England tour of India

[Arthur Crabtree]

I suppose, but if there's a pitch like this then they won't be contributing much.

[bigfluffylemon]

Are we allowed to complain about this pitch? Shortest match and lowest aggregate since they started covering them? When Root gets 5-8 something is very wrong.

England were crap, obviously. But that doesn't excuse unfit pitches.

[Red Devil]

Are we allowed to complain about this pitch? Shortest match and lowest aggregate since they started covering them? When Root gets 5-8 something is very wrong.

England were crap, obviously. But that doesn't excuse unfit pitches.

The pitch was nowhere near as bad as is being made out - even Root said at the end of the match that 250 was par in the first innings and Eng blew it by batting badly. Kohli and Rohit were fuming about the Indian batting as well. The problem for batters was the pink ball in India - it needs extra lacquer to keep colour and protect it from the dew that comes in the evening. It was clear that the pink ball skids on much quicker off the lacquer and that's what got 21 of the 30 wickets. Go back to red ball and day tests.

Also India got 49/0 from 7.4 overs after Eng were 81ao - that gives some context

When the green top that Eng produced for the Lords pitch in 2018 resulted in Eng beating India in 170 overs there didn't seem to be too many complaints from Eng fans but everywhere on the social media there now seem to be Eng fans very concerned about matches not lasting 5 days

[bigfluffylemon]

I'm sorry, proof of the pudding and all that. This was the lowest match aggregate since 1946, in the top 10 of the lowest runs per wicket of all test matches, shortest since 1935, lowest innings high score since the 1930s as well. Everything from the stats of this match reads like something out of the uncovered era, and low scoring uncovered era matches at that.

If one side scored and the other didn't, you could say it was down to poor technique. But when neither side can manage more than 15 runs per wicket, something's off. And India scoring 49 for 0 doesn't say much about the quality of the pitch, IMO - it often happens when one team is completely down and out that the other side make it look easy. Rohit and Gill had licence to just go out and hit with nothing to lose against a totally demoralised England. There were a few close calls even in that, and England opened the bowling with Root because they were so stupid they didn't pick two frontline spinners.

I'm not saying India didn't deserve to win, they clearly did (see England only picking one spinner, for a start). For the record, I'm not a fan of searing greentops in England that produce insane low scores either. But the match you refer to England scored nearly 400. Can't have been that impossible to bat on.

[alfie]

I'm sorry, proof of the pudding and all that. This was the lowest match aggregate since 1946, in the top 10 of the lowest runs per wicket of all test matches, shortest since 1935, lowest innings high score since the 1930s as well. Everything from the stats of this match reads like something out of the uncovered era, and low scoring uncovered era matches at that.

If one side scored and the other didn't, you could say it was down to poor technique. But when neither side can manage more than 15 runs per wicket, something's off. And India scoring 49 for 0 doesn't say much about the quality of the pitch, IMO - it often happens when one team is completely down and out that the other side make it look easy. Rohit and Gill had licence to just go out and hit with nothing to lose against a totally demoralised England. There were a few close calls even in that, and England opened the bowling with Root because they were so stupid they didn't pick two frontline spinners.

I'm not saying India didn't deserve to win, they clearly did (see England only picking one spinner, for a start). For the record, I'm not a fan of searing greentops in England that produce insane low scores either. But the match you refer to England scored nearly 400. Can't have been that impossible to bat on.

Pretty good summary, BFL. I do think Red also has a good point in that it was chiefly the combination of pink ball and pitch that made batting such a lottery. I have certainly never seen so many generally competent batsmen bamboozled by straight balls ! Hopefully going back to a daytime match next week will iron out some of the excesses.

No argument India deserved the win , by the way. Although Leach (and even Root) bowled well , he didn't quite have the relentless accuracy of Axar (that pitch map was revealing) that virtually ensured he was going to get a wicket just through natural variation every few overs. And Rohit's first innings was once again the standout batting performance - and the one that made sure India had a first innings lead despite their own extraordinary collapse.

For England they probably have to , in one sense , forget about what just happened. And of course at the same time try to work out some plans for playing Axar (relief at not having to face Jadeja has rather been forgotten now !) and Ashwin. We know they are going to struggle against top quality spin - but they have to be better than they were this week.

