Eng in India

Page 18 of 20 Previous  1 ... 10 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Eng in India

Post by KP_fan on Tue 01 Nov 2016, 6:49 am

First topic message reminder :

England tour of India, 2016-17




Nov 09, Wed - Nov 13, Sun
India vs England, 1st Test
Saurashtra Cricket Association Stadium, Rajkot

Nov 17, Thu - Nov 21, Mon
India vs England, 2nd Test
Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy ACA-VDCA Cricket Stadium, Visakhapatnam


Nov 26, Sat - Nov 30, Wed
India vs England, 3rd Test
Punjab Cricket Association Stadium, Mohali

Dec 08, Thu - Dec 12, Mon
India vs England, 4th Test
Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai

Dec 16, Fri - Dec 20, Tue
India vs England, 5th Test
MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai


Jan 15, Sun
India vs England, 1st ODI
Maharashtra Cricket Association Stadium, Pune

Jan 19, Thu
India vs England, 2nd ODI
Barabati Stadium, Cuttack

Jan 22, Sun
India vs England, 3rd ODI
Eden Gardens, Kolkata

Jan 26, Thu
India vs England, 1st T20I
Green Park, Kanpur

Jan 29, Sun
India vs England, 2nd T20I
Vidarbha Cricket Association Ground, Nagpur

Feb 01, Wed
India vs England, 3rd T20I
M.Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru



Last edited by KP_fan on Tue 01 Nov 2016, 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
KP_fan

Posts : 6390
Join date : 2012-07-27

Back to top Go down


Re: Eng in India

Post by dyrewolfe on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:55 am

alfie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, naturally, there will now be over-analysis of things going on here. I stand by what I posted earlier in that there isn't too much difference between these two teams in terms of talent and make-up of the sides. The difference is that India have been more consistent and not gifted too many wickets away.

As Gooseberry says, look at the form of specialist batsmen of late and they don't yell out 'pick me'. Players like Adam Lyth, Gary Ballance, Vince, Compton, Carberry etc have had their chance and were dropped as they just couldn't weigh in with any runs of note. Would you bring in a specialist batsman and drop Ali (losing his bowling element) or drop Stokes who weighs in with valuable runs and wickets and Woakes does likewise (their batting average certainly exceeds batting specialists tried of late by England).

Of course not.  But at the same time I would not aim to perpetuate a lineup which employed Moeen batting in the top five in order to include a sixth bowler...and nor would I ask Bairstow to keep and bat at five.
Five bowlers )either three-two or four-one pace/spin is adequate anywhere , if they're the right bowlers. And if that includes players who can perform with the bat as well , excellent.  
The fact that several bowlers are handy with the bat is a plus for England.  But I refuse to believe there are no (more) players in the whole of England who are capable of doing a job in the top five...they just have to identify them.  And that should be the first task for 2017 - pending the arrival of a new Swann , either Moeen or Rashid can do the spin duties.


Completely agree with this.

The reason we can't achieve any kind of consistency IMO is because these players simply aren't the consistent type...its not in their nature or style of play. They take risks...looking like heroes when it works and failing dismally when it doesn't.
avatar
dyrewolfe

Posts : 6185
Join date : 2011-03-13
Location : Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:56 am

By the way we ought also to note that the team currently holds the Ashes and has recently won in South Africa...it is not as if they are being thumped all over the world. Yes they're struggling in Asia - same as everyone else struggles outside their comfort zone.
The team is still a work in progress ; needs some add-ons - not taking apart and reassembling.

Well played India as they do the job for just two wickets clap


alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:56 am

India win by eight wickets in just over an hour short of four days. India lead 2-0 with two tests to play.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by guildfordbat on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:56 am

Hi all and Alfie in particular - I assume you get the same commentary as on tv in the UK. Hussain was just questioning why six bowlers are needed.

A bit earlier Atherton described Batty's selection as an insurance policy in case the other two spinners failed but doubted that was needed any more in view of Rashid's improvement and Moeen being 'solid'. Atherton referred to Batty in this Test as 'a bit of a bystander' whilst Shastri called him 'a luxury'.

Atherton also speculated that if Hameed misses the next Test, Duckett could be recalled to open and Billings - currently with the Lions - added to the (late) middle order in place of Batty. That was along the lines of my post the other day. I know you, Alfie, prefer a fourth seamer. Not going to die in a ditch over this. Whatever we do and whoever we select, the top 5 need to make more runs and in an even consistent fashion.

guildfordbat

Posts : 11397
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by dyrewolfe on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:59 am

Oh well, congrats to India who controlled the match from the start and kept England firmly under the cosh all match. A very dominant performance and comprehensive win. clap

Only see a 4-0 win for the hosts now.
avatar
dyrewolfe

Posts : 6185
Join date : 2011-03-13
Location : Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by dyrewolfe on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:02 am

guildfordbat wrote:Hi all and Alfie in particular - I assume you get the same commentary as on tv in the UK. Hussain was just questioning why six bowlers are needed.

A bit earlier Atherton described Batty's selection as an insurance policy in case the other two spinners failed but doubted that was needed any more in view of Rashid's improvement and Moeen being 'solid'. Atherton referred to Batty in this Test as 'a bit of a bystander' whilst Shastri called him 'a luxury'.

Atherton also speculated that if Hameed misses the next Test, Duckett could be recalled to open and Billings - currently with the Lions - added to the (late) middle order in place of Batty. That was along the lines of my post the other day. I know you, Alfie, prefer a fourth seamer. Not going to die in a ditch over this. Whatever we do and whoever we select, the top 5 need to make more runs and in an even consistent fashion.


Yep. Think our lack of stand-out spin bowlers has contributed to England's selection problems. The fact our bowling attack is heavily neutered on these types of pitches has resulted in more "bits and pieces" players being selected...but as we have seen it hasn't really helped.

Still think we need at least 2 more specialist batsmen to try and shore up the top order...perhaps giving the middle and lower order more freedom to play their natural game, instead of trying to save innings. Would also give our bowlers better totals to defend.
avatar
dyrewolfe

Posts : 6185
Join date : 2011-03-13
Location : Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by KP_fan on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:02 am

well done India..here are my thoughts on India and Eng

(I)India

--Parthiv showed Gambhir....how when at a late stage life gives you one opportunitiy .....to make it count...make it hard for the selectors to keep you out....
and even if he sits out.....with every failure of Saha he will be talked about " what if Patel was there"

--and "I told ya"....Parthiv is as good as a specialist batsman.....look at his technique, his feet movement, his confidence and all of that from the difficult opener's slot. career average in FC is only 43 because he started at the age of 16 and had a few average sessions as a kid as he was developing his game....but over the last 5 seasons or so consistently averages 50+ at FC level.

Made the chase a cake walk....else we could have had jitters.

His WK-ing is not perfect......but do we keep him in a batting line up where the top order is looking flaky?
My call would be Yes....let him bat at No.6 if Rahul is back.

