England's Winter of Cricket 2022/23

by Duty281 Tue 25 Oct 2022, 5:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Of course we have the World T20 covered in a separate thread, but I thought we should have a new one for England's upcoming games this winter, which feature:

Three ODIs in Australia (17th-22nd November)
Three tests in Pakistan (1st-21st December)
Three ODIs in South Africa (27th January-1st February)
Two tests in New Zealand (16th-28th February)
Three ODIs in Bangladesh (March)

Looking forward to the tests, but I think the ODIs will be instantly forgettable!

by Duty281 Tue 06 Dec 2022, 9:42 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
KP_fan wrote:On the subject of whether declaration was a bad decision that Eng got away with due to a good result?

I won't call it bad...but injudicious, too risky......risk percentage higher than a measured captain / CEO/Business leader aught to take when managing his enterprise.

Wasn't measured, but rather bordering on gamble...a gamble that he got away with....
The timing also didn't make the gamble right.....gamble could have been justified if this was the last test and you are down 2-1
Losing from such position of dominance in T1 would have meant a morale bust for the team & rest of tour...

You're comparing apples with oranges. It isn't a business/CEO decision. I own a business. If I made decisions based on one evenings thought process I'd be in all sorts of sh*t.

The timing was right as England won. All the rest is periphery. Its rare in business, or sport for that matter, where the results play out in front of you so directly. England declared, England won. Had they not declared when they did, they would not. It is very simple and the rest is just people defending their narrative.

I'm just glad England have a couple of visionaries in charge and not the majority of the English sporting public. Some people are brave and courageous thinkers who can change the course of history, however small that change is in the scheme of things, others are constrained by the limitations of their own thinking. We all know which box we fit in and there is no shame in either. But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.

'The timing was right as England won.' - Just to understand your thinking on this one, do you think that England's declaration in Chennai in 2008 was incorrect, as they lost?

'Had they not declared when they did, they would not [have won]. It is very simple' - How do you know this? Who's to say that England wouldn't have won if they had declared 5 or 10 or 15 overs later?

'But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.' - Who is claiming that England were lucky?

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue 06 Dec 2022, 11:16 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
KP_fan wrote:On the subject of whether declaration was a bad decision that Eng got away with due to a good result?

I won't call it bad...but injudicious, too risky......risk percentage higher than a measured captain / CEO/Business leader aught to take when managing his enterprise.

Wasn't measured, but rather bordering on gamble...a gamble that he got away with....
The timing also didn't make the gamble right.....gamble could have been justified if this was the last test and you are down 2-1
Losing from such position of dominance in T1 would have meant a morale bust for the team & rest of tour...

You're comparing apples with oranges. It isn't a business/CEO decision. I own a business. If I made decisions based on one evenings thought process I'd be in all sorts of sh*t.

The timing was right as England won. All the rest is periphery. Its rare in business, or sport for that matter, where the results play out in front of you so directly. England declared, England won. Had they not declared when they did, they would not. It is very simple and the rest is just people defending their narrative.

I'm just glad England have a couple of visionaries in charge and not the majority of the English sporting public. Some people are brave and courageous thinkers who can change the course of history, however small that change is in the scheme of things, others are constrained by the limitations of their own thinking. We all know which box we fit in and there is no shame in either. But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.

'The timing was right as England won.' - Just to understand your thinking on this one, do you think that England's declaration in Chennai in 2008 was incorrect, as they lost?

'Had they not declared when they did, they would not [have won]. It is very simple' - How do you know this? Who's to say that England wouldn't have won if they had declared 5 or 10 or 15 overs later?

'But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.' - Who is claiming that England were lucky?

Honestly, Duty, I don't recall that match in any detail. But we are discussing Ralwinpindi in 2022, not Chennai in 2008.

You're being far too literal. Of course I don't know for sure. It's a ridiculous notion and, quite honestly, a stupidly reductive argument. I'm talking about what actually happened, rather than whataboutery. The logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that there isn't a conclusion. We can, however, make assumptions based on what happened though rather than pointless pontificating to defend a position.

Of course the insinuation is that they were lucky. We don't need to keep reducing the argument to its constituent parts. You're a smart boy, but I think you're just being deliberately obtuse as you're on the wrong side of the debate and you're struggling with it. One of those people constrained by their own limitations. Thats comfortable for you, I get it. I'm sure you don't agree but that's how it looks to me.

You remind me of Chemical (Comical) Ali in the 2nd Gulf War. I'm sure you remember him given your encyclopedic knowledge of all things when you were a kid. Stood there telling the world that no US soldiers were on Iraqi soil as American tanks rolled past in the background.

Sometimes you just have to show some humility and admit you got it wrong. Its all part of growing up. You'll get there.

by Duty281 Tue 06 Dec 2022, 11:59 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
KP_fan wrote:On the subject of whether declaration was a bad decision that Eng got away with due to a good result?

I won't call it bad...but injudicious, too risky......risk percentage higher than a measured captain / CEO/Business leader aught to take when managing his enterprise.

Wasn't measured, but rather bordering on gamble...a gamble that he got away with....
The timing also didn't make the gamble right.....gamble could have been justified if this was the last test and you are down 2-1
Losing from such position of dominance in T1 would have meant a morale bust for the team & rest of tour...

You're comparing apples with oranges. It isn't a business/CEO decision. I own a business. If I made decisions based on one evenings thought process I'd be in all sorts of sh*t.

The timing was right as England won. All the rest is periphery. Its rare in business, or sport for that matter, where the results play out in front of you so directly. England declared, England won. Had they not declared when they did, they would not. It is very simple and the rest is just people defending their narrative.

I'm just glad England have a couple of visionaries in charge and not the majority of the English sporting public. Some people are brave and courageous thinkers who can change the course of history, however small that change is in the scheme of things, others are constrained by the limitations of their own thinking. We all know which box we fit in and there is no shame in either. But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.

