Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 11:04:54 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. Yes, sure, there are plenty of instances of batting first, scorring 400 and losing in a four innngs match. My question was more specific - Scoring 400 first and then losing by an innings and not even making the opposition bat again. Is that unique or merely very rare? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 12, 2016 11:43:55 GMT
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. Yes, sure, there are plenty of instances of batting first, scorring 400 and losing in a four innngs match. My question was more specific - Scoring 400 first and then losing by an innings and not even making the opposition bat again. Is that unique or merely very rare? Very rare. I can only find two: Sri Lanka at Cardiff in 2011, and England v Australia at the Oval in 1930. Perhaps we should follow the same strategy for remedy that was specifically developed following that latter match?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 11:58:13 GMT
Yes, sure, there are plenty of instances of batting first, scorring 400 and losing in a four innngs match. My question was more specific - Scoring 400 first and then losing by an innings and not even making the opposition bat again. Is that unique or merely very rare? Very rare. I can only find two: Sri Lanka at Cardiff in 2011, and England v Australia at the Oval in 1930. Perhaps we should follow the same strategy for remedy that was specifically developed following that latter match? Great work, hhs, and confirms what I suspected - England's achievement in Mumbai was rather special!  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 12, 2016 13:21:25 GMT
Hhs,
...what the longer-term strategy of the side should look like.
The present status quo of international cricket is that when England play at home and have "home conditions" we should and usually
win. The seam and swing, in particular when Jimmy is on song, gives us, at times, very strong and unplayable advantage. Just as
when India play at home, the pitches, spin advantage and batting conditions, strongly favour them.
So, why are people criticising England when everyone knew that we would lose this Test series against India? No-one gave England a
hope in Hell. You can blame selection, the coaches, player replacements, too many games, until the cows come home but they are irrelevant.
There is no way, at present, that England could beat a dominant and No.1 Indian Test side on their home soil.
So what can be changed?
Improve the spin abilities in England: But that is not going to happen when the Counties have become besotted by seam bowling over the last
8 years; where emerging spinners are relegated to OD matches only. Once Graeme Swann retired, it is of no surprise that no-one was there ready
to replace him with the adequate skills. So, just to push salt in hopeful spinners eyes, England come up with the wheeze of the batter/spinner - where
spin becomes an afterthought. Is it of no surprise that England then lose in India, where spin remains, thank god, a very important part of the sport.
Therefore, are we to ask the Counties to tear up their rule-book; demand them to place far more emphasis on helping bring through the spin youngsters;
force the County groundsmen to change the pitches to suit spin rather than seam? Of course not, so long as England can continue to beat international
teams at home and throw in the occasional win overseas, the ECB are happy. So what if each time we play India away England lose. That series is seen as
a lost leader.
Sorry to sound cynical, but what is the point of OTT criticism about the recent Test loss? We knew it was going to happen and it will remain occurring in the
years ahead for as long as India are a strong side and on the ascendance.
Meanwhile, come January, we have 3 ODIs and 3 T20s to look forward to where England have a good chance of redeeming themselves. Back in 2012/2013,
India won a closely fought ODI series 3-2 but lost the T20s 0-2.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Dec 12, 2016 15:28:38 GMT
s&f Taken in isolation I agree that the so far 4-0 loss was predictable. I think it is the abject manner of the collapses that people find annoying. Also this year England have contrived to lose to a South African team they had recently thrashed, twice to Pakistan on "favourable" home soil and for the first time ever to Bangladesh. In truth they were lucky to beat Bangladesh in the other test. What I find unacceptable is the manner of most of these defeats. Players regularly say that Bayliss rarely says much. I truly wonder what he actually does do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 13, 2016 8:42:37 GMT
lg, the so far 4-0 loss was predictable.Sorry to be pedantic but it is 3-0 with one draw.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 9:35:22 GMT
Think I agree with lg - it's not the predictability of the result but the overall context, which is :
five defeats in the last seven tests against three different opponents,
batting collapses in which 5 or 6 wickets regularly go down for next to nothing,
a growing impression Bayliss is out of his depth,
Cook's captaincy still being pretty clueless,
bizarre selections,
an apparent belief that you create a good side by filling it with so-called all-rounders when actually only one of them - Stokes - genuinely fills my criterion for the description, which is worth their place as a batter and a bowler.
The rest are batsmen who bowl a bit or bowlers who bat a bit, or a sacked wicketkeeper who isn't quite good enough as a specialist batsman and some, like Moeen, who are just short of Test level in both disciplines.
I go along with hhs - it requires Strauss to get a grip and exert his authority over Bayliss, Cook, Whittaker and Flower (who according to Dobell is still the man pulling many of the strings from behind the scenes)and establish a more transparent and sensible command structure.
The absolute crapness of the performance in Mumbai has been understated, imo - as hhs has told us, it was the first time in 86 years that England have managed to lose by an innings after batting first and posting 400. That is nothing to do with India's home advantage. It's just utter and total ineptitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 15, 2016 8:23:34 GMT
Anderson has withdrawn from the Chennai Test starting tomorrow with "general soreness". It looks as if his selection was another one that shouldn't have been made for this generally disappointing tour, given his history of injuries and recoveries, the latter inevitably slower and slower as he ages. What selection should we go for now? Ball was ok-ish but did nothing special, Finn is presumably not on form in the nets, and Chennai is Ravi Ashwin's home ground so it seems unlikely to be a greentop, cyclones notwithstanding.