He brought leadership also...was vocal behind the stumps, encouraging talking and some of the stuff that we could hear...his advises to bowlers and Kohli were very sane....

He is Ranji captain of Gujarat a top side that has won recently I think and captained India-A for quite some time

--and have a talk to Vijay and Rahul..they have to both put a price on their wicket....Vijay against the short stuff

and  Rahul leaving the ball outside the off
the good thing....if Rahul gets into double figures there is a high chance of him getting a 100

--Kohli well captained.....keep the team together positive and fighting all the time, knows how to get wickets


( II) I didn't watch the Eng batting today...will catch up on highlights....

--Hameed showed that inpsite of the better quality Indian bowling there are no devils in the pitch...and what is needed is build and inning, proper test match batting temperament

Eng needs a few proper batsmen......these useful lower order bowling all rounders don't cut it when you put them too high in the batting order.

and they need to play one extra batsman...even 5 bowlers is a luxury with one bowler underutilized...6 bowlers means you don't trust your top 4 or 5 bowlers

--The series scoreline won't show it but Eng has fought hard...they have not been rolled over like other visiting teams who India is foreign conditions to.
they have been competitive and lost a couple of sessions

--they could have stretched India's requirement to about 250 had they not conceded first inning lead ...but given the ptich India would have struggled but possibly chased upto 250.....best pitch of the series so far.


Last edited by KP_fan on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:08 am; edited 2 times in total
avatar
KP_fan

Posts : 6390
Join date : 2012-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by ChequeredJersey on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:05 am

dyrewolfe wrote:
alfie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, naturally, there will now be over-analysis of things going on here. I stand by what I posted earlier in that there isn't too much difference between these two teams in terms of talent and make-up of the sides. The difference is that India have been more consistent and not gifted too many wickets away.

As Gooseberry says, look at the form of specialist batsmen of late and they don't yell out 'pick me'. Players like Adam Lyth, Gary Ballance, Vince, Compton, Carberry etc have had their chance and were dropped as they just couldn't weigh in with any runs of note. Would you bring in a specialist batsman and drop Ali (losing his bowling element) or drop Stokes who weighs in with valuable runs and wickets and Woakes does likewise (their batting average certainly exceeds batting specialists tried of late by England).

Of course not.  But at the same time I would not aim to perpetuate a lineup which employed Moeen batting in the top five in order to include a sixth bowler...and nor would I ask Bairstow to keep and bat at five.
Five bowlers )either three-two or four-one pace/spin is adequate anywhere , if they're the right bowlers. And if that includes players who can perform with the bat as well , excellent.  
The fact that several bowlers are handy with the bat is a plus for England.  But I refuse to believe there are no (more) players in the whole of England who are capable of doing a job in the top five...they just have to identify them.  And that should be the first task for 2017 - pending the arrival of a new Swann , either Moeen or Rashid can do the spin duties.


Completely agree with this.

The reason we can't achieve any kind of consistency IMO is because these players simply aren't the consistent type...its not in their nature or style of play. They take risks...looking like heroes when it works and failing dismally when it doesn't.
Isn't Bairstow our most consistent batsman this year?

Any way, well done India. Best we can do now is draw the series but frankly I'd take a sole test win right now
avatar
ChequeredJersey

Posts : 18453
Join date : 2011-12-23
Age : 28
Location : London, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by ChequeredJersey on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:09 am

What we really need is James Taylor back, but life's sad circumstance took away his chance
avatar
ChequeredJersey

Posts : 18453
Join date : 2011-12-23
Age : 28
Location : London, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by dyrewolfe on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:09 am

ChequeredJersey wrote:
dyrewolfe wrote:
alfie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, naturally, there will now be over-analysis of things going on here. I stand by what I posted earlier in that there isn't too much difference between these two teams in terms of talent and make-up of the sides. The difference is that India have been more consistent and not gifted too many wickets away.

As Gooseberry says, look at the form of specialist batsmen of late and they don't yell out 'pick me'. Players like Adam Lyth, Gary Ballance, Vince, Compton, Carberry etc have had their chance and were dropped as they just couldn't weigh in with any runs of note. Would you bring in a specialist batsman and drop Ali (losing his bowling element) or drop Stokes who weighs in with valuable runs and wickets and Woakes does likewise (their batting average certainly exceeds batting specialists tried of late by England).

Of course not.  But at the same time I would not aim to perpetuate a lineup which employed Moeen batting in the top five in order to include a sixth bowler...and nor would I ask Bairstow to keep and bat at five.
Five bowlers )either three-two or four-one pace/spin is adequate anywhere , if they're the right bowlers. And if that includes players who can perform with the bat as well , excellent.  
The fact that several bowlers are handy with the bat is a plus for England.  But I refuse to believe there are no (more) players in the whole of England who are capable of doing a job in the top five...they just have to identify them.  And that should be the first task for 2017 - pending the arrival of a new Swann , either Moeen or Rashid can do the spin duties.


Completely agree with this.

The reason we can't achieve any kind of consistency IMO is because these players simply aren't the consistent type...its not in their nature or style of play. They take risks...looking like heroes when it works and failing dismally when it doesn't.
Isn't Bairstow our most consistent batsman this year?

Any way, well done India. Best we can do now is draw the series but frankly I'd take a sole test win right now


Possibly our only one...but it takes more than 1 batsman to make an innings.

Plus, if the top 5 were doing their job properly, he could play a place or two lower down and have more free rein to play shots, instead of needing to perform rescue jobs.
avatar
dyrewolfe

Posts : 6185
Join date : 2011-03-13
Location : Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by guildfordbat on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:17 am

Sounds like Hameed is out for the rest of the series. Cook refers to him having 'to go home and a plate put in ... it's pretty bad.'

guildfordbat

Posts : 11397
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:18 am

Hi guildford.

I hope Hameed is OK - for continuity apart from nothing else. But I guess that is doubtful.

The fourth seamer thing depends a bit on the pitch and the weather...I don't want to kill Stokes with overwork !
If we can be confident that the two spinners can do a sufficient share of the work - and do it effectively - then I could live with just the three fast bowlers. Certainly a deep batting lineup if it means Woakes nine and Rashid ten ...

Billings ? Is he really good enough in the long game ? I really haven't seen enough of him to say. Cook Duckett (say a prayer) Root Billings Moeen. Stokes Bairstow Buttler. Woakes. Rashid Anderson ? How many wicketkeepers do you want Smile

It doesn't look particularly balanced (even without Gary) ; but it is what you can do with what you've got...

Looking very tough from here on. Cook has just confirmed Hameed is off home , alas. Going to be a huge task to come back from this defeat ; but it will be an interesting test of character. And a bit of a
test for the the coach I think . Bayliss has largely escaped criticism so far ; but I think he needs to earn his corn here ...he has clearly helped the one day team , and due credit for that. But Tests are still - or should be - his main job. He can't bat and bowl for them ; but he needs to ensure they don't keep making the same mistakes .

