Timeless Test Continued

24567

Comments

  • I am not impressed with the selection of Adil Rashid for the upcoming test against India. He "retired" from red ball, dropped Yorkshire in it by not leaving them enough time to get someone else in for the CC, and then gets the nod based on his white-ball form, which isn't that great! His average is about 44 I think.

    It's an awful decision, and if he had any pride at all he would decline the call-up and stick to his white-ball principles. To play in the test will make him look mercenary in my eyes.

    Woakes should play instead of Rashid.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    I am not impressed with the selection of Adil Rashid for the upcoming test against India. He "retired" from red ball, dropped Yorkshire in it by not leaving them enough time to get someone else in for the CC, and then gets the nod based on his white-ball form, which isn't that great! His average is about 44 I think.

    It's an awful decision, and if he had any pride at all he would decline the call-up and stick to his white-ball principles. To play in the test will make him look mercenary in my eyes.

    Woakes should play instead of Rashid.

    Woakes is probably the hardest-working cricketer in England, but he bowls fast-medium and England have a good crop of those. He's no substitute for Adil Rashid. It has also to be remembered to Adil Rashid is contracted to Yorkshire who have a long reputation for mismanagement and a sense of entitlement. They are not alone, but they are legendary.

    We don't however have many good spin bowlers, and the counties don't help by not selecting those who are available. Dom Bess was playing international cricket a matter of weeks ago and now he is in the Somerset second XI. Jack Leach is OK and has probably recovered from his recent injury (plus a knock on the head from Morne Morkel) but there are still doubts about his action. Moeen Ali, despite many reservations keeps getting good batsmen out!

    What we do need is a spinner or two who can turn the ball away from the bat, or who is smart enough to induce bad shots. That, to my mind, gives us two of Moeen, Adil Rashid and Jack Leach, and as Leach is a rabbit, I'll take the other two as they can both do a job with a bat. Then again, so can Bess, but he needs to play any cricket, T20, 50 over, 4-day, I don't mind.
  • ThatcherightThatcheright Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    I would rather have Moeen and Dom Bess just on principle. It's cricket. It is supposed to be a principled game, and anything else is... well.. just not cricket! Sorry for the cliche but Rashid has made himself out to be a mercenary by declining to play red-ball for Yorkshire but signing on to play it for England.

    I take your point about Yorkshire (and as a Derbyshire lad I have no qualms at all about the puddings being made a laughing stock if England weren't also being dragged through the mud) but I would feel the same way if Rashid had treated any other county in the same way.

    The only thing that gives Rashid any let out at all is the monumentally stupid decision to take Mason Crane to Australia. Rashid may well have thought then his test career was over so why not switch to white-ball only. But he made that decision too late and left Yorkshire in the lurch when it came to getting someone else in.

    I just feel Rashid would have done better to admit he made a wrong decision when dropping out of red ball for Yorkshire, and that he will play in the test match(es) but also play the rest of the season as both a red- and white-ball player for them.

    Mind you, I don't think he will be getting any contract from Yorkshire next year.

    Between the Rashid decision, taking Mason Crane to the Ashes, and the doomed-before-it's-even-started Hundred, the ECB isn't looking to be the safest pair of hands for English and Welsh Cricket these days.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    On principle Moeen Ali and Dom Bess would be right. They are talented, able to bat but they are both off-spin bowlers (as indeed is Joe Root) and the Indian batsmen, most of whom are right-hander will devour a one-dimensional attack. Englland must have a leggie or a left-armer to stand any chance.

    I suspect that Adil Rashid's agent has been over-eager, like some all footballer's agent and recent comments from Rashid indicate he isn't expecting a contract from Yorkshire next year.
  • Wow, some game (first test), so many fluctuations, it made me dizzy. Stokes bowling like Flintoff, of course Curran, marvellous. A peach of a googly by Rashid.
  • For once England have kept their composure and Joe Root made all the right decisions at the right time. It really was a team win, with supporting bowlers doing the damage.

    The debate about Adil Rashid won’t go away yet but wrist-spinners give you something that even Indian batsmen find awkward.
  • I wish I could have seen some of it. Even just following along with the commentary on the BBC page was tense.
  • edited August 2018
    I may have just had one of the best games of my career. Scored 80, got two catches and took 1-7 off two overs. And we won by 91 runs. Against the team that’s top of the league.

    Days like that don’t come along very often :smiley:
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Great test win for England at Edgebaston. Stokes the hero. Just a reminder that he was born in NZ. Still a court case pending I understand but a great performance with the ball. Seemed a very low scoring affair.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Great test win for England at Edgebaston. Stokes the hero. Just a reminder that he was born in NZ. Still a court case pending I understand but a great performance with the ball. Seemed a very low scoring affair.

