Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Dr Cricket wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/england-india-fifth-test-alastair-cook-joe-root-virat-kohli-anderson-a8533416.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1536691381
a very good article here.

"The baseline facts are these: India have scored more centuries and taken more five-wicket hauls. The series’ top run-scorer (Virat Kohli), its two highest innings and arguably its four best knocks (Kohli at Edgbaston, Cheteshwar Pujara at Southampton, KL Rahul and Rishabh Pant here) have all come from India. India have had the more consistent seam attack, the better top four and the better top six. And yet, India have succumbed to their worst defeat since England whitewashed them here in 2011.

It was a worse scoreline than their 3-1 defeat here in 2014, and yet a far superior performance. Unlike four years ago, when MS Dhoni’s side posed the interesting metaphysical question of whether a cricket team can be both present and on the plane home at the same time"

"But as a leader, Kohli has been found wanting. He has often been guilty of chasing the ball when it comes to field positions, of overusing bowlers who are not producing and underusing bowlers with the ability to change the game. And you wonder whether his semi-deific status within Indian cricket, while driving him to new heights as a player, has quite the opposite effect on his team-mates. With the exception of Ishant Sharma and - fleetingly - Pujara, India’s senior players have been a disappointment."

"But all that can wait for now. A series that was billed at its outset as the apex of India’s rise to greatness, and dismissed after two games as a damp mismatch that portended the death of Test cricket, ultimately ended up as neither. It has, quite simply, been riotously good fun: two flawed teams fighting tooth and nail and throwing up an all-action Hollywood blockbuster. And like a Hollywood blockbuster, sometimes it’s best not to try to make much sense of it."

As entertaining as the knocks produced by Rahul and pant were today they definitely weren't in the best knocks of the series

With the series lost and an enormous target of 470 they were able to play with freedom on by far the flattest pitch of the 5 matches

Sam currans 63 at Edgbaston and 78 at Southampton although being lower scores and maybe not as aesthetically pleasing were the two knocks that decided the series

Had the young lad not produced under that immense pressure India may well have won the series 3-2

think he was speaking in terms of aesthetically pleasing knocks.
but yeah agree Sam currans 63 and 78 are far better knocks than the two today really.

Especially when you considering both the knock came while shielding the tail.
some skill to win the game twice with the bat.

I think Sam Curran was awarded England's player of the series

Durhamfootman wrote:I think Sam Curran was awarded England's player of the series

I just hope he doesn't think he's made it

His bowling is going to need to improve a lot if he is going to have any success away from England, or even in England when it's not swinging

TBH can see sam curran being the kallis type all rounder for england anyway, can see him being a good batting all rounder for england.
although he needs to improve his bowling but think he will eventually become a better batsman than a bowler though.

god knows how england fit Ali,Woakes, Curran and Stokes in the team though.
someone gonna have to bat at 9 or 10.
no way will they get away with having 6-7 bowlers in the team and allow Ali, Stokes or even curran in the top 7 in the long run.

I haven't seen much of Curran but he looks more like a bowling all-rounder to me. When all are fit, he may have to step aside, but he's a good back up and may one day become a regular, but not batting in the top six.

Dr Cricket wrote:TBH can see sam curran being the kallis type all rounder for england anyway, can see him being a good batting all rounder for england.
although he needs to improve his bowling but think he will eventually become a better batsman than a bowler though.

god knows how england fit Ali,Woakes, Curran and Stokes in the team though.
someone gonna have to bat at 9 or 10.
no way will they get away with having 6-7 bowlers in the team and allow Ali, Stokes or even curran in the top 7 in the long run.

He's going to have to work very hard

He definitely has the talent and more importantly the mental strength to be a success

Don't think he's anywhere remotely near to being a player as good as kallis though

he has the advantage of being a leftie, of course, and so he offers England genuine variation, which if he bowls well enough will stand him in good stead and help keep his nose in front of Woakes. Got to bowl consistently well, though, or Woakes gets back in

yeah he not even gonna reach kallis type level, you don't score 10K + runs at 50+ average and take 250 odd wicket it just doesn't happen.
but out of all the all rounder england got he is the most likely to average the most or fit better in the top 6 or 7.

not sure Stokes, Woakes and ali are top 6 material for england at best they are 7s.
Although saying that stokes is a good batsman but think an average of 35 or low 30s is the best he can do and I see more potential in Curran with the bat probably won't reach the height of Stokes with the ball unless he improves and find some speed in the bowling.
TBH stokes is so much better as a bowler now that england really should trust him to be england 3rd seam option and somehow bat at 8 for england or if they feel the conditions are so flat then maybe he can be 4th seam option they play the extra bowler, but I would only do that if the 4th bowler is better than stokes though which at the moment it is the case but when Anderson or broad retires, not really sure that will be the case so Stokes should be in the team as a bowler.

Genuine question; in a neutral venue - say Australia who wins between England and India?

depends on which ball they use

home advantage for England is really the dukes ball, not the grounds they choose to use

that is a tough one.
no idea actually.
think india have the better bowling attack for it, but we have no idea how the batting will go for both teams although india have a better record in australia with the bat in the last 10 test matches than England do.
india probably edge it since they have more depth to the bowling not sure how england will go with the ball, especially in conditions that don't suit Anderson.

Durhamfootman wrote:depends on which ball they use

yeah the ball is more of a help to england than the grounds.
which is why england do lose a decent amount of games at home and pretty much every team now will still think england are beatable at home even if in the end england find a way to win games and series.

The Professor wrote:Genuine question; in a neutral venue - say Australia who wins between England and India?

Reckon India, as outside of swinging conditions and the Duke's ball teams need to bat bigger to win test matches. India have more batsmen who can go big and bat and concentrate for long periods, especially now Cook's out of the frame.

That article is a bit daft. Rahul and Pant's innings yesterday were ok, but they were on the flattest surface of the series (which flattened out as the game went on), when the series and the match were already gone. They had nothing left to lose, chanced their arm a bit, and it came off (although Rahul was spectacularly lucky to survive the morning session). Innings that were better, apart from Pujara's and Kohli's, were Woakes' ton, Curran's 50s at Edgbaston and the Ageas, Buttler's innings in this game, and arguably Cook's too, as it determined the course of the match (if Cook had been out early on day 4, India win).

5 wicket hauls are also not a particularly good indicator, as there are only 10 wickets to go around in an innings. England often played 5, 6 or even 7 bowlers, so all that means is that England shared their wickets around more. That was actually one of England's key reasons for success, as they had more options and variety. When Curran and Buttler were fighting back, India often didn't have an answer. A more telling stat is that England took 97 wickets in this series, while India took 85.

India played well, and I think England were flattered by a 4-1 scoreline, maybe 3-2 or 2-1 would have been fairer. But nonetheless, India have lost, comprehensively, and as the number 1 team in the world they should have been expected to beat England. You can't sweep it under the rug and say that they competed for 4 of the 5 tests so it's ok. England competed at times in at least 4 of the Ashes tests in Australia, but came up short in the final reckoning, and questions need to be asked. In particular, I question the quality of India's preparation for the tests (not 100% their fault, but boards need to work together to get better practice for touring sides), and their lack of ruthlessness wherein they let England off the hook in at least three of the games, where a better side would have finished the job.