Timeless Test Continued

12345679»

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Well, what a game is Test Cricket! What an incredible series. I can't believe India was dismissed for under 40 in Adelaide, and win the series by chasing down over 300 in a day.

    It remains the best form of the game.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Well, what a game is Test Cricket! What an incredible series. I can't believe India was dismissed for under 40 in Adelaide, and win the series by chasing down over 300 in a day.

    And with none of the"first choice" bowlers, at the Gabba no less. I am slightly envious of my cousin who got to watch it live though.
  • It's difficult to react appropriately to something so astonishing, so I shall begin by quoting what I said this morning, listening on the radio, which was "Well fuck me!".

    I texted my old boss (an Indian) at 7am to tell him to find coverage, and at the death even the Knotweed was listening, who loves cricket solely because it gets me out from under her feet on summer Sundays.

    I have no idea who was commentating - I don't even know what channel's coverage the Beeb was running - but as it developed the Australian commentators* got more and more excited about maybe witnessing something special and, when the final run was scored, they were as excited as if Australia had won.

    And India broke down the doors of Fortress Gabba with a team laden with second-picks and crocks owing to an injury list like an episode of Casualty. I don't suppose Indian test cricketers need to buy many beers themselves at the best of times, but these guys will not need to buy another one while they still have breath in their body.

    Twenty20? Schmenty20! This was real drama.

    * a nation us Poms reckon are one-eyed, remember?
  • I think it was ABC, having caught it on TMS the other day.
  • Having been listening to some of the Big Bash (I have no pride), which I'm sure has ABC idents, I think you are right, thank you.

    I also forgot to mention that India notoriously don't travel well.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Yes - Galle is turning out to be far more of a thriller than it looked on day one! Sadly, unless it wallops it down, it'll be long done and dusted by the time I wake up tomorrow.

    As for @Simon Toad's point, as an English cricket lover, I should probably disagree, but as a cricket lover and having seen the fervour of subcontinental fans, I really don't see why not - that's where the cricket epicentre is.

    The subcontinent is only the epicentec of white ball cricket
    He may be on the opposition, but I gave a little cheer when Mendis got off the mark - I know what four consecutive ducks feels like! In fact, my worst ever trot was four in five balls - life was falling apart a bit at the time, and my self confidence was so low, Time Team would have struggled to excavate it.

    I never worried about getting a duck and I didn't get that many . My role in the side was to bowl. I was more worried about taking none for plenty



  • Kusal Mendis bats at 3.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    And in the last test, India had none of their first string bowlers, and only 2 of those rated at the start of the series as first-string batters. On the other hand, the much vaunted Australian attack was still at full strength and failed to run through some very confident Indian batters in their first two or three test match.
    Some English journalists reckon that this should give England confidence going in to an Ashes series in Australia, especially as the Australian batting looked suspect, except maybe Smith and Lambuschane
  • Root (to state the bleeding obvious) is in rather good form at the moment. I mean over 400 runs in any test series in generally considering a good return... but to do so in a Two test series is just ridiculous...
  • ...and a classic example of "It's a funny old game" - he scores 186, and yet must have returned to the pavilion gutted. Apparently thus far he's been on the pitch for all but seven overs of the game. I suspect an interview with him would have sounded rather like the one with Embuldeniya who'd bowled 41 overs, and was ready to drop.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    ...and a classic example of "It's a funny old game" - he scores 186, and yet must have returned to the pavilion gutted. Apparently thus far he's been on the pitch for all but seven overs of the game. I suspect an interview with him would have sounded rather like the one with Embuldeniya who'd bowled 41 overs, and was ready to drop.

    Root needs to get more red ink if he wants to improve his average

    Sri Lanka do really well for 3 days and then really blow it on day 4

  • JonahManJonahMan Shipmate
    Moving on to the next series, Root continues his brilliant form, and I switch on cricinfo to find India 192 for 5, with Pujara out most unluckily to a ball that cannoned off short leg to be caught. There seem to have been a few of those recently.
  • Oh and apparently Bess isn't a good enough spinner to trouble the Indian batsmen....