'The timing was right as England won.' - Just to understand your thinking on this one, do you think that England's declaration in Chennai in 2008 was incorrect, as they lost?

'Had they not declared when they did, they would not [have won]. It is very simple' - How do you know this? Who's to say that England wouldn't have won if they had declared 5 or 10 or 15 overs later?

'But to suggest England somehow got 'lucky' when the result was a direct consequence of their actions is just ludicrous.' - Who is claiming that England were lucky?

Honestly, Duty, I don't recall that match in any detail. But we are discussing Ralwinpindi in 2022, not Chennai in 2008.

You're being far too literal. Of course I don't know for sure. It's a ridiculous notion and, quite honestly, a stupidly reductive argument. I'm talking about what actually happened, rather than whataboutery. The logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that there isn't a conclusion. We can, however, make assumptions based on what happened though rather than pointless pontificating to defend a position.

Of course the insinuation is that they were lucky. We don't need to keep reducing the argument to its constituent parts. You're a smart boy, but I think you're just being deliberately obtuse as you're on the wrong side of the debate and you're struggling with it. One of those people constrained by their own limitations. Thats comfortable for you, I get it. I'm sure you don't agree but that's how it looks to me.

You remind me of Chemical (Comical) Ali in the 2nd Gulf War. I'm sure you remember him given your encyclopedic knowledge of all things when you were a kid. Stood there telling the world that no US soldiers were on Iraqi soil as American tanks rolled past in the background.

Sometimes you just have to show some humility and admit you got it wrong. Its all part of growing up. You'll get there.

Well with regards to Chennai 2008 the point was that England declared with a lead of 386 but went on to lose. Most (I think) would say the declaration was perfectly fine yet England lost. But alright then let's say Rawalpindi 2022. If Pakistan had chased it down yesterday would you have then said it was a bad decision to declare when England did? Because if you do that would make you seem like someone who judges in hindsight and believes that outcome is King. And if you don't then you'd be doing the same thing as I'm doing now!

Related to that, do you agree that sometimes good declarations lead to bad results, and that bad declarations sometimes lead to good results?

I'm sorry for taking your words literally, I'm not sure how else you want me to take them? 'Of course I don't know for sure' seems very different to 'it's that simple'.

I have never suggested England were lucky, or remotely insinuated it. The reckless declaration gave the bowlers a hell of a lot to do, but Stokes, Anderson and Robinson bowled in a world-class manner in the afternoon session onwards, and England fully deserved the win. There was nothing lucky about it.

I don't believe I'm on the 'wrong side of the debate', I'm just viewing it as a friendly discussion, you're the only one who seems to be taking things personally and in a rather heated way. And again, I disagree that I'm wrong, despite how much you seem keen to insist on proving a point.

by Mind the windows Tino. Wed 07 Dec 2022, 7:38 am

I can hardly be accused of judging in hindsight! I said "l love it. Live by the sword, die by the sword" when they declared! Other than getting Stokes face tattooed on my bicep, I'm not sure how much more unequivocal I could have been. I said I loved it, you called it stupid. Maybe you were right...

Aren't 80% of the posts on this forum about someone trying to make their point. Kind of the reason we are on here!

It's not heated though, champ. You're not that sensitive and if really think that, then I'm happy to apologise. You've been posting with me long enough to know to ignore half of what I say. I'm just having some fun with you, and I'm fairly certain you know that.

by Soul Requiem Wed 07 Dec 2022, 8:46 am

Duty281 wrote:
Well with regards to Chennai 2008 the point was that England declared with a lead of 386 but went on to lose. Most (I think) would say the declaration was perfectly fine yet England lost. But alright then let's say Rawalpindi 2022. If Pakistan had chased it down yesterday would you have then said it was a bad decision to declare when England did? Because if you do that would make you seem like someone who judges in hindsight and believes that outcome is King. And if you don't then you'd be doing the same thing as I'm doing now!

Related to that, do you agree that sometimes good declarations lead to bad results, and that bad declarations sometimes lead to good results?

I'm sorry for taking your words literally, I'm not sure how else you want me to take them? 'Of course I don't know for sure' seems very different to 'it's that simple'.

I have never suggested England were lucky, or remotely insinuated it. The reckless declaration gave the bowlers a hell of a lot to do, but Stokes, Anderson and Robinson bowled in a world-class manner in the afternoon session onwards, and England fully deserved the win. There was nothing lucky about it.

I don't believe I'm on the 'wrong side of the debate', I'm just viewing it as a friendly discussion, you're the only one who seems to be taking things personally and in a rather heated way. And again, I disagree that I'm wrong, despite how much you seem keen to insist on proving a point.

On the balance of probabilities based on their careers (one short and one long) we could assume that Robinson and Anderson would bowl world class spells because they are world class bowlers. I'd have been more surprised to see Pakistan get after the pair and win if i'm honest especially Anderson who economy wise is the best in the world, batsman fear him so much they shut up shop in all conditions.

The thing is you are wrong as history will always show England winning by 74 runs, sport really is that simple. It wasn't a fool proof decision but it's important for the side moving forward that the opposition are always on the back foot knowing they'll be attacked every single day. Seven wins out of eight suggest the current mindset is worth persevering with.

by Duty281 Wed 07 Dec 2022, 10:50 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I can hardly be accused of judging in hindsight! I said "l love it. Live by the sword, die by the sword" when they declared! Other than getting Stokes face tattooed on my bicep, I'm not sure how much more unequivocal I could have been. I said I loved it, you called it stupid. Maybe you were right...

Aren't 80% of the posts on this forum about someone trying to make their point. Kind of the reason we are on here!

It's not heated though, champ. You're not that sensitive and if really think that, then I'm happy to apologise. You've been posting with me long enough to know to ignore half of what I say. I'm just having some fun with you, and I'm fairly certain you know that.