And I do hope that the surface for the last match affords a bit more for other types of bowler : fair enough you expect spin friendly tracks in India ; but it bothers me a bit to see high quality cricketers like Broad , Bumrah and Ishant reduced to being virtual spectators in a Test Match. Though I guess they all still got paid

[meninblue]

Awesome win this by 10 wickets.

England made the most horrible blunder by playing just one specialist spinner. It's like giving a carpenter the job to stitch shirt and trouser rather than the tailor. When someone does wrong staffing, it will be difficult to get performance from there.

Rohit was marvellous with the bat.

Axar bowling on homeground lived upto expectationd in this ground from him.Well bowled.

England batsmen need to play spinners with proper technique. They just lack it. Indian batsmen too need to improve against spin,especially Rahane.

[sussexpob]

When the green top that Eng produced for the Lords pitch in 2018 resulted in Eng beating India in 170 overs there didn't seem to be too many complaints from Eng fans but everywhere on the social media there now seem to be Eng fans very concerned about matches not lasting 5 days

The same venue where Ireland bowled England out for 85, then were bowled out for 36.

The new ball bounced a little or kept low, but other than that the bounce was quite true when the ball softened. It spun, but even taking the most harsh critics of the second pitch (Aggers/Vaughan) they said not as much as the second test. Aggers was actually quite vocal on day 1 about him having no problems with the surface and faulting England batting.

Just a perfect storm of a lot of factors. Covid, a new ball, an inability to play quality spin, top quality bowling. My take anyway

[bigfluffylemon]

Pretty good summary, BFL. I do think Red also has a good point in that it was chiefly the combination of pink ball and pitch that made batting such a lottery. I have certainly never seen so many generally competent batsmen bamboozled by straight balls ! Hopefully going back to a daytime match next week will iron out some of the excesses.

No argument India deserved the win , by the way. Although Leach (and even Root) bowled well , he didn't quite have the relentless accuracy of Axar (that pitch map was revealing) that virtually ensured he was going to get a wicket just through natural variation every few overs. And Rohit's first innings was once again the standout batting performance - and the one that made sure India had a first innings lead despite their own extraordinary collapse.

I think that's fair.

[sussexpob]

he didn't quite have the relentless accuracy of Axar (that pitch map was revealing) that virtually ensured he was going to get a wicket just through natural variation every few overs. A

When you mention natural variation, are we referring to identical balls reacting differently on the pitch and some gripping, some moving on? Its been mentioned a lot in the last day or two, and I get the feeling people are suggesting the pitch had different levels of spin, which I am not really a believer of

[GarlicJam]

It's just been pointed out to me that the T20 match yesterday in New Zealand saw 434 runs scored, almost 50 runs more than this test.

You did want to read that, didn't you?

[DiligentDefence]

I'm inclined to think that the problem was more the pink ball than the pitch. It doesn't behave in the same way as the red and in my opinion is not suitable (yet) for test cricket. I would therefore end the experiment with day/night tests unless the ball can be modified to behave more like a red ball.

[sussexpob]

I'm inclined to think that the problem was more the pink ball than the pitch. It doesn't behave in the same way as the red and in my opinion is not suitable (yet) for test cricket. I would therefore end the experiment with day/night tests unless the ball can be modified to behave more like a red ball.

I said before the test that the pink ball has been built mainly with the intent of making it last longer, the reasoning being the colour contrast in the dark needing to me maintained so its easier to see (if the ball scuffs and darkens, then it would be harder to see. The ball surface has to be light and shiny for longer). I guessed you might see the harder and more pronounced seam bite more into the pitch, and we seen definite spin and the ball take dust from the pitch.

The important thing however is once you establish you can beat the bat on the outside edge, the arm ball has the effect of beating the inside edge when people play for the spin. The more it spins, the more the straight ball becomes a challenge. There seems to be a generally accepted idea around that the ball itself sometimes spun, sometimes didnt. But I think following on from the above, Axar simply realized the ball was turning and adapted to ball stump to stump while throwing in the arm ball.