    And Sam Curran’s father and grandfather played for Zimbabwe! Not only would there be no international cricket without the empire (as was) England wouldn’t have a team!

  • It was a great match and the ECB and ICC must have absolutely hated it! It was the perfect reminder that test cricket is still the best format of the game. ODI and 20/20 are poorer relations.

    They are like friendlies in football matches - nice when there is nothing better to watch, but you wouldn't swap a friendly between Manchester United and Liverpool for an FA Cup Final between Manchester United and Liverpool.

    That test was one of the best I have ever seen and I started watching when the great West Indies teams toured England back in the late 70's/Early 80's. It was a fantastic advert for the test format and for that reason the ICC/ECB would have hated it. They would prefer a toothless boring tour so they can push more money into the white-ball game. Now they cannot justify marginalising red-ball matches further, which they must hate.

    In terms of the match itself it was brilliant. Kholi's stand in the first innings, shepherding the tail through to a shortfall of only 30 was superb. Curren was a revelation. The only dissapointment was Englands top order. Malaan has already been dropped, but - whisper it - I think it's time to start looking for a replacement for Cooke. But who else is there? We have tried all the opening batsmen in England as a partner for Cooke and they have all been found wanting (Jennings looks like the real deal though) so trying to get one of the rejects to replace Cooke is a big ask.

    I think Joe Root marginalised Rashid. It seemed to me that he had Rashid imposed on him by Ed Smith, so basically decided not to use him. He wasn't needed as the swing bowlers did a job. Why select him if he's not going to be played? Better to drop him and put in a player who Root will use. Yes he got a couple of wickets but his economy was bang average at 3.33 for both days considering he spent most of his overs bowling at the Indian tail. If he was given 30-odd overs against their top order he would have leaked runs. Yes he took Kholi's wicket but I think that was more about Kholi losing concentration and trying to get as many runs as possible at the end of the Indian First innings than any special genius on Rashid's part.

    I'm sure this is coming across as a determination to hate Rashid regardless, but I don't believe I do. His inclusion was controversial and to justify that call-up he needed to do something extraordinary. He didn't. He played exactly the same innings as Moeen Ali would probably have done. No better and no worse. So why make the controversial decision? Because it was Ed Smith showing how clever he is! Dom Bess with a bit more pace would have been just as good a selection without the controversy.

    Anyway, the match was brilliant and I hope the remaining four are equally as entertaining, especially as it would reduce the ICC/ECB to tears of frustration at a red-ball format that refuses to just die quietly.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Rashid? Horses for courses. He definitely seems more of a threat to the Indian batters than Ali. Having a leggie with a good googly can be a game breaker.
    Notably, Stokes is not in the team for the next game so it will be interesting to see if they miss him. I am surprised that Malan has fallen out of favour so quick. He was a hero in Australia.
  • Not much play at Lord's but it is all going England's way. Jimmy Andersoin bowled one of the best balls of his life to bowl Vijay off-stump with a ball pitching middle then swinging away. Some of the pundits were criticising the batsman' technique, but when a ball pitches middle, or possibly middle and leg, isn't it reasonable to play it through the legside?
  • Only the weather or a miracle can now save India after two days of utter dominance by England. The first couple of hours of England’s innings was very frustrating with everyone getting a start then getting out until the admirable Woakes arrived to do his stuff. Having helped Bairstow to fifty Woakes changed mode and looked like a top-class batsman and India looked clueless on a pitch that had earlier seen 15 wickets fall for less than 250 runs.

    Do India have anyone who can keep Kohli company?
  • The answer appears to be "no". India battered, deep fried and served with chips, and Kohli struggling with a back injury. Some magnificent stuff from the likes of Anderson, but a bit of a bummer if you fancied a decent series - India look down and out at this point.

    As for Woakes... one of just five players to make all three honours boards at Lords. it seems, for five in an innings, ten in a match, and a century. Alongside Stuart Broad, Ian Botham, Keith Miller, and Gubby Allen.

    AG


  • On The Full Toss blog, the point has been raised that because India had to bat first, they were never going to win - the weather conditions seemed to go in Englands favour, whether they were batting or bowling. Although the blog does also say that England would still have won even if they batted first and so had the worse conditions, just not by as much.

    They ask the question should we get rid of the toss and simply let the visiting team choose whether to bat or bowl first. It might make matches more competitive.

    I'm open-minded about it but if it can avoid humiliations like India had yesterday, or if will help visiting teams in the Ashes then I think it should be discussed.

    Having read the "Things I ought to like but don't" thread, there have been some tangents about cricket. Mostly people saying they don't understand it.