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Gooseberry on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:19 am

dyrewolfe wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:
dyrewolfe wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but that is not down to the team make-up though. It is just down to an inability to get every player contributing in the same innings. In this series Ali (seen as an all-rounder), Stokes (seen as an all-rounder) and Bairstow (batsman and wicket-keeper) have scored centuries actually out-doing specialist batsmen as I do believe only Cook and Root also have centueies (specialist batsmen).


I think that is actually the very crux of the problem.

The team makeup is at least part of the problem. We seem to have too  many shot-players, whose natural tendency is to attack, regardless of the match situation. They aren't used to taking their time, playing themselves in, or just simply digging in to save a match when required.

Its fine having attacking, rapid scorers provided the top order can build a decent foundation, but far too often it is being left to the middle and lower order to rescue England from bad situations. How long can this be allowed to go on? As we have seen this only works so often.

I feel we need at least 2 (possibly 3) more top order players in the mould of Cook, Root and Hameed to give us a bit more resilience higher up the order, so we don't need to keep relying on players whose style is distinctly more ODI / T20.

So the complete opposite of when Englands problem was Cook Strauss Trott scoring too slowly then?

Im not convinced our line up is too " T20"
Cook is a proper accumlator. Hameed is the epitomy of dogged resistance and the king of the dot ball and doesnt play limited over cricket. Root has proved he can score fast and slow centuries and is very strong at changing pace through his innings and to suit and has a very high percentage of 50+ scores, he doenst often get out cheaply. Bairstow is certainly no one day batsman, his scoring is only a shade above 3 an over.  Balance is steady scorer.  Its only really Duckett, Ali and Stokes who are out and out attacking batsmen by instinct.  Ansari down the order is abolsutely a non shot player when it comes to red ball cricket, Woakes scores at under 3 an overand Rashid even slower.
They have stick around players as well as Buttler/Stokes natural agression, they just arent sticking around.


As it happens I do feel we've shifted too far the other way. Yes, scoring too slowly was a problem before, but then we didn't have as many Bairstow / Stokes / Moeen / Woakes / Buttler type players.

Now though, the team is predominantly made up of them. With only Cook, Root and Hameed as specialist batsmen (one currently out of form and one a rookie), it doesn't take much for opposition teams to get into our middle and lower order...which depending on the day can either score big or get out for next to nothing.

We need a solid top 5, in order to prevent all these collapses, though saying that I have no idea who would fill the 2 extra specialist batting berths.

5 players is not a predominance, its less than half. Also Woakes isnt an agressive batsman in red ball cricket, he also came on tour as Englands form bowler.

Yes I agree Ideally we would have another Root and or Cook in the top 4 and a top class spinner and genuine express strike bowler to allow the confidence of a 5 bowler line up. But the guys theyve picked to fill these roles just arent up to it / dont exist. I do think the "bits and pieces" line up has to some extent been arrived at by accident, but Stokes Woakes Moeen and Bairstow have got their places by performing well in one or both disciplines.
The winning tour last year was a very differnet line up mind. The top 4 stayed as Cook, Compton , Trott, KP and then ended with Root at 5. On form thats a pretty formidable group. Add in two speclist spinners who wewre genuine wicket takers (we only have one on this tour and he leaks runs) , a consitent Finn and fit Broad/Anderson and it really was a side of star specilaists that could carry even Patels weight. So I do appreciate the point, and frankly I have always bene sceptical about Stokes as a top 6 bat. But its what we have, and what price his wickets? I certainly dont see this iteration of Finn or the lad Ball doing what he did in the first innings.

For the summer I do think a choice needs to be made reagding Moeen though, his bowling has long been declining in effectiveness as anything other than a partnership breaker and I just cant see him as a sole lead spinner. He batted well ealrier in the year but those runs are drying up. If Rashid is persisted with for home pitches, or someone like Leach forces their way in as a speclist spinner, then I do think he should make way for a batsman who might be able average 40 plus. For this tour we just dont have it, and benefit form the extra bowling options.

Gooseberry

Posts : 3119
Join date : 2015-02-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by dyrewolfe on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:20 am

guildfordbat wrote:Sounds like Hameed is out for the rest of the series. Cook refers to him having 'to go home and a plate put in ... it's pretty bad.'


Oh wow...feel bad for the poor lad. Gave some good performances for a newbie and shown a lot of potential. Hope he makes a full recovery. Fingers Crossed
avatar
dyrewolfe

Posts : 6185
Join date : 2011-03-13
Location : Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:27 am

dyrewolfe wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
dyrewolfe wrote:
alfie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, naturally, there will now be over-analysis of things going on here. I stand by what I posted earlier in that there isn't too much difference between these two teams in terms of talent and make-up of the sides. The difference is that India have been more consistent and not gifted too many wickets away.

As Gooseberry says, look at the form of specialist batsmen of late and they don't yell out 'pick me'. Players like Adam Lyth, Gary Ballance, Vince, Compton, Carberry etc have had their chance and were dropped as they just couldn't weigh in with any runs of note. Would you bring in a specialist batsman and drop Ali (losing his bowling element) or drop Stokes who weighs in with valuable runs and wickets and Woakes does likewise (their batting average certainly exceeds batting specialists tried of late by England).

Of course not.  But at the same time I would not aim to perpetuate a lineup which employed Moeen batting in the top five in order to include a sixth bowler...and nor would I ask Bairstow to keep and bat at five.
Five bowlers )either three-two or four-one pace/spin is adequate anywhere , if they're the right bowlers. And if that includes players who can perform with the bat as well , excellent.  
The fact that several bowlers are handy with the bat is a plus for England.  But I refuse to believe there are no (more) players in the whole of England who are capable of doing a job in the top five...they just have to identify them.  And that should be the first task for 2017 - pending the arrival of a new Swann , either Moeen or Rashid can do the spin duties.


Completely agree with this.

The reason we can't achieve any kind of consistency IMO is because these players simply aren't the consistent type...its not in their nature or style of play. They take risks...looking like heroes when it works and failing dismally when it doesn't.
Isn't Bairstow our most consistent batsman this year?

Any way, well done India. Best we can do now is draw the series but frankly I'd take a sole test win right now


Possibly our only one...but it takes more than 1 batsman to make an innings.

Plus, if the top 5 were doing their job properly, he could play a place or two lower down and have more free rein to play shots, instead of needing to perform rescue jobs.

Well he couldn't do much damage if it is bunnies he is batting with.

At the end of the day I think the side kind of picks itself just now aside from No 3 batting spot.

Cook and Hameed seem the way forward as openers.

No 3 Either Duckett or one of two from Lion's Tour.