No, I'm not saying you did judge in hindsight.

I'm asking if Pakistan had won, would you have maintained your view and said it was a good declaration that just didn't come off, or would you have changed your view and said it was a bad declaration?

by **superflyweight** Wed 07 Dec 2022, 11:26 am

Duty281 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I can hardly be accused of judging in hindsight! I said "l love it. Live by the sword, die by the sword" when they declared! Other than getting Stokes face tattooed on my bicep, I'm not sure how much more unequivocal I could have been. I said I loved it, you called it stupid. Maybe you were right...

Aren't 80% of the posts on this forum about someone trying to make their point. Kind of the reason we are on here!

It's not heated though, champ. You're not that sensitive and if really think that, then I'm happy to apologise. You've been posting with me long enough to know to ignore half of what I say. I'm just having some fun with you, and I'm fairly certain you know that.

No, I'm not saying you did judge in hindsight.

I'm asking if Pakistan had won, would you have maintained your view and said it was a good declaration that just didn't come off, or would you have changed your view and said it was a bad declaration?

Given how enthusiastically he supported the decision (a little too 'American' for my personal tastes and Tina and I will have words about that later) I think it's safe to assume that he would have always said it was a good declaration, regardless of the result.

by alfie Wed 07 Dec 2022, 12:11 pm

Not wishing to put words in Tino's mouth but I'm pretty sure he would have called it a good idea that just didn't quite work out...

Speaking for myself , I think that trying to classify declarations as "good" or "bad" is a little too simplistic. I am discounting those in which there is so much time left and such a huge margin in runs and class between the teams (eg the recent Perth Test Australia won against West Indies : it really didn't matter an hour or more either way , the result was inevitable) . But all the "close calls" are a matter of trying to judge what will happen and deciding whether or not you wish to add a little more risk to improve your chance of winning.

Now whether the decision is successful or not is really the only thing that matters. If it fails , it doesn't mean it was necessarily "bad" - or that slightly different timing would have been better , since we cannot know what would have happened if.... Similarly we cannot say for certain - in the case of a winning declaration - that the same result might not have been possible even more comfortably with a different choice of target. But I'd argue that in the case of a win it simply doesn't matter.. It got the required result. Therefore it is by definition the (or "a") right call.

So what would I have said if Pakistan had won ? Think I would have said that it was a bit of a pity that the side that made most of the running lost out ; but I wouldn't have called Stokes daft for taking a bit of a risk - any more than I did Root a couple of years ago , or Pietersen in Chennai (though in both those cases I was critical of some of their tactics in the field. Which is another matter altogether...)

Anyway always entertaining to see two such lively posters as Duty and Tino going head to head : almost as much fun as Bazball Smile

by KP_fan Wed 07 Dec 2022, 12:14 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
KP_fan wrote:On the subject of whether declaration was a bad decision that Eng got away with due to a good result?

I won't call it bad...but injudicious, too risky......risk percentage higher than a measured captain / CEO/Business leader aught to take when managing his enterprise.

Wasn't measured, but rather bordering on gamble...a gamble that he got away with....
The timing also didn't make the gamble right.....gamble could have been justified if this was the last test and you are down 2-1
Losing from such position of dominance in T1 would have meant a morale bust for the team & rest of tour...

You're comparing apples with oranges. It isn't a business/CEO decision. I own a business. If I made decisions based on one evenings thought process I'd be in all sorts of sh*t.

The timing was right as England won. All the rest is periphery. Its rare in business, or sport for that matter, where the results play out in front of you so directly. England declared, England won. Had they not declared when they did, they would not. It is very simple and the rest is just people defending their narrative.

I didn't call the decision bad......and timing wasn't "too" bad.
He just needed to close the door a bit more for Pak...by batting 5 if not 8 more overs.
It was marginal gamble & injudicious.
A leader ( whether in cricket or business ) should not take a risk equivalent to this situation in the opening encounter.
That opened a 3rd option( his own team's defeat) after having dominated every day of the game.
The impact would be not just the test match but the morale & hence result for the series.

Don't get me wrong...I am not too critical with "bad" or "shocking" or "wrong" type judgments
Just borderline risky....needed to close the door a bit more.
BUT between erring on declaring too late like before lunch next day , this was still preferable

by alfie Wed 07 Dec 2022, 12:40 pm

Hey KP_fan : I am a little surprised you are saying that it would have been better to bat another 5-8 overs - even in hindsight ? Especially as on the fourth evening (presumably because two wickets had gone down and Azhar was injured) you made a bold - and ultimately correct - call that the odds were about 60% England !

Whatever you think of the risk , it is surely pretty clear (with that useful hindsight even if we all didn't see it at the time) that batting even another five overs would have almost certainly killed the game . It would have meant something like 380 to chase in about 87/88 overs and Pakistan would have been very unlikely to do anything other than stonewall to a draw. Especially once an early wicket went down.

Your point about morale effects is a fair one - but I have a feeling under Stokes England's morale is fairly unshakeable at the moment. The early reverse against SA didn't seem to hurt them too badly in the summer...

by sirfredperry Wed 07 Dec 2022, 1:09 pm

England have had some year, pulling off historic (highest run chase/quickest scoring) victories and playing an amazing brand of Test cricket.

It is certainly ONE OF THE best calendar years England have had even accounting for the poor start to 2022.

But is it England's best ever? And can anyone think of a better year for England or, for that matter, for any Test team?

2004 was pretty special, with England winning all seven home Tests and then winning the 1st Test in SA on the way to a series victory.

2010 wasn't bad, either, with Eng beating Pakistan 3-1 at home and then chalking up two innings victories in Australia on the way to retaining the Ashes.

These are just two of the most recent "good" years for England and I'm sure others come to mind too, and also there must be annus mirabilises for other teams.
The Windies would have had some phenomenal years in the 80s with long winning streaks and, of course, Australia whacked their way to SIXTEEN successive Test victories at one point.

