|
Post by coverpoint on Dec 11, 2016 6:38:35 GMT
Yadav has a first class double hundred.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 11, 2016 9:11:33 GMT
Yadav has a first class double hundred. Rashid was only 8 short
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Dec 11, 2016 10:14:03 GMT
Ali is not a test match number 4 (four positions too high in my opinion)!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2016 12:48:40 GMT
I know Boycott can be a dreadful old bore but he's the only pundit I heard call this Test match right. When England made 400 in the first innings, everyone from Vaughan to Botham via Gower and Naseer Hussain reckoned it was a cracking score and it would be almost impossible for England to lose from there.
Boycott was the only one who said not enough and that England should have scored 500-550.
Having called it right when everyone else called it wrong will only make him more insufferable, of course. But there you go...
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Dec 12, 2016 6:54:29 GMT
To lose the last 6 wickets for 15 is unacceptable. So much for Bayliss's positive approach. I think he is better suited to one day cricket and has no real grasp of Test match cricket. This is the 7th test England have lost this year and will probably be 8 soon, so we have gone backwards as a test team.
I would allow Bayliss to carry on with the one day side to after the Champions trophy but we should begin actively seeking a coach who understands what Test match cricket is about. From what I heard Kohli rarely, if at all, hit the ball in the air so positive cricket does not mean wild swipes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 9:01:31 GMT
To win the toss, score 400 and still lose by an innings takes some doing and must be very rare.
Possibly not unique, though. hhs - you're a bit of a statto. Previous occurences?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 10:02:33 GMT
On the captaincy with no Tests after the final one v India until July, I would guess Cook will not be required to make a decision until several weeks into the start of the next season. My feeling is that at present, after losing five of the last seven tests, he is minded to stand down. But it may be six months before we know for sure and by then he could conceivably feel fully recharged and happy to carry on and lead the team to Australia next winter.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 12, 2016 10:23:48 GMT
A typical knee-jerk reaction from the media.
Last 6 Tests away from home: England: Lost 4, Won 1, Drawn 1 - on paper this doesn't look good but aren't such matches all about "home conditions" today?
India are back to their pomp and when "home conditions" are added, they are presently going to boss England and others. I remember how people were "pleased" that Bangladesh beat England at Dhaka. The forthcoming Summer Tests against South Africa may be better balanced but, again, "home conditions" should suit England.
It is sad how Test matches have become so much now about "home conditions" but hasn't that always been the way, bar the occasional shock?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Dec 12, 2016 10:30:25 GMT
A typical knee-jerk reaction from the media. Last 6 Tests away from home: England: Lost 4, Won 1, Drawn 1 - on paper this doesn't look good but aren't such matches all about "home conditions" today? India are back to their pomp and when "home conditions" are added, they are presently going to boss England and others. I remember how people were "pleased" that Bangladesh beat England at Dhaka. The forthcoming Summer Tests against South Africa may be better balanced but, again, "home conditions" should suit England. It is sad how Test matches have become so much now about "home conditions" but hasn't that always been the way, bar the occasional shock?I agree, fluffy. And it's why I think the toss should be dispensed with, and the away team given the choice of batting or bowling first. That might go some way to counter-balancing the massive advantage of "home conditions."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 10:43:31 GMT
A typical knee-jerk reaction from the media. Last 6 Tests away from home: England: Lost 4, Won 1, Drawn 1 - on paper this doesn't look good but aren't such matches all about "home conditions" today? India are back to their pomp and when "home conditions" are added, they are presently going to boss England and others. I remember how people were "pleased" that Bangladesh beat England at Dhaka. The forthcoming Summer Tests against South Africa may be better balanced but, again, "home conditions" should suit England. It is sad how Test matches have become so much now about "home conditions" but hasn't that always been the way, bar the occasional shock?I agree, fluffy. And it's why I think the toss should be dispensed with, and the away team given the choice of batting or bowling first. That might go some way to counter-balancing the massive advantage of "home conditions." England's current problems are about far more than India's home conditions advantage. They won the toss in Mumbai, batted first and scored 400, a total which everyone apart from Boycott said meant it would be virtually impossible for them to lose. Yet they not only lost but managed to do so by an innings!