    Oh wait...

    :wink:
  • Is it really unlucky to cannon a ball off short leg? Surely that's "hitting the ball in the air straight to a fielder"!
  • Also I am unreasonably delighted by the presence of free-to-air live Test coverage.... [happy dance]....
  • Indeed - I watched the whole lot today - certainly the first time I've done that for a test match since 2005, and possibly only once since for a one-dayer.

    I guess it's unlucky becuase short leg wasn't anywhere near catching it.
  • I've always thought it is a bit much to pull the ball directly at short-leg so hard that the fielder has to "duck and cover". If it bounces off for a catch serve the batsman right I say!
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I've always thought it is a bit much to pull the ball directly at short-leg so hard that the fielder has to "duck and cover". If it bounces off for a catch serve the batsman right I say!

    I used to play with a chap who made a habit of acccidently losing his bat and hitting the close leg side fielder.

    The facts are that the more often you hit the ball to the leg side boundary, the less fielders there will be close in

  • Oh for sure! And I have no problem with batsmen doing that in order to push the field back (although I would have a problem if a batsman was deliberately targeting a fielder's body). It's rather like the "intimidatory bowling" issue in reverse as far as I can see.

    What I mean is that if a batsman does this, and the ball goes into the short-leg fielder, and the ball is then caught by someone else, I do not see this as "unlucky" for the batsman. He hit the ball into the fielder on the full, so it is his poor shot that has caused the ball to balloon up for a catch!
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Oh for sure! And I have no problem with batsmen doing that in order to push the field back (although I would have a problem if a batsman was deliberately targeting a fielder's body). It's rather like the "intimidatory bowling" issue in reverse as far as I can see.

    What I mean is that if a batsman does this, and the ball goes into the short-leg fielder, and the ball is then caught by someone else, I do not see this as "unlucky" for the batsman. He hit the ball into the fielder on the full, so it is his poor shot that has caused the ball to balloon up for a catch!

    The fielder is well entitled to a rebound. There are tales of Brian Close, before helmets, being hit full on the head and shouting "Catch it"
  • Meanwhile, I will continue the outpouring of praise that I'm actually seeing some live test cricket on terrestrial tv.

    Can England get the remaining nine? Did they fear the Indian batting so much they played out maidens? Can India pull off another outstanding chase? (The debutant WIndian scored a somewhat amazing 200 no to defeat Bangladesh). Will I wake up early because I know there is live test cricket on the telly? So many questions that will be answered tomorrow. Tune in to find out if India are free with one bound (many boundaries?).
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Meanwhile, I will continue the outpouring of praise that I'm actually seeing some live test cricket on terrestrial tv.

    Can England get the remaining nine? Did they fear the Indian batting so much they played out maidens? Can India pull off another outstanding chase? (The debutant WIndian scored a somewhat amazing 200 no to defeat Bangladesh). Will I wake up early because I know there is live test cricket on the telly? So many questions that will be answered tomorrow. Tune in to find out if India are free with one bound (many boundaries?).

    I forcast India to draw with England although I would be delighed with a win. I, of course, would have asked them to follow on.
  • I too think a draw is most likely...

    Yes, the out-of-fashion follow on. Not wanting to bat last on a worn 5th day pitch? Fear of tiring bowlers? We just don't do that any more, for no great reason?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I too think a draw is most likely...

    Yes, the out-of-fashion follow on. Not wanting to bat last on a worn 5th day pitch? Fear of tiring bowlers? We just don't do that any more, for no great reason?
    It's to rest the bowlers apparently even though they only have to do 90 overs a day between them. You usually need to take 20 wickets to win so I would give myself the maximum time to do it

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    And England defeat India in Chennai on the back of a 1st innings 200 odd from Joe Root. Indians looked very tired. Rohit Sharma is surely history after two low scores and dropping a dolly. Great effort by England though no crowd Adrenalin rush for India though.
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    edited February 9
    Wow! Pleased for Leach after his Pant pasting.
  • JonahManJonahMan Shipmate
    An excellent win for England. Winning the toss was obviously important, but with Root in the form of his life they took full advantage. And Jimmy Anderson continues to impress at the grand old age of 38. 3 for 17 for a fast bowler in India is a superb effort.