No 4 Root (key member of the side)

No 5 Bairstow (His form of late batting high up in the innings has done him no harm at all - in fact he has thrived)

No 6 Stokes (Merits this slot)

No 7 Ali (Gives that extra spin option and has scored a big century on this tour. Just needs more consistency)

No 8 Woakes (Has weighed in with fair amount of wickets and averages high enough with the bat to merit a place)

No 9 Rashid (Perhaps now seen as the go to spin option on this tour. Handy enough with bat)

No 10 Broad (If fit he should come back in)

No 11 Anderson

I suppose No 3 is too high in the order to accommodate Buttler. Like I said though a lot of the team chooses itself and to drop anyone for an untried and untested option at this stage would need to be an accurate selection who hits the ground running like Hameed has.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:28 am

guildfordbat wrote:Sounds like Hameed is out for the rest of the series. Cook refers to him having 'to go home and a plate put in ... it's pretty bad.'

That is a big blow for him and the team when they looked to have found a genuine opener. Back to the drawing board on that front then.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:29 am

Congrats to India who played this match really well...

Parthiv may have been a slightly controversial selection ; but he proved a gem (despite some untidy glove work ). His aggressive early batting in both innings was an important factor. Experience does count.

Ashwin and Jadeja were quite a pair ...with bat as much as ball. (Had they failed at 200 or so for six this game may have taken a very different turn !). And the third spinner Jayant showed the good sense of using him in place of Mishra.
Not to be outdone , Shami did a fine job with the ball - important wickets both innings ...and Umesh chipped in too.
Couple of batsmen not doing too well - in fact only Kohli and Pujara of the top six are doing much ; but the all round strength is serving them well.
Deserve the two nil lead. thumbsup

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Gooseberry on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:33 am

guildfordbat wrote:Sounds like Hameed is out for the rest of the series. Cook refers to him having 'to go home and a plate put in ... it's pretty bad.'

Ah fiddlesticks. Thats really rough on him.

I bet KP is on Sky right now mentioning how sharply hes been playing in the Latvian Premier League recently. The Sun will no doubt carry an interview with him saying hes still available and would love to open for England.

Options really are Duckett or wildcard and stick Root back up there alongside Cook. Go out with intent and your best two batsmen charged with laying a foundation. Final option would be Gubbins I guess, but hes barely looked at the Lions let alone starting a test.

I kinda agree that 5 bowlers might be forced on England just to shore things up, espcially if it looks like a results 4 day wicket where the total number of overs bowled wont be so high.

In terms of repalcement players...Billings is surely just more of the same? Can you imagine playing 3 keepers?? That hes not with the Lions suggests to me hes nowhere near a red ball cap. Gubins seems the most likely to me.

Gooseberry

Posts : 3119
Join date : 2015-02-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:37 am

Craig : I trust that team you have nominated is just for this tour ? I can accept that ; but no way do we need six bowlers back in England. And I really don't think it is a great idea to have Bairstow keeping and batting at five...not many do that for long. No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:40 am

alfie wrote:Craig : I trust that team you have nominated is just for this tour ?  I can accept that ; but no way do we need six bowlers back in England. And I really don't think it is a great idea to have Bairstow keeping and batting at five...not many do that for long. No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...

Yes of course for the next test. Obviously, different conditions call for different team make-up. However, if you were to look at the team England have at the moment who would you axe?
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by ChequeredJersey on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:41 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:Sounds like Hameed is out for the rest of the series. Cook refers to him having 'to go home and a plate put in ... it's pretty bad.'

That is a big blow for him and the team when they looked to have found a genuine opener. Back to the drawing board on that front then.
Well, at least we know he's a future option
avatar
ChequeredJersey

Posts : 18453
Join date : 2011-12-23
Age : 28
Location : London, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by guildfordbat on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:46 am

alfie wrote:Hi guildford.

I hope Hameed is OK - for continuity apart from nothing else.  But I guess that is doubtful.

The fourth seamer thing depends a bit on the pitch and the weather...I don't want to kill Stokes with overwork !  
If we can be confident that the two spinners can do a sufficient share of the work - and do it effectively - then I could live with just the three fast bowlers.  Certainly a deep batting lineup if it means Woakes nine and Rashid ten ...

Billings ?  Is he really good enough in the long game ? I really haven't seen enough of him to say.  Cook Duckett (say a prayer) Root Billings Moeen. Stokes Bairstow Buttler. Woakes. Rashid  Anderson ? How many wicketkeepers do you want Smile

It doesn't look particularly balanced (even without Gary) ; but it is what you can do with what you've got...

Looking very tough from here on. Cook has just confirmed Hameed is off home , alas.  Going to be a huge task to come back from this defeat ; but it will be an interesting test of character.  And a bit of a
test for the the coach I think . Bayliss has largely escaped criticism so far ; but I think he needs to earn his corn here ...he has clearly helped the one day team , and due credit for that. But Tests are still - or should be - his main job. He can't bat and bowl for them ; but he needs to ensure they don't keep making the same mistakes .

Hi again Alfie - I'm actually not that keen on Billings, too much of the village blacksmith for my liking. However, he does seem to be the one many of the pundits (Stewart last week, Atherton today for example) are talking about.

I hear Broad should be fit for the fourth Test so reckon we'll go with 4 seamers (Broad, Anderton, Woakes and Stokes) and 2 spinners (Rashid and Moeen), almost regardless of the wicket. Those seamers are now well established and, subject to fitness, it's hard to see any of them missing the cut now. Even if the next pitch offers encouragement to the spinners, difficult to see Batty and Ansari being chosen having flopped so far.

James Taylor in the UK Sky studio currently talking about 'dropping a bowler' and seems to mean a sixth bowler . However, to my mind, that ignores that although Batty will miss out, you still presumably need to squeeze Broad in.

Desperately bad luck for Hameed and not good for us supporters either.

guildfordbat

Posts : 11397
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Gooseberry on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:48 am

alfie wrote: No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...


...so he just decided off his own back to bat 6 or lower in 23 tests? he played a whole series in the Windies at 5 averaging 92

It was probably a different situation there as well bearing in mind the ridiculous pool of talent in Aussies top 5/ 6 that meant even guys like Hodge and Hussey were struggling to break into the side.

The option of Foakes or Buttler does remain on the table though to enable him to concentrate on becoming a fixture at 4/5.

Gooseberry

Posts : 3119
Join date : 2015-02-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by KP_fan on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:55 am

everything about this kid is impressive OK .....he is a "Lambi race ka ghodaa" i.e one for the ages...unfortunately you cannot start a test match with an injury like this these days



'Hameed wanted to play in the last two Tests'


[size=14]Posted at11:46[/size]
[size=16]England coach Trevor Bayliss speaking about Haseeb Hameed:"He keeps amazing everyone who's working with him. It was a fantastic effort. It's another plus in his corner. Not only can he play but he's tough little character too. It was a gutsy effort.
"He wasn't showing too much pain. The medical staff probably knew it was cracked - they didn't want to distract him.
"He wanted to bat. He wants to stay here and play in the last two Test matches. He wants to tape it up and play."
[/size]
avatar
KP_fan

Posts : 6390
Join date : 2012-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:56 am

alfie wrote:Craig : I trust that team you have nominated is just for this tour ?  I can accept that ; but no way do we need six bowlers back in England. And I really don't think it is a great idea to have Bairstow keeping and batting at five...not many do that for long. No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...