The idea of "natural variation" from the spin levels off the pitch can largely be debunked. See here two photos taken from the highlights (apologises for quality its the best I could do), they show the wrist position of Axar from consecutive balls to Root. One turned massive and beat the outside edge, the other is the straight one that went with the arm and got Root out lbw beating the inside edge.

https://ibb.co/x8pm8Cq (conventional spin)
https://ibb.co/WPb0Y3N (straight)
What you see is a clear difference in wrist position. The big turner is bowled with the palm of the hand towards the batsman. This is the classic finger spinner grip for the stock ball, with side spin on the ball. When it hits you expect it to turn towards the offside because the ball is going to land on the seam and move in the direction of the ball rotation. The straight ball is bowled with the palm to the sky, and the wrist movement will impart undercut on the ball, meaning that the ball is going to spin on a different axis (Im no physics specialist, I believe its spinning on a lateral axis).

I think the majority of problems Axar caused was down to batsman playing the wrong line. But this is not accidental or freak, he's simply bowling undercutters that England cant pick. Ok, you might get some natural variation where the point of release is slightly later and the wrist then straightens, meaning the undercutter comes with side spin, and if it lands on the seam, might go the other way.... but the only example of a ball I could think of that didnt noticeably turn or go straight was the Crawley wicket, and the available highlights do not give me a close up of his wrist position there.

So yeah, the ball may spin more because of its construct. The pitch is turning so applies the bigger contrast (and bigger risk to not reading from the hand) in results, but the real problem is still the fact that the bowler is going through his purposeful variations that the batsman cant read.

Its hard to demonstrate in pictures where Axar's arm exactly is, because the camera is not properly centered and is slightly diagonal/side on, so the subtly in his arm position is almost impossible to see with every example. A further complication is added in Axar's pace; due to the action required to bowl the undercutter, the biggest tell the batsman gets is the ball pushes out quicker, but Axar bowls his stock delivery at the same pace levels, so its harder to read that.

Still, the undercutter is bowled with a lower arm. The stock ball is 11 o clock, the variation will be more 10 o clock and goes with the arm. There is some difference certainly you can pick up in how he bowls on certain deliveries based on his arm position and follow through, in fact even at club level you would find finger spinners would avoid bowling undercutters because to get the wrist down like that in this position is impossible with a higher arm action, and arm height is a far easier tell on a variation ball than the seam position or wrist.

I honestly couldnt tell you any modern day finger spinners who bowl undercutters, its an almost defunct style of bowling. Maybe that is the answer why England have played it so appallingly, and they just have never been confronted with it, but still if they are reading from the hand the wrist position is pretty obvious.

Do England get bowled out for 82 if they can pick Axar? I dont think so. Worth noting Ashwin has also got wickets with the carrom ball or arm ball too, so its not even the undercutter England are failing to spot.

[DiligentDefence]

Thanks for the photos SP They do illustrate far better than words. I certainly didn't want to underplay Axar's excellent performance but still think that the jury is out on the pink ball. One does wonder however how much teams practice with it.

[sussexpob]

Thanks for the photos SP They do illustrate far better than words. I certainly didn't want to underplay Axar's excellent performance but still think that the jury is out on the pink ball. One does wonder however how much teams practice with it.

If I were inclined to look at this statistically, then DN matches are producing far lower scores (26 per wicket scored to 31 per wicket normally in the period since D/N tests came in 2015). On top of that, there have been some very low scores; India out for 36, Windies out for 90, England for 58 and 82, Zimbabwe 90 odd, SL 80 odd. In fact in 16 total games over half the teams have sufferered a sub-100 run innings, which is very rare in modern cricket.

I admit that is a really hard sample to ignore. In fact when you go on a by team basis, Australia and Pakistan are the only teams that get near a decent level of scoring in their tests, and Pakistan's wicket average is boosted from one road innings.

But then judging it on the matches I can remember watching, the memory that sticks out is bad batting and technique to explain those scores. The ball might skid a little lower, or bite a little harder, or swing a little more, but I cant remember a DN where the ball was making things noticeably crazy or rendring the competition null and void.

Just my take, on my observations.

[sussexpob]

After Agnew stated all through day 1 that the pitch was fine, he's now trying to say in his summary the pitch was unfit for test cricket. I guess this is one of the main problems I have with these sorts of criticisms; the score being used to explain the conditions. If Agnew thought the pitch was decent on Day 1, then the only difference was the results got worse, not the pitch... so where does the conclusion come from? It seems disingenuous to say the least.