    If you dropped every cricketer who made two low scores and dropped a catch you woudn't have a team after a few matches! I suspect that R. Sharma still has some credit to his name. He got some runs in Australia after all (not a huge number) but he was only brought in for the last two tests.

    It will be interesting to see the teams for the next test. Presumably England will largely keep the same team but swap Broad for Anderson. Maybe rest Archer in favour of Wood?
  • It's difficult to react appropriately to something so astonishing, so I shall begin by quoting what I said this morning, listening on the radio, which was "Well fuck me!".

    I texted my old boss (an Indian) at 7am to tell him to find coverage, and at the death even the Knotweed was listening, who loves cricket solely because it gets me out from under her feet on summer Sundays.

    I have no idea who was commentating - I don't even know what channel's coverage the Beeb was running - but as it developed the Australian commentators* got more and more excited about maybe witnessing something special and, when the final run was scored, they were as excited as if Australia had won.

    And India broke down the doors of Fortress Gabba with a team laden with second-picks and crocks owing to an injury list like an episode of Casualty. I don't suppose Indian test cricketers need to buy many beers themselves at the best of times, but these guys will not need to buy another one while they still have breath in their body.

    Twenty20? Schmenty20! This was real drama.

    * a nation us Poms reckon are one-eyed, remember?

    sorry to interpose. I too was very pleased for the Indian team. It was a great feat. However, I reflected upon my reaction and realised that if it was England getting away with a series win like that, I would be calling for heads. I would be absolutely inconsolable, and my terrible mood would infect every aspect of my life for weeks.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    JohanMan: And Jimmy Anderson.... 38. 3 for 17 for a fast bowler in India is a superb effort.

    I don't know how he does it!
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    JohanMan: And Jimmy Anderson.... 38. 3 for 17 for a fast bowler in India is a superb effort.

    I don't know how he does it!

    I heard he can only take wickets on cloudy days in England...

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    And England defeat India in Chennai on the back of a 1st innings 200 odd from Joe Root. Indians looked very tired. Rohit Sharma is surely history after two low scores and dropping a dolly. Great effort by England though no crowd Adrenalin rush for India though.
    It is my understanding that India never have big crowds for test cricket. They prefer the white ball game
    Kwesi wrote: »
    JohanMan: And Jimmy Anderson.... 38. 3 for 17 for a fast bowler in India is a superb effort.

    I don't know how he does it!
    He runs in and bowls. Easily the greatest England fast bowler this millenium

  • I am huge Jimmy fan and these tedious criticisms really annoy me. It's more than ten years ago now that he realised that on flat pitches, in non-English conditions he needed more options so he set about becoming more economical and grinding out wickets that way and he set about learning how to do reverse swing. In his late 30's he's still getting better. The only thing he's lost is that when he first played for England he could deliver 90mph balls occasionally. I mean he's always been Fast-Medium rather than a Wood or an Archer all-out fast but like most he could get up to top pace occasionally. These days, he's mere 88mph....

    Anyway, his bowling figures are actually very revealing. At the moment his average is around 26 which is comparable with just about anyone but if you look at his average a few years back is was in the low 30s which is acceptable and not bad for a large number of Tests but hardly World-Class. Of course that reduction is possible because he's been averaging around 20 for the past 3-4 years. (His career average was above 30 until 2013, 82 Test matches).

    Like almost all bowlers, he takes more wickets at home than away. (With very few notable exceptions, this is true - and hardly surprising that bowlers have the most success in the conditions they are familiar with). However, it is a mistake to think that means his away record is poor. It simply isn't. 227 wickets away from home. That's almost enough to make the top ten wicket takers for England if he'd never played a Test at home ever. He averages just over 30 away.