They opted for Batty believing there would be extra spin here. Also he was selected because the batsmen available to them was less palatible to them due to failing to impress recently. As for Bairstow well if it ain't broke don't fix it. In other words he has scored big batting where he is so why dilute his influernce on the team by shunting him down the batting order to bat with a tail lessening the amount of time (potentially he can stay at the wicket and build an innings)?


Last edited by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by KP_fan on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 10:57 am

`sorry just can't seem to get rid of that bold and big caps formatting in the post above Doh
avatar
KP_fan

Posts : 6390
Join date : 2012-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:04 am

Gooseberry wrote:
alfie wrote: No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...


...so he just decided off his own back to bat 6 or lower in 23 tests? he played a whole series in the Windies at 5 averaging 92

It was probably a different situation there as well bearing in mind the ridiculous pool of talent in Aussies top 5/ 6 that meant even guys like Hodge and Hussey were struggling to break into the side.

The option of Foakes or Buttler does remain on the table though to enable him to concentrate on becoming a fixture at 4/5.

I knew he did play a few matches at six ...was it really that many ? I'm surprised...but my point was really that he remained at seven for most of his career , despite occasional thoughts that he could allow an extra bowler by moving up. Of course with Warne and McGrath they didn't really need another bowler : but the situation with England now is similar in a way , as Stokes is set at six.

The idea that Foakes or Buttler could take the gloves makes more sense. If the rest of the the top six were fixed and fit for purpose , with YJB as the five , then a less able batsman at seven could be OK - presuming they added something with the gloves (not sure Buttler does ). But at the moment they're still scratching for batsmen ; so I much prefer the insurance of a very good batsman at seven. As Australia did too...even with their wealth of batting talent Gilchrist performed his share of rescue acts.

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:09 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
alfie wrote:Craig : I trust that team you have nominated is just for this tour ?  I can accept that ; but no way do we need six bowlers back in England. And I really don't think it is a great idea to have Bairstow keeping and batting at five...not many do that for long. No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...

They opted for Batty believing there would be extra spin here. Also he was selected because the batsmen available to them was less palatible to them due to failing to impress recently. As for Bairstow well if it ain't broke don't fix it. In other words he has scored big batting where he is so why dilute his influernce on the team by shunting him down the batting order to bat with a tail lessening the amount of time (potentially he can stay at the wicket and build an innings)?

Well as I said , I accept that formation for now : but I don't want to go forward with it. I think you'll find Bairstow scored bigger batting at seven by the way : sure he can play at five but I think you get more benefit from him coming in after Stokes (but before Moeen/Woakes/Rashid...so not exactly left with the bunnies !

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:22 am

alfie wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
alfie wrote:Craig : I trust that team you have nominated is just for this tour ?  I can accept that ; but no way do we need six bowlers back in England. And I really don't think it is a great idea to have Bairstow keeping and batting at five...not many do that for long. No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...

They opted for Batty believing there would be extra spin here. Also he was selected because the batsmen available to them was less palatible to them due to failing to impress recently. As for Bairstow well if it ain't broke don't fix it. In other words he has scored big batting where he is so why dilute his influernce on the team by shunting him down the batting order to bat with a tail lessening the amount of time (potentially he can stay at the wicket and build an innings)?

Well as I said , I accept that formation for now : but I don't want to go forward with it.  I think you'll find Bairstow scored bigger batting at seven by the way : sure he can play at five but I think you get more benefit from him coming in after Stokes (but before Moeen/Woakes/Rashid...so not exactly left with the bunnies !

Yes not the bunnies (yet) but if you want specialist batsmen and specialist bowlers then you will invariably end up with bunnies at the tail. My point is that the players in the side at the moment are generally all there on merit. Batty obviously will not feature in future teams but in terms of the problem areas in the side at present it is who to play at No 3. That slot (well also now the opener as Hameed has been ruled out of the rest of the series) are the immediate areas of concern whilst Cook, Root, Bairstow, Stokes, Ali, Woakes, Rashid, Anderson and Broad are all there on merit and not the sort of players you'd look to drop. Now in English conditions it will differ as you definitelyy wouldn't go down the two spinners route so either Ali or Rashid's spot would then go to either another seamer or a specialist batsman. But again the question would remain where is the specialist batsman coming from considering a fair few have been tried of late and failed. Whereas bowling-wise you have Finn and Wood as well as Ball that would add more to the team than an out of nick specialist batsman.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:26 am

Don't disagree with any of that , Craig.

As you say , the big issue at the moment is who to bat in the top three-four. Hope they pick a good one !

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by CaledonianCraig on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:33 am

alfie wrote:Don't disagree with any of that , Craig.

As you say , the big issue at the moment is who to bat in the top three-four.  Hope they pick a good one !

I'd say move Root up (temporarily for now) into opener and bring one over to bat at three from Lion's Tour as too manby green batsmen untried in these conditions is far from an ideal scenario. I suppose Buttler is an option as well but surely you wouldn't want him batting so high up?

If they bring in two new batsmen then ideally I reckon they should try to get one in the Hameed mould and one in the Buttler-mould. One innings builder and one more attacking player so things don't get too bogged down.
avatar
CaledonianCraig

Posts : 16119
Join date : 2011-05-31
Age : 49
Location : Edinburgh

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:35 am

Gooseberry wrote:
alfie wrote: No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...


...so he just decided off his own back to bat 6 or lower in 23 tests? he played a whole series in the Windies at 5 averaging 92

It was probably a different situation there as well bearing in mind the ridiculous pool of talent in Aussies top 5/ 6 that meant even guys like Hodge and Hussey were struggling to break into the side.

The option of Foakes or Buttler does remain on the table though to enable him to concentrate on becoming a fixture at 4/5.

OK , Goose ...I have done some checking : and you are not getting away with the False Statistics you put up regarding Gilchrist

He played One Innings in West Indies at five...not a whole series . (and made a hundred). Altogether four innings at that spot in his career  - and eleven at six. Also a few knocks in the top four - for declaration batting , injured players etc. A long way from "23 Tests" .

We can all forgive a little exaggeration but I think you were cheating a bit there Smile

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Gooseberry on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:59 am

alfie wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:
alfie wrote: No one ever asked Gilchrist to move up from seven , though he was clearly good enough to do so...


...so he just decided off his own back to bat 6 or lower in 23 tests? he played a whole series in the Windies at 5 averaging 92

It was probably a different situation there as well bearing in mind the ridiculous pool of talent in Aussies top 5/ 6 that meant even guys like Hodge and Hussey were struggling to break into the side.

