The cricket thread

scrumhalf

Not a good afternoon session, especially having put India in.

Heartfeltdawn

The Stokes over Curran  decision looks worse by the session...

One stat from TMS sums us up now: Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It is the third time in last two years it has happened.

Heartfeltdawn

That really is a remarkable stat. I'm 40 and my first England memory was being trashed by the Windies in 1984. Since then we've had England sides of varying quality but to lose 10 wickets in a session in a shade over 26 overs... that really is shit. 

scrumhalf

Poor decision at the toss, poor decision to pick Stokes over Curran, some poor shots when batting and bowling not full enough.

Bah!

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

That really is a remarkable stat. I'm 40 and my first England memory was being trashed by the Windies in 1984. Since then we've had England sides of varying quality but to lose 10 wickets in a session in a shade over 26 overs... that really is shit. 

I'm 49 and my first real England memory is Windies in 1976.

I've never known such inept batting.

guitars4you

crunchman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

That really is a remarkable stat. I'm 40 and my first England memory was being trashed by the Windies in 1984. Since then we've had England sides of varying quality but to lose 10 wickets in a session in a shade over 26 overs... that really is shit. 

I'm 49 and my first real England memory is Windies in 1976.

that is one of my early memories as well - certainly regarding loosing a series so heavily - can't recall one specific match but recall the whole overall hot summer and defeat after defeat

guitars4you

will make the series interesting now - assuming 2 v 1 in a few days time

Yes the wrong choice to start of with bringing in Stokes for Curran - possible other options but certainly not Curran - What has the young lad done to deserve it - Plus left arm swing is a good option compared to what was on offer elsewhere - Then to be so far behind after putting in India - At the time one commentator questioned the decision, on the basis that as we are 2 nil up we should bat first to put down a dominate marker

But for the decision alone of Stokes v Curran I said before the match started that I hope we loose and looks like that will be the case - I hope we still win the series - But it all feels so wrong to me this decision

earwighoney

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Stokes over Curran  decision looks worse by the session...

One stat from TMS sums us up now: Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It is the third time in last two years it has happened.

For whatever reasons, test match cricket in English conditions over the last few years seems to create these kind of performances.

Today's performance in this series isn't an isolated incident, India in the first innings at Lords had their huge disaster and in the series against Pakistan earlier this year there were two very one sided test matches where pretty much from the first ball bowled there was little doubt to the outcome of the test match.

IMO, this has been happening in English conditions for a few years now as well - the 3-2 Ashes a few years ago was a prime example where there were 5 very one sided test matches. 

crunchman

earwighoney said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Stokes over Curran  decision looks worse by the session...

One stat from TMS sums us up now: Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It is the third time in last two years it has happened.

For whatever reasons, test match cricket in English conditions over the last few years seems to create these kind of performances.

Today's performance in this series isn't an isolated incident, India in the first innings at Lords had their huge disaster and in the series against Pakistan earlier this year there were two very one sided test matches where pretty much from the first ball bowled there was little doubt to the outcome of the test match.

IMO, this has been happening in English conditions for a few years now as well - the 3-2 Ashes a few years ago was a prime example where there were 5 very one sided test matches. 

I don't think batsmen are willing to leave the ball like they used to.  If you go back in time, most top order test batsmen would leave anything outside off stump in conditions like these, and force the bowlers to stray onto their legs.  They just don't have that patience any more - or possibly the judgement about what they can leave.  They just don't practice it enough.  They end up playing at stuff they shouldn't.

At the same time, bowlers do seem to be getting more swing.  All of the fast bowlers England have used in this series have swung the ball quite prodigiously at times.  I don't remember that being the case in decades gone by.  Unless the balls have changed, I wonder if video analysis has helped them improve their techniques.

scrumhalf

Remember how they laughed when people said that too much one-day cricket would be detrimental to test match batting?

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

For whatever reasons, test match cricket in English conditions over the last few years seems to create these kind of performances.

Today's performance in this series isn't an isolated incident, India in the first innings at Lords had their huge disaster and in the series against Pakistan earlier this year there were two very one sided test matches where pretty much from the first ball bowled there was little doubt to the outcome of the test match.

IMO, this has been happening in English conditions for a few years now as well - the 3-2 Ashes a few years ago was a prime example where there were 5 very one sided test matches. 

Back in the day, Australia would generally succeed in England because a) they like everyone else had tour schedules that allowed for warm-up games against gentle opposition before ramping things up and b) so many of their players from first choice to second string played county cricket. Someone like Michael Hussey played a number of seasons before making his Test debut and then you had people like Stuart Law playing in England for years. Most of the West Indies played county cricket as well. Increasingly you see Test players coming out on A tours to gain experience of English conditions before a Test series. 

crunchman said:

I don't think batsmen are willing to leave the ball like they used to.  If you go back in time, most top order test batsmen would leave anything outside off stump in conditions like these, and force the bowlers to stray onto their legs.  They just don't have that patience any more - or possibly the judgement about what they can leave.  They just don't practice it enough.  They end up playing at stuff they shouldn't.

At the same time, bowlers do seem to be getting more swing.  All of the fast bowlers England have used in this series have swung the ball quite prodigiously at times.  I don't remember that being the case in decades gone by.  Unless the balls have changed, I wonder if video analysis has helped them improve their techniques.