    I am thinking about opening a Circus thread for more general discussions about cricket where we can explain the rules (in general terms); the impact the toss, the weather and the state of the wicket can have on a match; the different formats and the controversies surrounding them and so on.

    I don't want to invite people onto this thread for those sorts of discussions because it is for Test Matches rather than a more general discussion.

    I'm thinking of calling it "Cricket - An Explanation for the Unenlightened".

    What do people think?
  • No! Keep it all a secret! Cricket is one of the last outposts of true historic Gnosticism.
  • No! Keep it all a secret! Cricket is one of the last outposts of true historic Gnosticism.

    Ah but you see I think we should be evangelising!
  • Well, there is that ... and standing firm against the T20 heresy!

  • Having read the "Things I ought to like but don't" thread, there have been some tangents about cricket. Mostly people saying they don't understand it.

    I am thinking about opening a Circus thread for more general discussions about cricket where we can explain the rules (in general terms); the impact the toss, the weather and the state of the wicket can have on a match; the different formats and the controversies surrounding them and so on.

    I don't want to invite people onto this thread for those sorts of discussions because it is for Test Matches rather than a more general discussion.

    I'm thinking of calling it "Cricket - An Explanation for the Unenlightened".

    What do people think?

    I think that would be of value and it would also be a place to propose improvements to the game. My pet peeve for example is slow over rates. I reckon one hundred balls per hour is a fair rate (and I’ll knock off three balls per wicket). The trick is enforcing it and financial penalties don’t work, match bans are ineffective so that leaves us with adjusting the score. In some Indian competitions penalty runs are awarded but my far tougher suggestion is that a penalty wicket is awarded and the other team gets to decide on the batsman to have his score struck off for an innings!
  • Good thinking ... slow over rates are a form of gamesmanship and they bore the spectators. At the end of the day cricket is supposed to be entertaining.
  • Not Test cricket this time (is anyone surprised?).

    Today is the 50th anniversaary of one of the most memorable events in cricket. Gary, later Sir Garfield, Sobers, scored 36 runs off one six-ball cover consisting of six sixes! It's been done since but this was the first! He wasn't a big man, a slim 5'10", and it wasn't a heavy bat but my word he moved it fast!

    I wasn't there but I was watching on TV.
  • Did any windows get broken?

    In other news, Pujara is batting brilliantly and frustrating England as India creep towards their first-innings total with only one wicket in hand.
  • And India are ahead ...
  • An impressive performance by Pujara! And Bumrah posted a "personal best" Test performance (6 runs--wasn't his previous high something like 2?). :)
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Wow. Cook will retire after the 5th Test.

    Played sir. But where will our top 3 come from?
  • A well-timed leave by Cook, and I don’t mean that disrespectfully but after 160 test matches he deserves a rest. His batting was always good but what made him one of England’s best was a Boycott-like avoidance of risky shot.
  • Oh, I’m not sure about our top three (or even four). Back in 1982 we had lost Boycott, Gooch and others to unofficial South Africa tours so Geoff Cook, Graeme Fowler and Chris Tavare were all first capped against India and/or Pakistan.

    I think Pope has to be given another opportunity. England’s main problem is that there are dozens of possible openers and hundreds of combinations. As far as #3 is concerned I’d simply put another opener there as our opening partnerships don’t last!
  • Alistair Cook is signing off in fine fashion with a century in his last Test to match that in his first. If there’s an England batting or captaincy record he holds it, although he is probably the worst bowler to have taken a wicket in a Test match. Well done chef!
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    That really was marvellous. It is almost as though the decision to retire took the weight off his back.

    And now James Anderson catches up with McGrath as best fast bowler wicket taker. He's still a wonderful bowler to watch in English conditions.

    A fitting ending would be for Cook to take a catch off the Anderson ball that takes the record away from McGrath.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Very good final day. AND it ended with Anderson getting the record by clean bowling Shami. Great batting by India, and the final session started with all three results still possible.

    A very good series; restored my faith in the 5 day format.
  • Agreed. I was expecting a rather rapid collapse of India today, but they fought valiantly. While actually winning didn't seem all that likely, a draw was definitely in play (and, if it had happened, would have been well earned by India).
  • Yes, a bit more nervy than I expected at the start of the day and at lunch.

    Well done Jimmy.

    Goodbye Al.
  • Oh God oh God oh God.

    WHY did we have to win in Perth? Why couldn't we just have been shit for the whole summer like everyone expected.

    ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Makes you wonder if Smith and Warner could have made a diff. Don’t think so really. Bumrah was unplayable on that wicket.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Story much the same in Sydney a week after Melbourne, only more so. India declared at 600+ inside two days, with "the wall" Pujara making an almost immovable 190 and Pant making a quick fire 150 n.o. near the end of their innings. Australia manged to avoid losing an opener in the last few overs of play (Khawaja was dropped by the WK) , but on the third day, when bad light (threatening rain) stopped play they were 208/6 , with only Harris passing 50. All 6 got themselves out to poor strokes after a start, just as in Melbourne. So they still need 400 or so in their second innings - not to win - but to make India bat again.

