread

crunchman

Pitches like that do give a huge advantage to the side winning the toss.  Assuming a basic level of competence from both sides, it's basically win the toss and win the game.

Stuckfast

Do you really think England would have won the Test had they batted first? Bear in mind India made 270-odd in their second dig and we couldn't get close to that in our first. It was also turning from day 1 -- the ball that bowled Kohli in the first session turned miles. The bounce became more variable as it went on but that's hardly unusual.

guitars4you

Stuckfast said:

Do you really think England would have won the Test had they batted first? Bear in mind India made 270-odd in their second dig and we couldn't get close to that in our first. It was also turning from day 1 -- the ball that bowled Kohli in the first session turned miles. The bounce became more variable as it went on but that's hardly unusual.

I think the second innings for India was a free for all - No pressure whatsoever so they could look at a more cavalier attitude to bat in that innings. especially when it got to Ashwin's turn to bat - 100% nothing to loose and I dare say psychologically England knew they had lost at this stage before he scored 10 or 20, let alone 100 +

I dare say England could have had a better application in both innings - But IMO the damage was done by Rohit in the 1st innings - By attacking us from the outset he made the difference - take out his 161 and India barely scored 160 in the 1st innings, so that would have been a more even contest - Total credit to Rohit for his cavalier attitude - England could/should have allowed 1 or 2 early batsman to try a similar approach - As I said earlier, on such a wicket,  better to be out for 30-50, after 50 balls, being positive, than prodding and hoping and after 50 balls only have 5 on the board and then you are out

I'm surprised Rohit did not get MOM - He set the platform that everything else followed - As I said without him India's 1st innings was around 160 - Let's see how good Ashwin and Axar would have been with a small score to defend - They would have still won by a big margin without Ashwn's 100 - So IMO Rohit should have been MOM

Stuckfast

Agree, Rohit won the match for them, Ashwin's ton was the icing on the cake really.

scrumhalf

First innings runs on a pitch like that were always going to be worth a lot. 

guitars4you

Stuckfast said:

Agree, Rohit won the match for them, Ashwin's ton was the icing on the cake really.

exactly - Without that platform they would not have found it so easy to apply such pressure to our 1st innings

crunchman

Stuckfast said:

Do you really think England would have won the Test had they batted first? Bear in mind India made 270-odd in their second dig and we couldn't get close to that in our first. It was also turning from day 1 -- the ball that bowled Kohli in the first session turned miles. The bounce became more variable as it went on but that's hardly unusual.

I did say "assuming a basic level of competence".  An offspinner who goes at over 4 an over on that pitch does not fit that description.

It would have been a lot closer.  The pitch would have been a bit easier to bat on, and the English batsmen might not have had the same pressure on them without India already having a good score on the board.  If England had got 250 or more batting first, it would have been a very different game.

scrumhalf

Just a thought, but how much of a difference would someone like Swann have made? He used to say that his job in the first innings was to keep it tight, in the second innings to get wickets. 

Mudcrutch

My normal sleep patterns are a pain at the best of times but I won’t miss the 03:45 starts and having to stay awake during the lunch break.
Ive put more eye drops in during this test.
I do think it’s time to bring in some future new blood.
West Ham have been doing well so all is good .

rocktron

These are e-mail I sent in replies to a friend to discuss the state of play. I think I must be the epitome of an eternal optimist. :-

1. Hi xxxxxxx

England did very well today to take the four remaining Indian wickets for only 29 runs. If you take away Rohit Sharma's score, the rest of the Indian batsmen mustered only 168 runs between them. That is a plus for the England bowlers, bearing in mind that Stokes didn't bowl to take some pressure off tired spinning fingers.

I was beginning to think that India would bat England out of this test, but they didn't by getting bowled out for 329. It is a pity that the openers aren't giving England the platform of a good start to build on. Lawrence has to come in and do the job of an opener. I am not sure that he is even an effective No. 3 batsman, much less an opener.

This match isn't over yet. India could get bowled out with a lead of around 300 runs. However, I think England would struggle to score anything near 300 to win the match on this wicket. Possible, but unlikely, although stranger things have happened.

As I expected, too many batsmen, on both sides, were making mistakes, and got themselves out when playing the orthodox sweep shot. Even the apparently in-form Rohit Sharma made some mistakes playing it. I was happy to see that not many unorthodox reverse sweep shots were played.