Would be interesting to hear what people think about various sides' wonderful years.

by VTR Wed 07 Dec 2022, 1:54 pm

2004 also included England winning in the Windies, and 3-0 at that, still the only time in about the last 60 years or so. So I think for England in Tests 2004 is a very good shout

by Duty281 Wed 07 Dec 2022, 2:26 pm

2011 was a fantastic year for England. The win in Sydney which wrapped up the first series win for England in Australia for decades, followed by a 1-0 win over Sri Lanka in three tests (which included the incredible finale at Cardiff where England won from near-impossible odds), and then the 4-0 win over India which confirmed England's status as world number one, and concluded the journey England had been on since being rolled cheaply in Sabina Park in 2009.

And it wasn't just a 4-0 win over India, who were ranked world number one going into the series, it was four absolute hammerings. Two by an innings, one by 319 runs and another by 196 runs. Broad got a hat-trick, Pietersen scored a double ton and averaged 100 for the series, Bell got a double ton, Cook scored 294 in an innings, and the 2,000th test was played at Lord's in a game where England won on the final day.

Six wins, two draws, no losses, world number one. Not a bad old year.

by KP_fan Wed 07 Dec 2022, 2:31 pm

alfie wrote:Hey KP_fan : I am a little surprised you are saying that it would have been better to bat another 5-8 overs - even in hindsight ? Especially as on the fourth evening (presumably because two wickets had gone down and Azhar was injured) you made a bold - and ultimately correct - call that the odds were about 60% England !

my odds were 60%(Eng win), 30%(D) and 10%(Pak win)
In the end the 10% is quite binary and if it occurs you lose the full match....and too high a level of risk to take in T1 after being so dominant for entire game.
I would have liked to bat 5 to 8 overs more and ZERO that risk or lower Pak win to 1%
and then the Probabilities would have been 50%-49%-1%......my comfortable scenario.

alfie wrote:Whatever you think of the risk , it is surely pretty clear (with that useful hindsight even if we all didn't see it at the time) that batting even another five overs would have almost certainly killed the game . It would have meant something like 380 to chase in about 87/88 overs and Pakistan would have been very unlikely to do anything other than stonewall to a draw. Especially once an early wicket went down.

.

I don't believe that it's certain that game would have been "killed"
5 over later declaration would have created different dynamics....and the entire inning could have had a different track.....with Eng 120% on the attack all the time..
i.e when you alter the base conditions marginally , you could get a totally different result and not necessarily a marginally different one in proportion only to the level of alteration.

by Duty281 Wed 07 Dec 2022, 3:56 pm

alfie wrote:Not wishing to put words in Tino's mouth but I'm pretty sure he would have called it a good idea that just didn't quite work out...

Speaking for myself , I think that trying to classify declarations as "good" or "bad" is a little too simplistic. I am discounting those in which there is so much time left and such a huge margin in runs and class between the teams (eg the recent Perth Test Australia won against West Indies : it really didn't matter an hour or more either way , the result was inevitable) . But all the "close calls" are a matter of trying to judge what will happen and deciding whether or not you wish to add a little more risk to improve your chance of winning.

Now whether the decision is successful or not is really the only thing that matters. If it fails , it doesn't mean it was necessarily "bad" - or that slightly different timing would have been better , since we cannot know what would have happened if.... Similarly we cannot say for certain - in the case of a winning declaration - that the same result might not have been possible even more comfortably with a different choice of target. But I'd argue that in the case of a win it simply doesn't matter.. It got the required result. Therefore it is by definition the (or "a") right call.

So what would I have said if Pakistan had won ? Think I would have said that it was a bit of a pity that the side that made most of the running lost out ; but I wouldn't have called Stokes daft for taking a bit of a risk - any more than I did Root a couple of years ago , or Pietersen in Chennai (though in both those cases I was critical of some of their tactics in the field. Which is another matter altogether...)

Anyway always entertaining to see two such lively posters as Duty and Tino going head to head : almost as much fun as Bazball

I think so too, and that's exactly what I've been getting at.

You don't judge a declaration by outcome, you judge it by the information you had at the time and what you assessed the probability to be. And that goes back to my earlier point of sometimes you can make a perfectly fine declaration which results in a loss e.g. Chennai 2008, or you can made a dodgy declaration which results in a win.

But this runs contrary to what you and some other posters have been saying - that if victory happens it must mean the declaration was sound, which I don't think is the case.

And it also relates to what I referred to as judgement in hindsight. How many of the people, not necessarily on here, who praised Stokes' declaration at the time, would have criticised him if Pakistan had won? Because I don't think such criticism would be logically valid.

by Soul Requiem Wed 07 Dec 2022, 4:18 pm

I don't know why Chennai 2008 keeps getting mentioned, England declared once the ninth wicket went down with only Panesar to come, it doesn't factor into this conversation at all.

by sirfredperry Wed 07 Dec 2022, 4:37 pm

Arguably the worst third-innings declaration was by Gary Sobers in Port of Spain against England in 1967-68.

England were set 214 to win on the last afternoon and got home by seven wickets in 52 over on a good wicket.

For some reason, Sobers thought he could bowl out England who had a very strong batting line-up. Basil Butcher, only an occasional bowler, had taken 5-34 in England's first innings and Gary reckoned he could do it again.