Probably this will see the first and last Test appearance of Liam Dawson a la Steve Borthwick, and he may be lucky enough to get a few wickets from slogs as Borthwick was.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Dec 15, 2016 10:22:51 GMT
I fear we are witnessing the end of Jimmy Anderson. He may have a last hurrah at home next summer but it would be a huge mistake to take him to Australia next winter. Hopefully Wood will regain fitness or one of the fringe players will emerge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 21:16:19 GMT
I go along with hhs - it requires Strauss to get a grip and exert his authority over Bayliss, Cook, Whittaker and Flower (who according to Dobell is still the man pulling many of the strings from behind the scenes)and establish a more transparent and sensible command structure. I'm glad we're not the only ones who don't know exactly who was responsible for selection errors such as Batty, the inexplicable recall of Ballance and thinking that left-handers like Duckett (and Ballance's name comes up again ) were the best way to combat the threat of Ashwin... Ed Smith in The Times: "Who selects the team? On paper, the panel consists of James Whitaker, Mick Newell and Angus Fraser. On tour, power tends to concentrate in the hands of coach and captain. Andy Flower also remains influential and Andrew Strauss is ultimately in charge. In other words, the England team is picked by — well, I’m not sure."
My biggest fear is that the disasters of this tour will have strengthened Flower's backroom power base. It was reportedly on his recommendation that Jennings and Dawson were called up from the Lions. It looks like he has been proved right, but in the long run I cannot see anything positive for English cricket from having an all-powerful but essentially unaccountable figure operating 'behind the throne'. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 19, 2016 7:51:56 GMT
I go along with hhs - it requires Strauss to get a grip and exert his authority over Bayliss, Cook, Whittaker and Flower (who according to Dobell is still the man pulling many of the strings from behind the scenes)and establish a more transparent and sensible command structure. I'm glad we're not the only ones who don't know exactly who was responsible for selection errors such as Batty, the inexplicable recall of Ballance and thinking that left-handers like Duckett (and Ballance's name comes up again ) were the best way to combat the threat of Ashwin... Ed Smith in The Times: "Who selects the team? On paper, the panel consists of James Whitaker, Mick Newell and Angus Fraser. On tour, power tends to concentrate in the hands of coach and captain. Andy Flower also remains influential and Andrew Strauss is ultimately in charge. In other words, the England team is picked by — well, I’m not sure."
My biggest fear is that the disasters of this tour will have strengthened Flower's backroom power base. It was reportedly on his recommendation that Jennings and Dawson were called up from the Lions. It looks like he has been proved right, but in the long run I cannot see anything positive for English cricket from having an all-powerful but essentially unaccountable figure operating 'behind the throne'. In the context of Ed Smith's comment and your own observations on Flower, what do we make of this report ( www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/1073030.html) about the "selection" of North and South squads for Dubai in March? Whitaker says of it "...a platform to make an impression.... to our selection process in 50-over cricket, ahead of the two major global events we are staging over the next three summers - the Champions Trophy next year and the World Cup in 2019. " Whereas Farbrace talking in the same press release seems to be making another point when he says "What we're saying is, the Lions is one route and county cricket is certainly another route. When people come through the Lions, you know they've come through a grounding between county cricket and international cricket, but also there are people capable of coming directly from county cricket. There are some very good county players... So you want the routes to be varied, not just one line into the England team." The squads selected actually make another point entirely. Of 26 players chosen , only 7 come from counties playing Second division cricket last year, and from only three of those counties: 3 from Northants, 3 from Kent and Clarke from Worcestershire. No Essex players, no Sussex, no Gloucestershire etc. Can this really be the selection approach, to pick for the umpteenth time a jamboree bag containing Bresnan, Finn, Vince and Malan, shake it up with a few more recent rejects,recently injured or nearly men, and sprinkle with a consolation prize for Northants wininng the T20? Is this a strategy or just a mess? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 19, 2016 7:54:46 GMT
On a very different note, this overheard from the Willow TV commentary on the England bowling: "This is a very good defensive field for Rashid at the moment. 534-5"  |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Dec 19, 2016 11:36:41 GMT
Unwanted records:
Adil Rashid has conceded more runs (861) than any other spin bowler in a 5 match series in India
Moeen Ali's 10 wickets for 649 runs, average 64.90 is the highest average of any spin bowler taking 10 wickets in a series in India
Between them they bowled 420.3 overs conceding 1510 runs for 33 wickets, compared with 1984/5 when Phil Edmonds and Percy Pocock bowled 514 overs, conceding 1239 runs, and taking 27 wickets, or 1961/2 when David Allen and Tony Lock sent down 608.2 overs, conceded 1211 runs and took 43 wickets.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Dec 19, 2016 15:01:08 GMT
At what point do we admit that this tour has been an unmitigated disaster? Of those playing in this test I would not be at all surprised if only four feature in the first ashes test next winter. Bairstow, Root, Stokes and possibly Ali may be the only survivors. We are breaking records consistently but for all the wrong reasons. If there is another capitulation tomorrow, on that pitch, there will be no excuses.
Am I alone in being very annoyed that the supposedly exhausted Broad is jetting off immediately to boost his pension pot in the big bash?
|
|
rsj
2nd XI player
Posts: 42
|
Post by rsj on Dec 19, 2016 15:35:35 GMT
At what point do we admit that this tour has been an unmitigated disaster? Of those playing in this test I would not be at all surprised if only four feature in the first ashes test next winter. Bairstow, Root, Stokes and possibly Ali may be the only survivors. We are breaking records consistently but for all the wrong reasons. If there is another capitulation tomorrow, on that pitch, there will be no excuses. Am I alone in being very annoyed that the supposedly exhausted Broad is jetting off immediately to boost his pension pot in the big bash? Can't blame Broad really, he's been thundering in in test matches for 9 years now, plus the Odis and T20 games he's played in. He's got to be planning his future and getting the the most out of the game before the inevitable retirement. |
|