To play spin bowling with a horizontal bat, especially on this wicket, is asking for trouble with a top edge, glove, or an lbw decision, if the ball pops up more than expected. A straight bat would counter varying heights of bounce, although an edge cannot be discounted.

The Indian bowlers were confident in their ability to bowl line and length. They were able to have vultures gathered around the bat to inhibit stroke-play and gobble up catches. It seemed that the England batsmen were unable to hit the ball away from the middle square. Case in point was when Lawrence meekly surrendered his wicket to the last ball before lunch after doing the hard work in defying the Indian spinners for nearly two hours.

Root falling to a sweep shot resulted in him not being there to steady the innings. At the time, I was beginning to think that the follow-on would not be saved.

I don't know about the playing surfaces of the Ahmedabad ground, and whether they are conducive to pace, or spin. The Indian groundsmen are unlikely to prepare a green-top to aid the pace bowlers.

No need to panic. There is still a lot to play for, and for the batsmen to gain experience of spin bowling in adverse conditions. Take some positives from this test and move on.

Stay safe.

Kind Regards

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

2. Hello xxxxxxx

The fast bowlers were used as "shine-removers" in this match.

If Olly Stone can remain fit, I think his place in the England side is secure for the Australia series, although Mark Wood may be called up for the India Third Test.

Had it not been for the England first innings batting collapse, India would not be running away with this second test. India were bowled out for 286 in their second innings - a modest score. Credit must go to the England bowlers.

I often wonder why a Night Watchman is used. In most matches they get out quickly and offer no protection to the incoming top order batsmen. Root still had to bat out the remaining few overs whilst sacrificing Leach in the process.

Ashwin showed that with determination it is possible for the England batsmen to make big scores. Three batsmen would need to hit centuries to win, or save the match.

With such a big total to get, India would set attacking fields around the bat, in the morning, to inhibit stroke play, and quick scoring. It would be interesting to see what happens if England can score a further 250 runs for the loss of 5 wickets to get to 300 by close of play tomorrow. That would put the cat among the pigeons. Kohli would have to remove his close catchers.

I hope England can put up a batting resistance. On current evidence, on this wicket, it seems a daunting prospect.

Stay safe.

Kind Regards 

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

A Test pitch should last five days. That one was poor halfway through day 2. 

Theoretically it should, but lots of test matches are over within 4 days. Having a look at England's last test match series in the last few years.

Just counting 3/4 day test matches,

India* so far (1/2), Sri Lanka* (1/2), Pakistan (1/3 - 2 tests were rained off), Windies (0/2), South Africa* (2/4), NZ* (0/2), Australia (2/5), Ireland (1/1), Windies* (3/3)

The non starred ones were home series, the sole Ireland test and an away Windies one was over in 3 days. 

Heartfeltdawn

Stuckfast said:

Do you really think England would have won the Test had they batted first? Bear in mind India made 270-odd in their second dig and we couldn't get close to that in our first. It was also turning from day 1 -- the ball that bowled Kohli in the first session turned miles. The bounce became more variable as it went on but that's hardly unusual.

India made 270 in the second innings against a dispirited opposition with close to sod all to offer. For all the praise accorded to Root this summer, I thought his captaincy in that second innings lacked any sort of spark. 

There's variable bounce and variable bounce. I wouldn't shrug off Sabina Park in 1998 as variable bounce and I'm not here. 

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

A Test pitch should last five days. That one was poor halfway through day 2. 

Theoretically it should, but lots of test matches are over within 4 days. Having a look at England's last test match series in the last few years.

Just counting 3/4 day test matches,

India* so far (1/2), Sri Lanka* (1/2), Pakistan (1/3 - 2 tests were rained off), Windies (0/2), South Africa* (2/4), NZ* (0/2), Australia (2/5), Ireland (1/1), Windies* (3/3)

The non starred ones were home series, the sole Ireland test and an away Windies one was over in 3 days. 

Many do finish early. In these days when tours are rapid-fire affairs and warm-up games are minimal in order to fit the limited overs shite in, a number of sides are quite undercooked when they get out onto a Test pitch and simply can't hack it. Witness the Sri Lankans and their hapless batting at times this winter. 

Take the India tour to Australia. Two three-day games, 5 ODIs, 3 T20s before the Test series. India were bowled out for 36 in the First Test. Now some have said that there were plenty of games before the Tests. In the final T20, only Kohli played in the First Test. The First ODI game, 6 of the 11 played in the Test series (although not all at once). 