The option of Foakes or Buttler does remain on the table though to enable him to concentrate on becoming a fixture at 4/5.

OK , Goose ...I have done some checking : and you are not getting away with the False Statistics you put up regarding Gilchrist

He played One Innings in West Indies at five...not a whole series . (and made a hundred). Altogether four innings at that spot in his career  - and eleven at six.  Also a few knocks in the top four - for declaration batting , injured players etc.   A long way from "23 Tests" .

We can all forgive a little exaggeration but I think you were cheating a bit there Smile

Apologies yes I just did a quick scan with the statguru search and rushed the checking.

The series in Windies he mostly played at 6 and just one test at 5.

But he did bat 6 or lower as I said in 23 tests, which isnt a long way form 23 tests ...it is 23 tests. Someone did ask him to do it fairly regulalry. So I think we can both take a point off for over egging/mistating facts there (and I under stated his avergae at 5 in that series Whistle )

Maybe Flower is a better example...he batted as a keeper almost exclusively at 5 and still averaged over 50 with the bat. Sangakarra batted all his games as keeper at 6 or higher..and averaged over 50 doing so. Stewart batted the majority of his tests as a keeper in the top 6. So Gilchrist is really the outlier of the legendary batsman keepers of that era in being in a side with enough quality to enable the luxury of him sitting down the order.

And the point regarding quality of specialist bats and bowlers I think is more pertinent anyway. England simply dont have the players to enable that sort of luxury. Gilchrist wasnt one of Australias best 5 batsmen, and arguably for much of his career better ones werent making the side at all. Austrlia also had two of the greatest all conditions bowlers of all time. A half fit Anderson and Rashid are not going to function in a 4 man attack backed up by part time bowlers.

I am though being won over by the argument that Bairstow would get selected as a pure batsman and could do so not only to take some presuure off him and allow his batting to develope further but also to enable a better gloveman into the side, and that could be Foakes if he really is that much better and he can bat 7. In that case I think anyone would struggle to advance a solid argument against Bairstow at 4 or 5.


Gooseberry

Posts : 3119
Join date : 2015-02-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 12:39 pm

Considering he couldn't grip his bat properly, it has to be said that Hameed has put the rest of the line up to shame with his doggedness today.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 12060
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by VTR on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 1:59 pm

Not sure why people expect us to have all players in form at the same time – I think it’s pretty normal for a series to be won with two or three standout performers. Bigger issue for me than everyone not churning out hundred after hundred is the supporting contributions are barely in the 10-15 range, when a few more players getting 30s and 40s could make the difference.

Even in this second innings, someone like Buttler makes 40, Moeen 30 etc India could be chasing 200 rather than 100. Obviously disappointing if someone gets out for 40 but much better than they get out for 10 or less – England have a lot of those such scores in the series and that’s what is really hurting them

VTR

Posts : 3122
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by king_carlos on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 3:40 pm

Congratulations India. Another deserved win which England made far easier than it should have been. Batting as they did on the first day having won the toss on that pitch was criminal.

Another good pitch produced by India as well. clap If wanted then the ground staff (along with coaches, selectors, captains etc) could have produced dust bowls that India would have won by an innings or few hundred runs on. As is they have produced excellent pitches and personally I'm enjoying the cricket a lot for it.

This was a cracking sub continent test pitch with good batting conditions for the first innings, but enough in the morning overs to give seamers an interesting burst. Then as the game went on spinners gradually came into it more but still needed guile and skill to take their wickets rather than just putting the ball on a length and waiting for the ball to explode off a dust bowl.

king_carlos

Posts : 3360
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Work toilet

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by king_carlos on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 3:55 pm

If England are calling up from the Lions then their choices for replacement are:

Openers - Keaton Jennings, Nick Gubbins or Daniel Bell-Drummond. Personally I'd prefer Nick Browne were called up if an opener is brought over. He leaves the ball very well and coverts his starts very well (11 hundreds to 11 fifties).

Middle order - The standout would be Joe Clarke who is an exceptional young player but almost as green as Hameed. The more experienced option is Tom Westley after a strong summer but he isn't the same sort of talent IMO. As said previously I'd much rather that James Hildreth were called up for his experience and class or Dawid Malan due to him playing spin well.

The other name I've seen mentioned has been Ben Foakes. I wouldn't see the reasoning currently though. He is an good batsmen in his own right but Hildreth is better. He could be used to take the pressure of keeping off Bairstow and keep Jonny in the top order but the gloves haven't exactly hindered him this year. Although I do think Foakes is the more talented gloveman and hope that over the coming summer he does come in as keeper with Bairstow nailing the 5 spot.

king_carlos

Posts : 3360
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Work toilet

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by guildfordbat on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 4:42 pm

Hi Carlos - that's a very impressive conversion rate for Browne. I've heard Alec Stewart more than once talk about the importance of this. Whilst it won't be the case every single time, generally Stewie is as much frustrated as pleased when a batsman gets a half-century but doesn't convert - ''Centuries and particularly big centuries win you matches, fifties don't'' is a regular comment.

I agree with you about the current thinking on Foakes seeming a bit odd. Like you, I rate him highly as a keeper. However, Bairstow's doing a (surprisingly) good job at the moment and also making runs. It's almost like saying now - ''We've almost run out of batsmen we can try, so let's bring in a keeper and that's one less batsmen we need to find!''. Trouble with that is we're not likely to get many or even any more runs as a result. As I've said before, the top 5 need to all be contributing in a more even consistent fashion. Easier said that done I know! With that in mind, Hildreth must have upset someone along the way - don't understand why he's never been given a crack.

What are your views on playing (or not) with 6 bowlers? Cheers.

guildfordbat

Posts : 11397
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by msp83 on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 6:40 pm

Fine win for India. Whenever they were pushed back, they found ways to get out of the difficulties. Lost the toss, but took 4 wickets in the fist test match. Partnership between Bairstow and stokes and then Buttler, the bowlers responded with discipline, kept at their task and broke through. Lost 3 for 8 and 4 for 50, last 4 wickets responded with more than doubling the score. They were tested at different stages in this game, and they always had an answer.

msp83

Posts : 13402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by msp83 on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 6:47 pm