    It is also notable that of his 608 Test Wickets (prior to the most recent Test) 230 have been top order and 221 middle order batsmen. I.e. He's not a bowler who just gets the tail out. He gets good batsmen out.

    AFZ
  • Someone posted the top 10 bowlers list on the BBC live text:
    Anderson 30+ is still in the top 5, pre 30 a bit further down but still in the list.
  • JonahManJonahMan Shipmate
    Yes, he's taken more wickets after the age of 30 than most people take in their whole career. His fielding is still outstanding too. Only his batting has gone into a bit of a decline. Didn't he have the longest run of non-zero scores at one point?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Yes, he's taken more wickets after the age of 30 than most people take in their whole career. His fielding is still outstanding too. Only his batting has gone into a bit of a decline. Didn't he have the longest run of non-zero scores at one point?

    He achieved that record before he discovered any attacking shots. He managed a lot of not outs. He has managed to retain a good physique whilst gaining experience and expertise
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    Yes, he's taken more wickets after the age of 30 than most people take in their whole career. His fielding is still outstanding too. Only his batting has gone into a bit of a decline. Didn't he have the longest run of non-zero scores at one point?

    Yep. Which is why he was often Night watchman for England as well.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited February 13
    I used to be a cricket umpire and the only help I got was from honest players and my colleague at the other end.

    These days elite test umpires have all the technology available and they still can't get it right. Also, when Mr Kohli was cleaned bowled earlier today the umpire should have just raised his finger when he didn't walk off.
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    If you dropped every cricketer who made two low scores and dropped a catch you woudn't have a team after a few matches! I suspect that R. Sharma still has some credit to his name. He got some runs in Australia after all (not a huge number) but he was only brought in for the last two tests.

    Well it would appear that R. Sharma is once more in considerable credit. Terrific innings from him. What a difference a few days make!

    I see some are complaining about the pitch but after all India have just scored 329 on it so it can't be all that bad...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    It is bad and England are not very good at beach cricket
  • Is Rashid unavailable? It seems that the English spinners are just not as penetrating as the Indian ones. Rashid is the most dangerous wicket-taking spinner in England I would have thought, though a bit erratic like most leg-spinners. Is he definitely not an option?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Is Rashid unavailable? It seems that the English spinners are just not as penetrating as the Indian ones. Rashid is the most dangerous wicket-taking spinner in England I would have thought, though a bit erratic like most leg-spinners. Is he definitely not an option?

    The current english spinners turn it very well on the pitches I have seen but they are predictable and not accurate enough. Rashid is one of my favourite players. He can be a bit erratic but he does turn the ball both ways. Our main problem comes if Root fails. The batting isn't good enough.

  • Well, that was.... different! I don't recall a completed 2-day test involving England since circa 2000 - and we won that one.

    Seems a waste of a stunning stadium - maybe we should have offered to play a beer match?
  • What the [bleep] was that?!?!
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    What the [bleep] was that?!?!

    It's not exactly a Test March is it...
  • First time England have lost inside two days since 1912 apparently - I assume that was to Australia as that was the year of the triangular test series, and I didn't think South Africa won one.

    Nicked from the Beeb:
    England lasted 476 balls across two innings - the fifth fewest in their Test history.
    England scored less than 200 runs in the game for only the seventh time, and the third since 1904.
    It is the eighth two-day Test since World War Two and England's first defeat inside two days since 1912.
  • However the match was not entirely one sided and at the end of the Indian first innings England must have felt reasonably hopeful...
  • True. At the end of India's first innings, the commentary on the site I was using to follow the match stated:
    Forget the lead, because if England can throw in a 125-250 target, they will be massive favourites to win this. India have certainly thrown the advantage out of the window.
    After the fact, that now reads as being almost sarcastic...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Root fails with the bat and the team fail with him. The tail was far too long.

    If Root can get 5 for 8, it surely means the pitch was not good enough for test cricket

    All over in just 5 sessions. Not a timeless test
Sign In or Register to comment.