Compare that to the 1989 Australia tour to England. The first Test was June 8th. Before that you had the following:

• Australians v League Cricket Conference XI at Dartmouth, 5 May 1989
• Australians v Duchess of Norfolk's XI at Arundel, 7 May 1989
• Sussex v Australians at Hove, 9 May 1989
• Marylebone Cricket Club v Australians at Lord's, 11 May 1989
• Worcestershire v Australians at Worcester, 13–14 May 1989
• Somerset v Australians at Taunton, 17–19 May 1989
• Middlesex v Australians at Lord's, 20–22 May 1989
• Yorkshire v Australians at Leeds, 23 May 1989

3x ODI games 25th to 29th May.

31st May to 2nd June - Warwickshire versus Australia

That's a level of acclimatization you don't see on any tour now! The current Covid situation makes it even harder to gain meaningful match practice beforehand. 

crunchman

Moeen going home:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/56082356

I suspect that will be the last we see of him as a test player.  He's 34 later this year, and they will probably only play one spinner in Australia, which is likely to be Leach.

sixstringsupplies

^blessing in disguise. It's strange that you can get 8 wickets in the match and still be thought of as not bowling well.

Having played and adored cricket my whole life, I can not understand how a professional cricketer can be so inconsistent with the ball. As a professional bowler, you would have thought landing it on a decent line and length consistently should come naturally. This is not an attack on Moeen Ali, but Bess too, and all spinners since Swann retired. There must be a spinner on the first class circuit who bowls consistent line and length, or doesn't bowl the release ball once an over. The magic tricks can be developed. These guys gave been bowling spin for years, practicing in the nets day in day out to hone their skills. 

How can they be so inconsistent?

This is why Leach is the best spinner - he is the most consistent, by far. 

I wish Moeen Ali well, but his International career ended when he got dropped during the world cup group stages. A very talented player and elegant batsman when at his best but due to being mis-managed, shuffled, playing in too many roles (and subsequently not knowing his role or ever having a definitive role) he has always been a bit-part player showing glimpes of brilliance.

This England team are a world class spinner short of being a world class team.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Moeen going home:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/56082356

I suspect that will be the last we see of him as a test player.  He's 34 later this year, and they will probably only play one spinner in Australia, which is likely to be Leach.

George Dobell's article gives a very different spin on Moeen leaving. Short version: he was always meant to be going home after the 2nd Test.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-v-england-2020-21-spurned-moeen-ali-begins-the-long-kiss-goodnight-after-choosing-to-leave-india-tour-1252037

Heartfeltdawn

sixstringsupplies said:

^blessing in disguise. It's strange that you can get 8 wickets in the match and still be thought of as not bowling well.

Years ago, I had a Sunday game against a side. We bowled them out quickly (opening bowlers and me) knocked off the runs quickly, and then decided to let them bat again. This time, we put our wicketkeeper and a middle order batsman on to bowl. The keeper took 8 wickets. It's the worst 8-for I've ever seen. It is quite possible to bowl shit and take wickets. It's also possible to bowl some crackerjack balls, take 12 wickets in a match, and still only play one more Test after this. Witness Jason Krejza: 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-india-2008-09-345666/india-vs-australia-4th-test-345672/full-scorecard

Stuckfast

I thought Mo bowled more consistently in the second Test than Bess did in the first. He looked rusty in the first innings but didn't bowl many bad balls in the second.

Also, Bess got five-for in the first Sri Lanka Test bowling an absolute heap of shite.

crunchman

Stuckfast said:

I thought Mo bowled more consistently in the second Test than Bess did in the first. He looked rusty in the first innings but didn't bowl many bad balls in the second.

Also, Bess got five-for in the first Sri Lanka Test bowling an absolute heap of shite.

In the first innings though, Root kept himself on with the second new ball, and looked far more dangerous.

Moeen is nearly 34.  He is what he is.  He's always going to give those full tosses and short balls as a release to the batsman and leak runs.

Bess is up and down, but he's young and can learn from the experience.  I think (hope?) he's the kind of character who won't be damaged by it - anyone remember Simon Kerrigan? 

Stuckfast

That pitch actually suited quickish bowlers like Root and Axar Patel rather than the big spinners though. Kuldeep hardly bowled.