The bowling unit worked very much as a unit with all 5 bowlers chipping in with significant contributions. Kohli, Pujara and Ashwin got terrific support from Patel, Jadeja and Jayant Yadav as far as the batting department is concerned. Parthiv Patel absolutely taking his chance with the bat with a very fine innings that too batting out of position. Parthiv we knew is a better bat than Saha. We also knew he's an inferior keeper. But Does Parthiv's abilities with the bat and Saha's not entirely safe disposition behind the stumps with his ongoing batting struggles mean Parthiv keep his place for the next game? Will Saha be fit for the next game? Same with Rahul too.
There are some concerns as well. The catching standards have been poor. Murali Vijay is becoming a major concern. So long as the team is winning it can be swept aside, but he has been the one stable half of India's opening partnership after the disintegration of the Sehwag-Gambhir partnership, the most prolific opening combination in India's test history. Vijay had injury issues from the Sri Lanka tour onwards last year, but made significant contributions in the 1 test he played there, was important through the South Africa series. Then he got undone by a short ball from Shannon Gabriel in the West Indies, got injured, was dropped, and on return, just hasn't looked the same player. He didn't have trouble with the short ball in South Africa, England or Australia. But now he's failing to get out of the way of those short balls, and even when he plays an innings of substance like the hundred in the series opener, the fluency hasn't quite been there. Parthiv Patel or someone else might be able to do a job for now, and KL Rahul is set to return for the next game. But Rahul himself is finding his way around test cricket and is very hit or miss at this stage of his career. India need Vijay to find his touch very soon.
Rahane also, his problems are discussed already. He would have been relieved that he didn't have to come in to finish the chase today!

msp83

Posts : 13402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Good Golly I'm Olly on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 7:13 pm

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Carlos - that's a very impressive conversion rate for Browne. I've heard Alec Stewart more than once talk about the importance of this. Whilst it won't be the case every single time, generally Stewie is as much frustrated as pleased when a batsman gets a half-century but doesn't convert - ''Centuries and particularly big centuries win you matches, fifties don't'' is a regular comment.

I agree with you about the current thinking on Foakes seeming a bit odd. Like you, I rate him highly as a keeper. However, Bairstow's doing a (surprisingly) good job at the moment and also making runs. It's almost like saying now - ''We've almost run out of batsmen we can try, so let's bring in a keeper and that's one less batsmen we need to find!''. Trouble with that is we're not likely to get many or even any more runs as a result. As I've said before, the top 5 need to all be contributing in a more even consistent fashion. Easier said that done I know! With that in mind, Hildreth must have upset someone along the way - don't understand why he's never been given a crack.

What are your views on playing (or not) with 6 bowlers? Cheers.

Going to but in here - the 6 bowler policy worked well in UAE last winter, because Cook used all 6 bowlers properly. He used Anderson/Broad as almost "holding bowlers", then had Wood/Stokes as attacking seamers, and Moeen/Rashid as the two spinners. Here he basically hasn't used the third spinner at all, and actually this probably highlights that we have really missed someone like Wood who could come on for 3/4 overs and bowl some 90mph proper heat, some short stuff too. Finn is probably the most like him in the squad, but he's not really that quick anymore.

So unless Cook is going to have a sudden change of mind and trust the 6th bowler, we might as well do rid of him, get an extra batsman into the side and then Root can quite ably bowl a few overs if needed. I am on record stating I like the 6 bowler policy here, but not when Cook captains them like he has the past two tests (essentially not using Ansari at all, barely bowling Batty then ignoring Moeen too).

England are fine team wise going into the future in the bowling department. Moeen I think is perfectly fine at 8 and being the main spinner, with Rashid now pushing him hard for that spot. Then you have Anderson/Broad and Woakes as the three main seamers, with Stokes as the all rounder. The fact Moeen/Woakes are really good batsman is an added bonus, but ultimately they're in the side as the best spinner/third best seamer respectively. The problem is the batting, you only really have Cook/Root/Hameed nailed on to start next summer, then positions #4 and #5 are essentially up for grabs. Personally would like to see Bairstow stay at #7 long term, he's had the best year ever by a WK (statistically at least) in 2016, so no need to move him from there imo.

Who could #4 and #5 be? Well I have about as much clue as the selectors! Not sure they are even out there tbf, the names banded about hardly inspire great confidence. Would imagine they give Duckett another go provided he starts the summer off well, and then maybe a more experienced county pro like Hildreth?
avatar
Good Golly I'm Olly

Posts : 43420
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 22
Location : Chris Woakes's wardrobe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by msp83 on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 7:28 pm

When England talk about the 6th bowler in line with the pitches that are supposed to turn from ball one, I am reminded of India's recent strategy against New Zealand. The thinking from Anil Kumble in particular has been that on such a track, what KPF would call the Cobra, you don't need more than 4 bowlers. Ashwin and Jadeja were doing the job basically with some support from Shami and Umesh. If the game is to finish in 4 days or under, there is no need for the 6th bowler for sure. 5 would be more than enough, even 4 is OK.
And in any case, the theory that Batty or Ansari can offer say Jadeja like control was a myth to start with, and has been proven thus. It doesn't really matter if Rashid is going at 3.7 and Batty or Ansari at 3.3.
And for the next, if England are to go in with 3 spinners, would rather prefer it to be Ansari. Ravi Shastri was making an interesting point, Ansari's quickish left-arm spin might be more handy on a Cobra than Batty's rather easy pickings....... Would rather have Broad for Batty, and someone has to come in for Hameed. Hopefully that would be a forward looking option.


Last edited by msp83 on Wed 30 Nov 2016, 6:09 am; edited 1 time in total

msp83

Posts : 13402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:21 pm

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:Hi Carlos - that's a very impressive conversion rate for Browne. I've heard Alec Stewart more than once talk about the importance of this. Whilst it won't be the case every single time, generally Stewie is as much frustrated as pleased when a batsman gets a half-century but doesn't convert - ''Centuries and particularly big centuries win you matches, fifties don't'' is a regular comment.

I agree with you about the current thinking on Foakes seeming a bit odd. Like you, I rate him highly as a keeper. However, Bairstow's doing a (surprisingly) good job at the moment and also making runs. It's almost like saying now - ''We've almost run out of batsmen we can try, so let's bring in a keeper and that's one less batsmen we need to find!''. Trouble with that is we're not likely to get many or even any more runs as a result. As I've said before, the top 5 need to all be contributing in a more even consistent fashion. Easier said that done I know! With that in mind, Hildreth must have upset someone along the way - don't understand why he's never been given a crack.

What are your views on playing (or not) with 6 bowlers? Cheers.

Going to but in here - the 6 bowler policy worked well in UAE last winter, because Cook used all 6 bowlers properly. He used Anderson/Broad as almost "holding bowlers", then had Wood/Stokes as attacking seamers, and Moeen/Rashid as the two spinners. Here he basically hasn't used the third spinner at all, and actually this probably highlights that we have really missed someone like Wood who could come on for 3/4 overs and bowl some 90mph proper heat, some short stuff too. Finn is probably the most like him in the squad, but he's not really that quick anymore.

So unless Cook is going to have a sudden change of mind and trust the 6th bowler, we might as well do rid of him, get an extra batsman into the side and then Root can quite ably bowl a few overs if needed. I am on record stating I like the 6 bowler policy here, but not when Cook captains them like he has the past two tests (essentially not using Ansari at all, barely bowling Batty then ignoring Moeen too).