As it was, the match - and the series - was lost and Sobers was pilloried. In a magnificent display in the final Test, Gary hit 150 and 90-odd but in an exciting finale England's last pair held on for the draw and the series win.

by guildfordbat Wed 07 Dec 2022, 6:10 pm

KP_fan wrote:
alfie wrote:Hey KP_fan : I am a little surprised you are saying that it would have been better to bat another 5-8 overs - even in hindsight ? Especially as on the fourth evening (presumably because two wickets had gone down and Azhar was injured) you made a bold - and ultimately correct - call that the odds were about 60% England !

my odds were 60%(Eng win), 30%(D) and 10%(Pak win)
In the end the 10% is quite binary and if it occurs you lose the full match.... and too high a level of risk to take in T1 after being so dominant for entire game.
I would have liked to bat 5 to 8 overs more and ZERO that risk or lower Pak win to 1%
and then the Probabilities would have been 50%-49%-1%...... my comfortable scenario.

alfie wrote:Whatever you think of the risk , it is surely pretty clear (with that useful hindsight even if we all didn't see it at the time) that batting even another five overs would have almost certainly killed the game . It would have meant something like 380 to chase in about 87/88 overs and Pakistan would have been very unlikely to do anything other than stonewall to a draw. Especially once an early wicket went down.

.

I don't believe that it's certain that game would have been "killed"
5 over later declaration would have created different dynamics.... and the entire inning could have had a different track..... with Eng 120% on the attack all the time..
i.e when you alter the base conditions marginally , you could get a totally different result and not necessarily a marginally different one in proportion only to the level of alteration.

Painful though it is for me to acknowledge, my thinking since about half an hour before tea on day 4 largely mirrors that of KP_f above.

None of that is to say Stokes was wrong. He has the result in support of his decision and always will have. Furthermore - and I don't think this has been said, let alone emphasised, enough - he knows his players on and off the pitch together with their capabilities far better than I do in my armchair. We probably need to recognise more that a Test captain should be best placed to make the call on a declaration, even though we may disagree with it and it ultimately may not bring the victory sought.

That said, what I particularly like about the KP_f approach of batting 5 to 8 overs after tea is that we still would have had a decent chance of winning but almost no danger of losing. The main thing I struggle with about Bazball is the apparent ''we don't do draws!'' philosophy. I'm not sure if Stokes has actually said that but, even if not, it's something being promoted by the media. Now with my old school background, I'm thinking of starting a ''Be Fair to the Draw'' campaign! Wink

Sure, I would always want us to start a Test with the aim of victory and play for it accordingly. However, the mentality imo shouldn't solely be win or lose at all costs. Win or draw is surely a better option and position to be in for the side considering a second innings declaration. I would add that doesn't mean spectators - at the ground and on tv - are missing out. Batting late into the last day in an attempt to save the game can be as intriguing and enthralling as a victory charge.

So how would my game plan of batting on after tea have worked out? All I can say with certainty is - no better than Stokes'! However, mitigating and possibly understandable factors are that with us having more on the board, we could have used our spinners more with no real risk. Whether they would have then got amongst the wickets we'll never be able to tell but it would have eased the demands on the seamers and left them fresher for Friday's start. Where I (unusually) disagree with Alfie is that batting on after tea would almost certainly have killed the game. We just don't know what would have happened. Scoreboard pressure might have got to the batsmen. In any case from what I saw, last day wickets fell to good bowling and good catching rather than too many rash shots in search of a dangled carrot. Sometimes you take more wickets in 20 minutes than a full session - not that I would have advocated the former this week!

Anyway and all in all, so preferable to be chatting about an England win and how it came about rather than a loss.

by VTR Wed 07 Dec 2022, 8:27 pm

I've seen that not interested in draws line and am also unsure about it. Surely it doesn't hold if we're 2-1 up in the final Ashes Test with the opportunity to bat Australia out of the game or declare. Or even this series, wins in Pakistan are very rare, so in the next Test would it be better to conserve a 1-0 lead than risk 1-1 whilst trying to win the series after two matches? Maybe they think the latter is actually preferable, and maybe we are about to find out!

by Duty281 Wed 07 Dec 2022, 10:14 pm

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/pakistan-vs-england-2nd-test-multan-ollie-pope-could-retain-gloves-as-multan-fog-poses-start-time-dilemma-1348506

Pope might be keeping the gloves for the second test. Also, early morning fog in Multan could mean the days of the test will be shortened at both ends.

by dummy_half Wed 07 Dec 2022, 11:33 pm

A few thoughts -
At the time of the declaration, I thought we were probably 30-40 runs short of where I'd have liked to be. Would have meant that Pakistan would have to be really aggressive in trying for the win (and noting that their WTC final chances needed them to win or at least try), and so increased the likelihood of getting wickets.

However

We weren't there and don't have the same knowledge of how the wicket was changing as those who got to bat on it. First innings it was obviously a belter, with 7 centuries scored, but in the second innings no-one got more than 87 and there were a few cheap dismissals. Not saying it turned into a minefield by any stretch, but perhaps 300 was the par score for the 4th innings, especially with both scoreboard and time pressure.

by alfie Thu 08 Dec 2022, 2:20 am

dummy_half wrote:A few thoughts -
At the time of the declaration, I thought we were probably 30-40 runs short of where I'd have liked to be. Would have meant that Pakistan would have to be really aggressive in trying for the win (and noting that their WTC final chances needed them to win or at least try), and so increased the likelihood of getting wickets.

However

We weren't there and don't have the same knowledge of how the wicket was changing as those who got to bat on it. First innings it was obviously a belter, with 7 centuries scored, but in the second innings no-one got more than 87 and there were a few cheap dismissals. Not saying it turned into a minefield by any stretch, but perhaps 300 was the par score for the 4th innings, especially with both scoreboard and time pressure.

This ^

No definitive answer to "what was the optimum tactic to get a win" : we all have/had our opinions. Those on the spot made a call - which turned out to be successful. I just don't quite see the point in trying to argue - in retrospect - that their decision "might" have been foolhardy ?

But I guess discussing it fills time before Multan Smile

A bit concerning that fog might mean further reduced time in this match !

