England in India

A few days ago the media consensus was damningly clear:

England's spirit had been crushed by the Dhaka defeat and would be overwhelmed by strong, confident India conforming to the grand rule of home advantage. Cook was out of ideas, a captain who had never learned to adapt, this series would be his last and it was only a question of time whether he fell or was pushed onto his sword. India’s spinners were overwhelmingly strong, particularly given the certainty that every pitch we played on would turn square from the first morning. None of the English spinners had shown any signs of developing sufficiently to take advantage even of a turning wicket and would be hammered out of sight by India's immensely powerful middle order. Without Anderson there was no credibility to the bowling attack and no depth.

Whilst there is plenty of time in a 5 match series for some of these issues to show some degree of truth it’s good to reflect on the eve of the Second Test on England's strengths as shown at Rajkot. Firstly the team never looked overawed or hangdog at any stage, not even when Vijay and Pujara were putting on their big second-wicket stand. Of course it helped that Cook won the toss, and it helped enormously that Root, then Ali, then Stokes made all those runs, but if they had conformed to stereotype and been 40-3, would they have recovered? There was a considerable air of self-belief about the team that ran through most of what they did, in contrast to the Indian impatience with not getting the repeated breakthroughs, resulting in poor bowling and some awful fielding and catching.

Then Cook whilst still limited in some of his ideas has gradually learned to make the best of the resources available to him. That is different to a "natural" captain like Vaughan who looked to do the unusual and unsettling and recruited players who could respond. Cook has learned that pace bowlers give control and he turns to spin to give opportunities, even if they cost runs, but his natural caution limits him to rotating those spinners in relatively short spells. That helps a bowler like Rashid, not strong on confidence, by giving him windows in which he can flourish, without getting carted. Ansari, too, with his rather over-deliberate action did better than he might have done under a captain who would have expected his slow left armer to dictate the run of the game.

Finally the wicket turned out to be much truer than it looked at first, and although there was spin on the last day it wasn't horrendous; there was no sign of balls that went through the crust of the wicket. England simply used it better than India in almost every phase of the game and deserved their rather commanding draw. They probably will find dustier wickets from now on, but they have the excellent advantage of knowing that all their bowlers are in good spirits and that form can only improve. There will be a tough choice to be made now about whether to include Anderson for Ansari - Rashid seems to have made his place secure on the basis of this match - and the batting looks settled now that Hameed has emerged. So much so that there is time for Duckett to settle in to a middle-order position, or if that doesn't work out, for Buttler to come back in the same role. Probably at the end of the tour Cook will decide if he wants another Ashes tour next winter. If he doesn't then Duckett can join Hameed in opening and Root can take over the captaincy.

Dobell is now suggesting that England may rest Woakes who has a "niggle" in favour of Anderson, Finn or Ball. www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2016-17/content/story/1066492.html

As usual, the whole premise of his story is undermined right at the end by the quote from Alastair Cook "Woakes is the one we're looking at because of the amount of overs he has bowled over the last six or seven weeks. He was outstanding in Rajkot, so we will have to make a decision. He has just got a bowling niggle really. Just the normal wear and tear of bowling, so he's fine to play."

A predictable loss but the BBC Website offers some hope.

While there was no disgrace in England being bowled out on a worn surface -
the 97.3 overs they faced was their third longest fourth innings in a Test in India...

Meanwhile, there was the predictable criticism from the English pundits.

England have a habit of collapsing. They go down like a pack of cards,
like dominoes - call it what you want. This pitch is not a minefield. (Boycott)

And...

The tour party was selected strangely. (Vaughan)

Yet, Vic Marks offers optimism.

I don't sense this is a team about to disintegrate under the pressure of touring India.
There will be team changes, but there is fight and purpose amongst some of the batsman
and they have bowled well.

Even so, all very predictable.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/38047909

Buttler for Duckett and Batty for Ansari.

How about Dobell comes up with a good line?

I thought this on Adil Rashid was rather good : "being rated the best English legspinner is a bit like being rated the tallest dwarf."

I think you have just awarded yourself the forum's tallest dwarf award, fraudster!

Another good line by Dobell (and two in one series must rank as his record) - although it is one that is going to further sour his already fractious relationship with the England camp. Of Ashwin's delivery that clean bowled Captain Cook, he writes: "It was the sort of ball that, if bowled on the village green, might well have been heaved into the churchyard."

I don't even remember him being that cruel last summer when he was whipping up his spiteful campaign to have Bairstow rusticated in favour of Ben Foakes!