This. The art of the non shot is vital in Test cricket, letting the ball pass through, but one day batting does not really allow for this. It's always push push push. Keaton Jennings today is a perfect case. Bumrah's bowling over the wicket, wide on the crease. The ball is way short of a length outside of leg stump, it's going across him, it's not swinging in one bit. Jennings ends up nicking it to the keeper and the body is horrific. He's on the crease, no real weight shift back or forward, the front foot is pointing at mid off, the back foot pointing at extra cover, and he's bringing the bat across the ball with the face going toward extra cover. 

One other thing: if you push at the ball rather than dead bat it, then an edge with these larger bats will carry. Watching more of the old footage from the 1960's I posted up between England-Australia, a lot of edges don't carry. The modern bat design helps strokeplay with the big middle and light pickup but one wonders if the design doesn't facilitate defensive play. 

People understand swing far better now from a bowling perspective, both conventional and reverse swing. The importance of wrist position is really understood. Anderson's always had that great position but you can see it in Broad since the Ashes debacle, how he's gone and worked at this and it has proven very positive. 

Heartfeltdawn

scrumhalf said:

Remember how they laughed when people said that too much one-day cricket would be detrimental to test match batting?

I laughed. I also said it'd be detrimental to Test match bowling as well. 

The anti-Cook crowd were out in force after his dismissal. He is past his best, no doubt, but he's still second highest run scorer in this innings and he's facing the new ball.

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

The anti-Cook crowd were out in force after his dismissal. He is past his best, no doubt, but he's still second highest run scorer in this innings and he's facing the new ball.

Cook's past record does give him some credit in the bank.  He's proved he can do it at this level and he's still only 33.

Look at someone like Adam Voges for Australia.  He made his test debut at 35, and averaged 61.9 in the 20 tests he played.  Gooch is another example.  His best years were when he was around 37 or 38.  They are probably the exceptions but it's too soon to say Cook is washed up.  I think bowlers have worked him out a bit now, and his stats have been padded by lots of double centuries on pitches where it wasn't doing much, but at the moment he's still worth his place in the team.  It's not like there are any young openers bashing the door down.

Talking of older players, Ian Bell would probably improve the batting line up in the short term.  He looks back to his best this season.

crunchman

Bairstow has broken his finger.  That opens up a spot in the team for the next test.  Who do you bring in?

My preference would be Foakes.  Buttler is not a good keeper.

I suspect they will give the gloves to Buttler though, and there will be dropped catches and/or missed stumpings.

If they do give the gloves to Buttler, then which batsman comes in?

guitars4you

crunchman said:

Bairstow has broken his finger.  That opens up a spot in the team for the next test.  Who do you bring in?

My preference would be Foakes.  Buttler is not a good keeper.

I suspect they will give the gloves to Buttler though, and there will be dropped catches and/or missed stumpings.

If they do give the gloves to Buttler, then which batsman comes in?

I reckon Butler which will leave the door open for Curran - easy way for them to repair the mess they created

scrumhalf

guitars4you said:

I reckon Butler which will leave the door open for Curran - easy way for them to repair the mess they created

Maybe, but that's too logical.

We need to get some proper test match batting going, the "old" way of not hitting the ball unless you have to. If they can still be there at lunchtime on day five I'll be amazed. I fear, however, that we won't make it to stumps tomorrow.

sixstringsupplies

2 day battle to save the test...over by tea tomorrow.
if it goes to the 5th day, I’d be amazed.

i can’t blame Root for winning the toss and bowling first...England bowlers have dominated India in the last 2 tests, exposed their poor technique against swing bowling, cloudy conditions on the first morning and at Trent Bridge, where England’s two front line bowlers have dominated. India batted very well, and England didn’t.

bowlkng attack looking very one dimensional this game (Curran would’ve mixed it up a bit)

Rashid looks a bit average...there is a hit me ball every over.  

Heartfeltdawn

So if Foakes came in...

On July 23rd Foakes batted against Notts, scoring 0 from 3 balls. His next FC innings was yesterday, scoring 12 against Lancashire. 

In between those knocks, he's had 5 T20 innings of varying levels of success. His longest innings from July 23rd has been 39 balls for 59 against Gloucestershire. 

So perfect preparation for playing innings of length against the best Test side in the world. 

Stuckfast

It was a crazy decision to drop Curran, and why are we playing a leg-spinner on seamer-friendly wickets? Unless the next test is being played on a dustbowl, Moeen has to come in for Rashid, Curran for Bairstow, and probably also Rory Burns for Jennings who looks very out of nick.

Pope is a keeper isn't he? Is he better than Buttler?

sixstringsupplies

Stuckfast said:

It was a crazy decision to drop Curran, and why are we playing a leg-spinner on seamer-friendly wickets? Unless the next test is being played on a dustbowl, Moeen has to come in for Rashid, Curran for Bairstow, and probably also Rory Burns for Jennings who looks very out of nick.

Pope is a keeper isn't he? Is he better than Buttler?

Pope can keep, but don’t think he is as good as Butler and don’t think he has kept wicked at first class level yet.

personally I wouldn’t go back to Ali...played plenty of matches and his record is pretty average. Unless you play him purely as a batsman (Ali for Bairstow) because to be fair to Ali he has always batted low down with the tail, which is why is batting average isn’t the best. 

Curran for Rashid, bring in a specialist batsman for bairstow....I’m going for Ian Bell. Lol!