By the way , I think we can take suggestions that the Stokes approach actually means the team would happily go down to defeat all guns blazing if pushed into a literally impossible situation on a last day. Stokes himself was influential in saving (narrowly) last January's Sydney Test by batting time. And when England were three down early against SA recently in the second match , Bairstow and Crawley shelved the high octane approach for a couple of hours in trying conditions to restore the balance : the team is (very) positive - but not really "reckless".

by alfie Thu 08 Dec 2022, 4:06 am

At the risk of perpetuating a debate which is perhaps becoming a bit tedious , I feel I should reply to a couple of points guildford raised above...

The "disagreement" in this case is about the (likely) effect of batting on after tea. KP_fan , guildford - and I among others - would have chosen to do so For varying spans I think but at least five seems to be consensus . I actually thought the main plus point for this was the well known guildford/Stewart doctrine of not giving the opening bats a chance to breathe before retaking the field Smile

- but I guess safety considerations came into it too.

I may be wrong but it does seem to me that the math (add thirty/forty runs to England's score , take 8-10 overs- including innings change overs lost- off the time left to play) leaves a rather unattractive target for Pakistan : something like 375-380 to get in a probable 85-90 overs - a rate higher than the first innings on a wearing pitch. Having observed Pakistan's usual approach I think it reasonable to believe they would have been disinclined to pursue it. Can't be sure , of course !
It would have allowed England to set attacking fields and use the spinners more , true. But I think we all saw that the spinners were generally less effective than the pace men (for all that Jacks and even Mahmood ended up with a few wickets) and I suspect Stokes correctly envisaged having to call on Anderson Robinson and himself a lot more on the last day. Wickets may still have fallen , yes. But noting that Pakistan's last pair held out for quite some time just blocking I'd suggest a blockathon from the start would very likely have killed the game...no way to ever know for sure .

Second issue more pertinent I think. I am definitely not opposed to the notion that a draw can still be great entertainment (many of my own humble batting efforts have been dedicated to that noble pursuit Smile

) That Sydney Test as mentioned above was a spine-tingling last few hours. I do agree with Stokes (as indeed you do too , guildford) in that you should go into any Test intending first to win it - and I am not sure that approach has been universal among Test playing countries over the years. Win at all costs ? Literally ? Reckon I will wait to see some more examples before I subscribe to the view that Stokes is quite as determined to fix bayonets and charge regardless of the situation as his comments imply. Next Ashes might well bring an occasion to see ? Or Multan for that matter...

Anyway time to dash off to Adelaide ... where Australia are batting and I will provide my usual notes for any up early Greenwich time zone 606ers Smile

by alfie Thu 08 Dec 2022, 8:41 am

I see the possibility I flagged a couple of days ago has come to pass... Pope keeps the gloves as Wood for Livingstone is the only change to the XI announced today.

Can't say I disagree. Hard on Foakes (who has a knack of getting ill/injured at the wrong times !) ; but I reckon they may need an extra bowling option in a probably shortened match , closely following on from a pretty exhausting work out for all bowlers at Rawalpindi.

Could have left out Jacks , despite his six wickets , I suppose. But I reckon that might have put too much on Leach - and maybe Root - if it transpires that the Multan surface calls for a lot of spin. Even spinners get tired ! It looks to me like an attacking move.

Counterpoint : may be hard work for Pope , backing up as number three and keeper. If they were to bowl first , maybe a case for swapping him in the order with Root ?

And just a note of worry for Foakes with an eye to the future : with a number of options at present - batting and bowling - and more than one competent keeper around ; he may be at risk of more "Jack Russell Convenient Omission Syndrome" . Is often a risk in the wicket keeping business. But I expect he will play in the third game anyway so we will see...

by JDizzle Thu 08 Dec 2022, 8:51 am

alfie wrote:

And just a note of worry for Foakes with an eye to the future : with a number of options at present - batting and bowling - and more than one competent keeper around ; he may be at risk of more "Jack Russell Convenient Omission Syndrome" . Is often a risk in the wicket keeping business. But I expect he will play in the third game anyway so we will see...

I would expect to see Bairstow donning the gloves behind the top 6 from the first Test, as soon as YJB is fully fit again… I think that’s your seven best batters (openers up for debate still) and doesn’t put the pressure on Pope to bat 3 and keep. Which is something even Kumar could never master!

by VTR Thu 08 Dec 2022, 9:19 am

Yes, agree, it's looking a lot like Bairstow with the gloves when he comes back. On the basis that Foakes wouldn't open, and they will now not want to exclude any of Pope, Root, Brook and Bairstow, that leaves no room for Foakes in the team. Pretty harsh as he made a very good century only a couple of Tests ago!

by alfie Thu 08 Dec 2022, 9:27 am

I wouldn't get too sure about next year's line-up just yet. Injuries , form slumps... let us wait and see. And you never know : Stokes might decide he wants to open Smile

But admittedly that (YJB keeping) scenario is what I was hinting at...

by GSC Thu 08 Dec 2022, 9:29 am

Personally I don't think the declaration was risky enough

by Sgt_Pooly Thu 08 Dec 2022, 10:26 am

Some interesting takes on the whole topic here. For me, it's quite simple. If the decision turns into the outcome you would want, it's a good decision.

It was a good decision from Stokes and co as we came out with the win.....I can't see past that.

by VTR Thu 08 Dec 2022, 10:44 am

alfie wrote:I wouldn't get too sure about next year's line-up just yet. Injuries , form slumps... let us wait and see. And you never know : Stokes might decide he wants to open

But admittedly that (YJB keeping) scenario is what I was hinting at...

Especially with England's propensity for unlikely injuries! Pope will probably break his foot with a jar of salad cream before play tomorrow

by Duty281 Thu 08 Dec 2022, 11:25 am

alfie wrote:By the way , I think we can take suggestions that the Stokes approach actually means the team would happily go down to defeat all guns blazing if pushed into a literally impossible situation on a last day. Stokes himself was influential in saving (narrowly) last January's Sydney Test by batting time. And when England were three down early against SA recently in the second match , Bairstow and Crawley shelved the high octane approach for a couple of hours in trying conditions to restore the balance : the team is (very) positive - but not really "reckless".