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 12, 2016 10:46:34 GMT
To win the toss, score 400 and still lose by an innings takes some doing and must be very rare.
Possibly not unique, though. hhs - you're a bit of a statto. Previous occurences? You would think so, however there have been 43 instances of a side batting first and making 400 and yet losing, including 6 over 500. Famous instances include Adelaide on the 2006/7 tour, Adelaide again for Australia losing to India in 2003/4, England at Leeds in 1948. The very highest score in this list is from 1894/5, Australia making 586 in their first innings against England, then a strong reply, an even more robust follow-on innings and a 4th innings collapse. From those scorecards I've looked at in this list that seems to be the favourite way of losing. Being outscored massively on first innings seems to be the rarity here.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 12, 2016 10:47:49 GMT
A typical knee-jerk reaction from the media. Last 6 Tests away from home: England: Lost 4, Won 1, Drawn 1 - on paper this doesn't look good but aren't such matches all about "home conditions" today? India are back to their pomp and when "home conditions" are added, they are presently going to boss England and others. I remember how people were "pleased" that Bangladesh beat England at Dhaka. The forthcoming Summer Tests against South Africa may be better balanced but, again, "home conditions" should suit England. It is sad how Test matches have become so much now about "home conditions" but hasn't that always been the way, bar the occasional shock?I agree, fluffy. And it's why I think the toss should be dispensed with, and the away team given the choice of batting or bowling first. That might go some way to counter-balancing the massive advantage of "home conditions." Afraid I can't agree. The arbitrary element of the toss must surely be a countervailing factor to any kind of supposed "home advantage" precisely because it favours neither side. Incidentally of that list of 43 instances where the side winning the toss scored 400 + and went on to lose, 25 times it was the away side that lost.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Dec 12, 2016 10:50:43 GMT
I agree, fluffy. And it's why I think the toss should be dispensed with, and the away team given the choice of batting or bowling first. That might go some way to counter-balancing the massive advantage of "home conditions." England's current problems are about far more than India's home conditions advantage. They won the toss in Mumbai, batted first and scored 400, a total which everyone apart from Boycott said meant it would be virtually impossible for them to lose. Yet they not only lost but managed to do so by an innings! That's true, but I think S&F was suggesting that test series generally were too biased in favour of the home team - hence my suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Dec 12, 2016 10:52:07 GMT
South Africa have just won a series away in Australia, so it is possible. I think that after years of neglecting one day cricket we have suddenly put too much emphasis on it because there are two home tournaments on the horizon. The skill sets required for the different formats are not the same. Sometimes we can blaze away in a test and it comes off but you cannot do that consistently. The bowlers can bowl more attackingly and the fielders are their to catch in tests.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 12, 2016 10:59:33 GMT
South Africa have just won a series away in Australia, so it is possible. I think that after years of neglecting one day cricket we have suddenly put too much emphasis on it because there are two home tournaments on the horizon. The skill sets required for the different formats are not the same. Sometimes we can blaze away in a test and it comes off but you cannot do that consistently. The bowlers can bowl more attackingly and the fielders are their to catch in tests. Yes, but....other factors include poor original selections and replacements, the injury to Broad, the waning of Anderson, the ineffectuality of Woakes, none of which have anything to do with one day cricket or with batting failures. When a side's bowling strength comes apart it has massive effects on the way the batsmen view their task, as we saw in Australia last time. I wouldn't leap to dismiss Bayliss just yet or sack Cookm, but I would have a long hard look at who selects teams, how involved the coach should be in that, and what the longer-term strategy of the side should look like.
|
|