The cricket thread

scrumhalf

Yay!

There will be a fourth innings. 

guitars4you

obviously a new format - combine the new 100 game with a test match 

Trying to recall when a test match finished in 2 days - Recall many 3 day matches 

Hard to see why we went with 3 seamers when almost 100% all wickets gone to spin - And why we have such a poor tail

Stuckfast

What the hell was that shot from Archer? That was dreadful.

guitars4you

guitars4you said:

obviously a new format - combine the new 100 game with a test match 

Trying to recall when a test match finished in 2 days - Recall many 3 day matches 

Hard to see why we went with 3 seamers when almost 100% all wickets gone to spin - And why we have such a poor tail

just sussed it with this new 100 game - You have to leave a lead of less than 100 for the 4th innings 

Stuckfast

Gnaah. What's the betting Broad comes in and attempts a mighty hoick?

scrumhalf

Stuckfast said:

Gnaah. What's the betting Broad comes in and attempts a mighty hoick?

And goes for a DRS. 

Teetonetal

Stuckfast said:

Gnaah. What's the betting Broad comes in and attempts a mighty hoick?

Might as well. Trying to play properly doesn't seem to work. Chance the arm, connect a couple of sixes and be a match winner  

scrumhalf

Seventeen wickets in just under two sessions. Not what you'd call a fair balance between bat and ball, even allowing for crappy batting. 

guitars4you

Cook just stated almost impossible to bat on that wicket - So surely if this was a county game there would be some fine/penalty points  ????

Just had a message from a friend who is a big cricket fan - He said that had I noticed that when we bat, the umpires tend to give any LBW appeal as out, then up to us to refer and as we know that if it is only just hitting, the original decision stands - Yet when India bat they are not giving the same decision as such we refer and a marginal 'hitting' will not be out - Anyone else go with this 

crunchman

scrumhalf said:

Seventeen wickets in just under two sessions. Not what you'd call a fair balance between bat and ball, even allowing for crappy batting. 

The Indian board won't like this.  They will lose a lot of money with the game being over in 2 days.

There has to be balance.  You don't want to go back to the days of "chief executive's pitches" that are impossible to get a result on but you do want a balance between bat and ball.

crunchman

guitars4you said:

Cook just stated almost impossible to bat on that wicket - So surely if this was a county game there would be some fine/penalty points  ????

Just had a message from a friend who is a big cricket fan - He said that had I noticed that when we bat, the umpires tend to give any LBW appeal as out, then up to us to refer and as we know that if it is only just hitting, the original decision stands - Yet when India bat they are not giving the same decision as such we refer and a marginal 'hitting' will not be out - Anyone else go with this 

Umpires have always given home decisions.  Maybe they need to reduce the size of the umpire's call area.

They need a faster frame rate on the cameras as well.  It looked to me like Foakes got an edge, but the frame rate wasn't fast enough to be certain.

They also need cameras square to the wicket at a lower height, so you could see if there is daylight between foot and ground on a stumping.

guitars4you

is it worth watching, just in case - Or assume something like 50 for 0

scrumhalf

crunchman said:

scrumhalf said:

Seventeen wickets in just under two sessions. Not what you'd call a fair balance between bat and ball, even allowing for crappy batting. 

The Indian board won't like this.  They will lose a lot of money with the game being over in 2 days.

There has to be balance.  You don't want to go back to the days of "chief executive's pitches" that are impossible to get a result on but you do want a balance between bat and ball.

I can't imagine that the bods at Channel 4 will be over the moon, either. 

scrumhalf

46 balls to knock off the 49 runs required without losing a wicket.

It's a funny old game. 

Heartfeltdawn

Ahmedabad? No, Ahmedawful. 

Not always like this though....

-I still think day-night Tests are a shitty gimmick and need to end. 

-The measure of how crap this wicket is is that we have two of the best quick bowlers in the world on display and they're bowled 11 overs between them in a 5-day game.

-Some people are claiming the bounce was true. Sure. If you discount the fact that you have balls rising to Pant and then going to him on the bounce from the very first over of the match. Might even recall Root getting one that popped into the gloves and needed some spray too. 

-Now people are talking of us needing to play on wickets like that at county level. Good luck producing them in a climate and schedule like ours. We shouldn't produce tracks that turn like that from day 1. Give that to spin bowlers and you'll get all sorts of crap taking wickets for fun (like in Windies domestic cricket) and the batsmen suffer. It's the balanced approach that is needed.  

axisus

Well that was embarrassing .....

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

Ahmedabad? No, Ahmedawful. 

Not always like this though....

-I still think day-night Tests are a shitty gimmick and need to end. 

-The measure of how crap this wicket is is that we have two of the best quick bowlers in the world on display and they're bowled 11 overs between them in a 5-day game.

A good point.

There have been some discussion of a lot of the dismissals all being to straight balls which didn't spin.

Aside from the pitch being a poor one, a lot of the batting technique was unsatisfactory for both teams. 21/30 wickets were from straight balls.

Legionreturns

As much as it's generally accepted that you can produce a wicket which favours the home team, having one where any kind of pace bowler is redundant even in the first few overs of a new ball, and it turns like the Stig on the first morning, is just taking the piss. 

England were crap, but by producing a pitch that negated pretty much any batting talent and all pace bowling, and means the game is over with 3.5 days of play still left is ludicrous and should result in a big fine. 

guitars4you

• England lasted 476 balls across two innings - the fifth fewest in their Test history.
• England scored less than 200 runs in the game for only the seventh time, and the third since 1904.
• It is the eighth two-day Test since World War Two and England's first defeat inside two days since 1921
• India completed the quickest Test win since 1935 not long into the final session.
  

Interesting info from the Beeb

crunchman

earwighoney said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Ahmedabad? No, Ahmedawful. 

Not always like this though....

-I still think day-night Tests are a shitty gimmick and need to end. 

-The measure of how crap this wicket is is that we have two of the best quick bowlers in the world on display and they're bowled 11 overs between them in a 5-day game.

A good point.

There have been some discussion of a lot of the dismissals all being to straight balls which didn't spin.

Aside from the pitch being a poor one, a lot of the batting technique was unsatisfactory for both teams. 21/30 wickets were from straight balls.

It's not as simple as that.  Some balls were turning big, while others went straight on.

That was probably partly because of the pink ball.  It has a lot more lacquer on it than a conventional red ball.  If it lands on the seam, it's likely to grip and spin.  If it lands on the lacquer, it skids straight on - and probably more so than with a conventional ball.

With a conventional ball, the surface of the ball that's been used and roughed up will grip more than a ball that is still covered in lacquer.  It's still likely to to turn - just not as much.  The variations in turn are likely to be less dramatic.  In this game, you had one ball turning dramatically, and the next not turning at all.  Batsmen were getting done by the straight ball because they were playing for the turn.

Unless they can actually get a pink ball that behaves like a proper cricket ball, then I think @Heartfeltdawn is right and they should do away with day/night tests.  Either that, or with modern LED technology, it might be possible to light a ground so well that you could just play in whites with a proper ball without running up a ridiculous electricity bill.