At 9.30am on Thursday – half an hour before play is scheduled to start – the Multan Stadium was so foggy it could have been Dartmoor. The middle could not be seen from the stands so Stokes is preparing to think on his feet.

“We might see actually, in this Test, if it does pan out the way that it could potentially with the late start and early finish that we end up having only 300-350 overs in the Test match, we might have to get even a bit more adventurous with what we do. We’ll see,” he said.

Does that mean more funky declarations? “Could do,” he replied.

His aversion to draws is built from his own experience of winning matches from impossible situations – Headingley 2019 – which gives him a limitless supply of self-belief that he is spreading to his players.

“You might see, especially in England with the weather that’s around, you might see something even more out-there even more than you’ve seen here. I might declare without batting one day, who knows?,” he said.

What about if England are nine down in the last over with 20 to win and James Anderson on strike? Does he tell him to go for the win? “Yes,” was the answer.

by GSC Thu 08 Dec 2022, 11:45 am

I think in practice that might not be the case

.

The decision comes down to the old thought process of declaring when only two results are (likely) possible, you either win or draw.

England's thought process is they'll happily risk losing to try and win a game (hopefully within reason). So yeah it was risky. But that's kinda the point.

Test cricket in general needs more like it. How many tests between evenly matched teams on a road like that wouldve been dead by day 3 historically.

by guildfordbat Thu 08 Dec 2022, 12:38 pm

alfie wrote:I wouldn't get too sure about next year's line-up just yet. Injuries , form slumps... let us wait and see. And you never know : Stokes might decide he wants to open

But admittedly that (YJB keeping) scenario is what I was hinting at...

Yep, a lot could happen in the meantime. One other thing could be that we're still winning. If so, just like Foakes now, Bairstow might not have such an automatic green light to the side as some expect.

Meanwhile, a fair bit of moaning going on today in some Surrey quarters about Foakes' omission but they all appear to think we're playing twelve-a-side as no one has said who should miss out for him.

by king_carlos Thu 08 Dec 2022, 12:59 pm

Duty281 wrote:
alfie wrote:By the way , I think we can take suggestions that the Stokes approach actually means the team would happily go down to defeat all guns blazing if pushed into a literally impossible situation on a last day. Stokes himself was influential in saving (narrowly) last January's Sydney Test by batting time. And when England were three down early against SA recently in the second match , Bairstow and Crawley shelved the high octane approach for a couple of hours in trying conditions to restore the balance : the team is (very) positive - but not really "reckless".

At 9.30am on Thursday – half an hour before play is scheduled to start – the Multan Stadium was so foggy it could have been Dartmoor. The middle could not be seen from the stands so Stokes is preparing to think on his feet.

“We might see actually, in this Test, if it does pan out the way that it could potentially with the late start and early finish that we end up having only 300-350 overs in the Test match, we might have to get even a bit more adventurous with what we do. We’ll see,” he said.

Does that mean more funky declarations? “Could do,” he replied.

His aversion to draws is built from his own experience of winning matches from impossible situations – Headingley 2019 – which gives him a limitless supply of self-belief that he is spreading to his players.

“You might see, especially in England with the weather that’s around, you might see something even more out-there even more than you’ve seen here. I might declare without batting one day, who knows?,” he said.

What about if England are nine down in the last over with 20 to win and James Anderson on strike? Does he tell him to go for the win? “Yes,” was the answer.

What a skipper says in a press conference and what's going on in a dressing room may have little relation though to be fair!

When ODI batting averages jumped above Test batting averages for the first time a lot of people asked, "why don't England bat like it's an ODI then?" The answer of course being the conditions are completely different. Red balls move more and don't go soft whilst pitches don't deteriorate as much not to mention England playing their home white ball stuff on absolute roads.

In McCullum and Stokes brief reign we've seen some freak circumstances that have made the conditions, at times, more like the ODI batting ones though. That absolute road in T1 and of course the dodgy batch of Dukes that died after 20-25 overs. It produced absolutely prime conditions for attacking batters and England played to their strengths by basically going into white ball mode.

Personally I feel that McCullum and Stokes know Test cricket well enough to not do the same when the conditions don't suit. I think we will see periods of most innings where there is this aggression. Maybe targeting a weaker bowler or a spinner very hard on D1. But I don't think we will see this side trying to bat like this all the time.

by Duty281 Thu 08 Dec 2022, 3:28 pm

Even though Multan is arguably the most batting-friendly place in the whole of Pakistan, Cricinfo say that: "The early suggestions from on the ground in Multan are that, as Babar requested for the first Test, spin may play a greater role."

by king_carlos Thu 08 Dec 2022, 4:25 pm

Duty281 wrote:Even though Multan is arguably the most batting-friendly place in the whole of Pakistan, Cricinfo say that: "The early suggestions from on the ground in Multan are that, as Babar requested for the first Test, spin may play a greater role."

Things such as a lot of heavy rolling on a dry pitch can cause the surface to break up faster as the game progresses but can equally just make the M1 even flatter. It's not an exact science and given Multan is so flat anyway I could see a really dire pitch whether on purpose or not. Hopefully there's a bit more in it. T1 was very exciting for odd reasons but Test cricket needs a balance between bat and ball.

The Pak vs Aus series was basically felt like a few blokes having a stick for 15 days with Australia winning what seemed like a single two week long Test match.

by king_carlos Thu 08 Dec 2022, 4:29 pm

guildfordbat wrote:
alfie wrote:I wouldn't get too sure about next year's line-up just yet. Injuries , form slumps... let us wait and see. And you never know : Stokes might decide he wants to open

But admittedly that (YJB keeping) scenario is what I was hinting at...

Yep, a lot could happen in the meantime. One other thing could be that we're still winning. If so, just like Foakes now, Bairstow might not have such an automatic green light to the side as some expect.

Meanwhile, a fair bit of moaning going on today in some Surrey quarters about Foakes' omission but they all appear to think we're playing twelve-a-side as no one has said who should miss out for him.

I've said many many times how much I adore Foakes glovework but he hasn't been without mistakes behind the stumps for England. Whilst there is now pressure from middle order batters with YJB having been in terrific form, Pope settling a bit, now Brook coming up on the rails. Beautiful bridesmaid and all that hey GB! Hug

3.Pope 4.Root 5.YJB/Brook 6.Stokes 7.Foakes/YJB (wk) 8.Woakes 9.Robinson 10.Leach 11.Anderson

I'm increasingly thinking our full strength 3-11 at home would be that though with Brook or Foakes the tough call.

Broad and Wood also in the mix with the seamers. Hooefully Fingers Crossed

Jof and Stone can be in that mix as well.

by KP_fan Thu 08 Dec 2022, 8:40 pm

Pak intend to bring in a fast bowling all-rounder in Fahim Ashraf or Mohd Wasim junior for Rauf....strengthens their batting a bit on paper

Eng as I understand are replacing Livingstone with Wood....weakens their batting on paper

Pitch will be more of the same.....as I saw when Aussies were travelling to Pak last year....pitches in Pak have regressed to 1980s Faislabad template

The climate in Multan can be similar to many North Indian Punjabi cities...dewy, foggy wintry morning.....that assist genuine swing for about 40 min each morning and for about an hour+ with the new ball on first morning
and then it's reverse if you can extract some until you get to end of D4 and D5 some spin

Stokes has called for more risk taking approach.....day light would be just a bit longer give that Multan is a bit to the west and lot south of Rawlpindi
Toss is crucial, win and bat first

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 5:31 am

Well Stokes has achieved the first step of the KP_fan template... And it does look like a good toss to have won.

Few new faces for Pakistan with Naseem and Rauf both injured , as well as Azhar ; Ashraf and Mohammad Nawaz along with debutant Abrar Ahmed. So two all rounders for a top order bat , two extra spinners for two pace men...quite a different line-up.

They reckon it's going to spin ! But might be disappointed to have lost the toss.

England 27/0 after seven. No drama yet.

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 5:41 am

Wonderful start for Abrar ! clap

Just his fifth ball in Test Cricket is a fizzing googly which completely does Crawley and takes out his furniture...

38/1

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 5:44 am

Given Pope's previous issues with quality spin , he might be expected to be under some pressure against this chap...but he has reverse swept his first ball for four so clearly is feeling quite chipper Smile

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 5:55 am

Obviously no change to the New England philosophy... Duckett going after Abrar immediately , launching successive slog sweeps to the boundary...

Pope not messing about either ; and the run rate already over five . 65/1 after twelve.

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 6:09 am

But this pitch is really fizzing even in this first session. Spin both ends , and Mahmood getting huge turn as well as Abrar.

Mahmood thought he had Pope lbw reverse sweeping then ...but drs showed it actually hit his glove . Whereupon Pope repeated the shot next ball ... All action thumbsup

Batting looks more hazardous than last match...but runs are flowing as both bats are taking the bowlers on. 79/1 off 15.

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 6:33 am

First six of the innings as Duckett celebrates his fifty by launching Mahmood over the ropes...

115/1 off 18

But Duckett might be in trouble here...no ! Once again , drs saves an England batsman . Lbw verdict will be reversed. Disappointment for Pakistan. I thought that was going to be out on live viewing.

Standing umpire actually argued a bit with the TV ump over that one - unusual ! Asked him to re-check...but the spike on ultra edge didn't change Smile

...and now another lbw shout ; given not out but Pakistan review this time : and this one is out !

Umpires are getting everything wrong ! But Duckett is gone for a rapid 63 and it's 117/2.

With all these reviews we will never get 90 overs in the day Smile

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 7:00 am

And yet another drs decision ...Root gone to Abrar for just 8 , after Pakistan overturn the on field call. Umpires are having a 'mare...England bats are not picking Abrar very well either.

145/3 so still going at run a ball ...but the new lad has 3/50 off nine : very acceptable for a mystery spinner Smile

And England could do with a solid partnership. Brook up next and he is probably going to try and keep pushing the game along.

Think Leach might fancy this pitch too though.

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 7:02 am

Fifty for Pope clap

. Took 52 balls so no Ben Duckett but we'll take it Smile

152/3.

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 7:14 am

Pope will be livid with himself there ! Gone for 60 ...fourth victim for Abrar.

Reverse sweep has brought him a lot of runs today ; but he made a right mess of that one and popped it straight to the fieldsman at backward point. 164/4.

In comes Stokes , ten minutes to lunch . How will he play ?

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 7:24 am

Five for Abrar clap

Brook tries to launch him but just finds long off with an up and under...

Astonishing debut for Abrar ! Yes they are giving him a chance by going after him , but he has certainly outfoxed them - including a couple of very good players of spin in Root and Duckett.

This pitch is giving him plenty , mind. England might wish they'd included Rehan Ahmed Smile

Think we will see a result here , short days notwithstanding . 167/5 And still a few minutes short of lunch...

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 7:26 am

Another review ! Nawaz this time , against Stokes...but this time the on-field umpire was clearly correct so Pakistan lose a review.

Score one for Marais Erasmus Smile

by alfie Fri 09 Dec 2022, 7:32 am

And so to lunch...after one last over from Abrar in which Stokes (who had been quite restrained so far ) went for him and took ten runs.

33 overs bowled in that extended session. 180/5.

Abrar 13 overs ... 5/70 clap

Those of you just waking up have missed some action ! Highlights recommended ...

by Sponsored content