    Oh dear!
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Tukai wrote: »
    Story much the same in Sydney a week after Melbourne, only more so.

    Oh dear!
    Yep! Match abandoned and test series win to India..ist in 71 years, quite a thing!
    I quess as a positive for Australia they could claim that their top XI was not on the field in this series.
  • It is a great thing for Indian cricket - a wonderful achievement. They were miles and away the better team. We will never know whether Smith and Warner would have made a difference, but I think you're right MPaul. The Indian bowling was very good and they did a much better job adjusting to the conditions. I met a bloke in the US who was mad on the cricket - an Indian-American working in a hotel. He knew more about Australian cricket than me, a true fanatic.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    The Sydney test was abandoned after one and a half day's play lost in face of very light drizzle, which I suspect would have been called a bright sunny day in Manchester.

    So Australia officially scraped an undeserved draw in the match , as they were way outclassed in both batting and bowling. But that still did not stop India achieving a well deserved and historic win in the series.
  • miles and away - oh the shame...
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    India were a lot better, although Australia's mind wasn't on the game for much of the time, and it makes one realise how fortunate England were last year. The 4-1 score doesn't tell the full story as two matches were very close (31 runs and 60 runs is a matter of a couple of missed catches) and England were dependent on a strong lower order (Buttler, Moeen, Curran/Woakes and Adil Rashid) that kept them in at least three games. If England's top four was as reliable as the next four, no one could touch them.

    I'll be pleased to see Smith, Warner and Bancroft back. They aren't the only players to have cheated but they have taken far harder punishment than anyone else.
  • England are in the West Indies, not their happiest hunting ground, after four days prep in two non-competive two day matches. As a way of giving your fringe players some time in the middle these are OK, but as sole Test match preparation? No, I don't think so either.

    Anyhow, England haven't done so badly: West Indies chose to bat and despite three fifties and two scores in the forties they haven't reached 300 and are eight wickets down, mostly thanks to Stokes and Anderson. It looks like England have to get Hetmyer out. He definitely looks one for the future and I always remember how slowly Viv Richards started (one hundred and one fifty in his firsst twenty innings).
  • But England all out for 77...
  • Kittyville wrote: »
    But England all out for 77...
    Looks like 289 wasn't so bad after all! You don't often get the option to ask a side to follow- with less than four hundred on the board, let alone three.

    The commentators reckon the problem is a lack of serious preparation, pointing out that England were offered a four-day first-class practice match as opposed to two two-day non-competitive games. I don't think a) one four-day match is sufficient nor b) that England's batting is up to the job. England have been at forty-something for four before but this has been the first occasion on which the lower half of the order batted as a lower-half is expected to! West Indies were very good and the pitch isn't easy which makes Hetmyer's knock even more valuable. They have a gem there.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    And now England needs 628 to win...after being all out for 77. Well, this should be fun.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    England in WI sounds a bit like Sri Lanka in Australia. After one and only one 4-day match to "get used to conditions" (though played in Australia's coolest state capital) they have just lost the first test by an innings in 3 days. Australia's batting still looking not much good, but SL's was worse.

    But , in what I hope is an Ashes preview, Cummins took 6/23 in SL's second innings, mostly with bouncy outswingers caught in the slips cordon.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    Sadly the England team came nowhere near the miracle of saving the test match in Barbados.

    Given that there is no free to air television coverage of test cricket, and that Test Match Special has apparently been dropped for overseas tours, I wonder if there is any general interest in the rather patchy performance (at best) of the England cricket team.
  • England did better in their first innings in the Second Test, but 187 still isn't much good. The lower order, which saved them through the summer and the Sri Lanka tour hasn't delivered yet so the top four or five must earn their corn soon. I suppose we could bring Alex Hales and Jason Roy in to open from the ODI team.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Amy Lofthouse's commentary puts it in perspective:
    England's innings lasted 270 minutes.

    Darren Bravo batted for 342.

    I mean.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    I feel as though I'm now part of history, as I was there for the first day of the first Test ever held at Manuka Oval in Canberra. Plenty of action of both kinds. Australai batting forst were 3/28 (not bad for Sri Lanka, considering that heir 3 first choice bowlers were all out injured) but then Head and Burns each made big centuries, so they were 4/ 370 odd at stumps. Weather was uncharacteristically overcast, so teh small Manuka ground (capacity 12000) felt like an English county ground.
Sign In or Register to comment.