England are fine team wise going into the future in the bowling department. Moeen I think is perfectly fine at 8 and being the main spinner, with Rashid now pushing him hard for that spot. Then you have Anderson/Broad and Woakes as the three main seamers, with Stokes as the all rounder. The fact Moeen/Woakes are really good batsman is an added bonus, but ultimately they're in the side as the best spinner/third best seamer respectively. The problem is the batting, you only really have Cook/Root/Hameed nailed on to start next summer, then positions #4 and #5 are essentially up for grabs. Personally would like to see Bairstow stay at #7 long term, he's had the best year ever by a WK (statistically at least) in 2016, so no need to move him from there imo.

Who could #4 and #5 be? Well I have about as much clue as the selectors! Not sure they are even out there tbf, the names banded about hardly inspire great confidence. Would imagine they give Duckett another go provided he starts the summer off well, and then maybe a more experienced county pro like Hildreth?

Olly we are in complete agreement on all that.

Unfortunately , like you , (and the selectors) I haven't a clue who the two "missing" batsmen are going to be... But I do think it important they keep looking , rather than just try to shuffle other players around at the cost of team balance - and diminishing returns from players who are not allowed to settle into a role. Like poor Moeen.

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:27 pm

Occurs to me also that England have rather misjudged the pitches here : seem to have been hoodwinked into the belief that they are going to all turn square from about day two - and consequently have gone overboard on the spin options when they'd have been better with extra pace bowlers (what are Finn and Ball here for ?) or another batsman.
Every Test we hear that "this one will definitely spin quite early" ...but it hasn't happened yet.

Anyway with injuries and form issues selection for the next match is going to be a bit of an exercise in hunches and hope...

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 9:29 pm

msp83 wrote:When England talk about the 6th bowler in line with the pitches that are supposed to turn from ball one, I am reminded of India's recent strategy against New Zealand. The thinking from Anil Kumble in particularly has been that on such a track, what KPF would call the Cobra, you don't need more than 4 bowlers. Ashwin and Jadeja were doing the jobic basically with some support from Shami and Umesh. If the game is to finish in 4 days or under, there is no need for the 6th bowler for sure. 5 would be more than enough, even 4 is OK.
And in any case, the theory that Batty or Ansari can offer say Jadeja like control was a myth to start with, and has been proven thus. It doesn't really if Rashid is going at 3.7 and Batty or Ansari at 3.3.
And for the next, if England are to go in with 3 spinners, would rather prefer it to be Ansari. Ravi Shastri was making an interesting point, Ansari's quickish left-arm spin might be more handy on a Cobra than Batty's rather easy pickings....... Would rather have Broad for Batty, and someone has to come in for Hameed. Hopefully that would be a forward looking option.

Actually agree with Shastri there , msp.

But I'm wondering if the Cobra is extinct Smile

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by alfie on Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:29 pm

Hey Goose ....Yes I admit I was indeed oversimplifying re Gilchrist - as you have shown he did play 23 Test Innings in top 6 (you did mean Innings not Tests , right ? Although given Australia won a few without batting twice around that time it might not have been much different Smile )
And you are correct to point out Flower , Sangakkara etc , have shown keepers can bat up the list for a prolonged period. I am not so sure it is ideal though ; certainly SA seem to prefer to let AB concentrate on batting. I guess it depends on the player , and the situation...I am happy enough for Bairstow to bat higher in India at present if they have to squeeze in that extra bowler ; but I don't like it as a long term deal.

Which is , I think , where we fundamentally disagree. You see Bairstow at 7 as a luxury which current
England , unlike turn of the century Australia , cannot afford. I see him as an Insurance Policy - which current England sorely need . At least until the top four can be properly fixed and firing.
I am not suggesting England go with four bowlers ; and they don't have to - Stokes looks pretty sound at six , would you not agree ?
If and when England produce a fully functioning top four , I might be open to letting YJB bat five and relinquish the gloves to , say , Foakes (I am sure the Surrey Mafia would not object either Smile ) ; but I do not think now is the time to be making that move.

There is also the question of the effect on Bairstow : he seems pretty keen to do the job behind the stumps , and is clearly improving - though he can improve further ; and returning him to a role as batsman only might adversely affect his mindset and game. Given he has probably been England's best all round player this year that is not something I'd want to risk !

Anyway I guess this is one of those issues on which people will always have differing views. I am sure you and I will discuss it further through the coming months....

alfie

Posts : 8544
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by king_carlos on Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:27 am

Hi guildford. Hope you're well!

Yep, when Browne gets in he stays in which is a very useful attribute for an opener. Especially with our top order frailty. Obviously making those runs for Essex doesn't guarantee he can do it in tests but he'd be my choice to replace Hameed for now.

Hameed has done well enough to pretty much guarantee he'll return once fit so I think the coaches will put Duckett back at the top but I'd prefer they flew an opener over when they've moved Duckett to the middle order. I rate Duckett but think his game is more suited to the middle order in tests.

Olly and guildford - I agree on leaving Bairstow at 7 to an extent, although a fair few of his runs this season came at 6 with Stokes injured. My reason for wanting him to move back to batting over the next summer are two fold. Firstly I think he's the best suited batsmen we have for the number 5 spot and batting that high whilst also keeping is a lot of pressure that could burn him out. Secondly, I'm a big advocate of picking a keeper (not a batsman) and I think Foakes already is a better keeper and will keep improving. Ben Brown is another strong keeper who can bat well.

As for the 6 bowlers, I agree with what others have said above. Had the pitches been proper burners or Cook used the 3 spinners more then the three spinners could work well. I think it's clear the third spinner is surplus to how the side are actually playing once out on the field. Moeen and Dilly plus Root's golden arm would serve better.

With the players on tour I say stick with 6 bowlers but bring Broad (or Ball if Broad isn't fit) in for Batty.

king_carlos

Posts : 3360
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Work toilet

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by guildfordbat on Wed 30 Nov 2016, 8:09 am

Cheers, Carlos. Think we're all not far off being at one there. It's a good point flagged by you and Olly that it's not just a question of having 6 bowlers but, if we do, how Cook uses them.

I know your appreciation of the specialist keeper and much go along with it. Foakes' day must come, just not quite yet imo.

On a current specific matter, I heard last night that Woakes is a doubt for the fourth Test - anyone know what that's about?

guildfordbat

Posts : 11397
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Good Golly I'm Olly on Wed 30 Nov 2016, 8:24 am

Seems an announcement on "replacements" is to be made at 9am.

Woakes has a chipped bone in his hand, and Ansari has a back injury
avatar
Good Golly I'm Olly

Posts : 43420
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 22
Location : Chris Woakes's wardrobe

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by guildfordbat on Wed 30 Nov 2016, 8:36 am

Cheers, Olly.

That's news to me about Woakes - did that happen yesterday? Didn't see much of the play then.

Ansari had back problems off and on last season and know things flared up again during the second Test.

The announcement should be interesting. I'm betting Alfie's pension pot on Keaton Jennings! Very Happy

guildfordbat

Posts : 11397
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Eng in India

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 18 of 20 Previous  1 ... 10 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum