Eng in India

England tour of India, 2016-17

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I'm sure we'll get no comments from msp and the ICC on Kohli again trying to instigate with Stokes.....

Gooseberry wrote:Cooks been pretty rutless with the spinners if they havent been delivering. Rashid is very much the go to guy now and has been getting the wickets.
Given the bulk he is being bowled it does lessen the argument for 3 spinners if theres either a 4th seamer or a speclist bat who genuinely deserves a place missing out. If andersons fit then that is the case, if not im less convinced.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think questions will definitely be asked why Hameed didn't open yesterday considering his stoic and sterling defence today. If he had opened and prevented an anchorman there then who knows? I don't think he can blamed but medical staff have to be questioned.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not sure there is much cause/need for one but here goes with roadmap for tomorrow.

The best England can hope for is to get through tomorrow morning to reach lunch on 150 for 5 with a narrow lead. It needs the remainder of the tail to wag and bat through to tea to reach 220 for 7 and finally bat through until near close to reach around 275. Bear in mind that is best case scenario and not what I think will happen.

India, on the other hand, will look to be close to bowling England out by lunch tomorrow with scores close to parity allowing them to knock off a minimal total (around 20) with no fuss to wrap up the win during the afternoon session.

alfie wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think questions will definitely be asked why Hameed didn't open yesterday considering his stoic and sterling defence today. If he had opened and prevented an anchorman there then who knows? I don't think he can blamed but medical staff have to be questioned.

Fair question.  If Bairstow and Stokes could have been kept for today...

But I imagine they were unsure how his injury would stand up to batting and just didn't want to risk it. Perhaps another few hours rest suggested it wasn't as bad as they feared.  There is the next game to consider too.

alfie wrote:Incidentally , after seeing Shami bouncing out Woakes and Rashid , it struck me that England might perhaps have employed a bit more short stuff at India's late order players.  Might not have done any good ; but when the standard methods weren't making much impression a sustained burst of chin music might have been worth a try.

alfie wrote:Vijay gone !

Nine to go

alfie wrote:Incidentally , after seeing Shami bouncing out Woakes and Rashid , it struck me that England might perhaps have employed a bit more short stuff at India's late order players.  Might not have done any good ; but when the standard methods weren't making much impression a sustained burst of chin music might have been worth a try.

dyrewolfe wrote:

alfie wrote:Incidentally , after seeing Shami bouncing out Woakes and Rashid , it struck me that England might perhaps have employed a bit more short stuff at India's late order players.  Might not have done any good ; but when the standard methods weren't making much impression a sustained burst of chin music might have been worth a try.

The TMS commentators were saying yesterday that pitching the ball up was just allowing India to score boundaries, so a bit of short stuff might have been in order.

Looking at England's 2nd innings scorecard and it was even more shambolic than I feared. I had hoped we might get at least 250-260, but apparently the house of cards collapse did happen after all. Only serious resistance from lynchpin Root and the injured Hameed. A cameo from Woakes aside it was an utter shambles.

Think its telling that the only scores of note came from the players generally considered to have the best technique and discipline. Shows that we could have mustered a decent score with better application. Very disappointing.


Chase should be a formality for India. If they don't get it today, it will be done and dusted very soon tomorrow.

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

Literally would be the worst thing England could do right now

CaledonianCraig wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

Swings and roundabouts though.

The reason England have been competitive in many tests is testament to the fact that they bat so deep. Start playing specialist bowlers who are less proficient at batting and you lengthen the tail and take away perhaps England's biggest strength. On top of that if you look at how well (or not) specialist batsmen have done of late for England then playing specialist batsmen guarantees nothing.

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

alfie wrote:He has also shown that despite his reputation as , shall we say , a disciple of Boycott rather than Trescothick , he does have plenty of shots...

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).

alfie wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

Ah , the selection debate...which will certainly rage after the series is over.  In fact there are Two different selection debates : The Way Forward and the What Can We Do to Compete in Asia ...

The multitaskers (god that word looks ugly in print !) are partly there because of the perceived necessity to employ at least three spinners in this part of the world. Perhaps that argument should be called into question ; but it is fair to say most were in favour of that strategy before the series started. Perhaps less notice should be taken of predictions that the pitches will "turn from day one"...
Partly also because at present it is hard to make a strong case for more than three or four pure batsmen over the all rounders . If Cook , Root , and now young Hameed are considered clearly worth selection ; who else can you name who would be automatically assumed to do better than the likes of Stokes , Moeen or Bairstow ?  Or even Woakes ?   Throw in their other skills and it is easy to see why the selectors have gone down this track...

I suspect that , back in England , the team will adopt a more conventional shape.  Not wanting to get too far ahead ; but maybe   Cook/Hameed/Root/??/??/ Stokes/Bairstow/Moeen or Woakes or Rashid/Broad/Anderson and one other - probably whoever didn't get the nod at position eight. Or maybe Wood.

Who the two ?? Batsmen are is anybody's guess...

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.

alfie wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think the lack of specialist batsmen is also a significant contributing factor to foolish shots. A lot of the dismissals have been those of pressured players struggling to focus on task. Too many of the top 7 have pressure from other areas of their game to already contend with.

Of the top 7, Bairstow is keeping, Stokes and Moeen are relied on a lot with the ball and Buttler isn't a specialist batsman (although playing as one). That leaves Cook, Hameed and Root at the top. Of those Cook also has the captaincy to deal with and Hameed is an 19 year old kid.

It's a lot of responsibility falling on a few players. Given the lack of all round spinner in these conditions and Duckett/Ballance so out of nick it's difficult to fix  immediately though.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Maybe instead of trying to fill the team with multitaskers, its time to go back to an old fashioned lineup of 6 specialist batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers (or 3 specialist bowlers and an all-rounder)?

Ah , the selection debate...which will certainly rage after the series is over.  In fact there are Two different selection debates : The Way Forward and the What Can We Do to Compete in Asia ...

The multitaskers (god that word looks ugly in print !) are partly there because of the perceived necessity to employ at least three spinners in this part of the world. Perhaps that argument should be called into question ; but it is fair to say most were in favour of that strategy before the series started. Perhaps less notice should be taken of predictions that the pitches will "turn from day one"...
Partly also because at present it is hard to make a strong case for more than three or four pure batsmen over the all rounders . If Cook , Root , and now young Hameed are considered clearly worth selection ; who else can you name who would be automatically assumed to do better than the likes of Stokes , Moeen or Bairstow ?  Or even Woakes ?   Throw in their other skills and it is easy to see why the selectors have gone down this track...

I suspect that , back in England , the team will adopt a more conventional shape.  Not wanting to get too far ahead ; but maybe   Cook/Hameed/Root/??/??/ Stokes/Bairstow/Moeen or Woakes or Rashid/Broad/Anderson and one other - probably whoever didn't get the nod at position eight. Or maybe Wood.

Who the two ?? Batsmen are is anybody's guess...

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).

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.

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.