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

Tip of the hat to Sam Curran. After 5 tests, averages 36 with the bat and 23 with the ball. Yes, things will get tougher, he may well struggle given his pace if the ball doesn't swing. But given he's only 20, immensely promising start. Although he's a bowling allrounder, I'll be surprised if he doesn't end his career with a test match hundred to his name.

Not really sure you can say England competed in the ashes though.
Also ridiculous to say India are expected to win in England when they only won 6 test matches before this tour in England ever.

Being number 1 in the world doesn’t change that they not suddenly gonna win 7 out 11 test in sena nations overnight are their the progress will be gradual.

Of course a better team would have taken chances and won games , it is like saying England in 2010-2012 are not a great team because they only won 3 test in Asia from 9 matches.

Not sure losing 2 games by an innings, and one game by 10 wickets is being competitive during the last ashes.
That too when considering how many days england won in tour probably only won 3-5 days all series whereas India probably had 2 good days in every test match barring lords.
With every game still nicely poised right to the very end.

Not sure I would say england shared their wickets around either, it still had a feel of anderson and broad and a drop off for the rest.
The only reason it looked ok in the end was because India didn’t have much of a lower order presence and were collapsing every time Kohli went out.
Sam Curran petered out in the end, stokes took vital wickets but not much else wasn’t really bowling fit in the last 3 games, Rashid was hardly bowling much and woakes only played 2 games.
Ali bowled well in Southampton but didn’t do much in oval.
Whereas India had England 87/7, 86/6 and 178/6 and plenty more times taking the first 7-8 wickets cheaply, their attack on the whole looked more threatening than England.
England lower order and tail just found a way to give them England runs for Anderson to defend which is proven by the case of how they were able to restrict India to a small lead in 3 of the 5 games and defend chaseasble totals in the final innings although the last one wasn’t chaseable.

As a group India bowling attack was better although it was only marginally better so were not able to compensate the lack of runs as a group the India batsman were not able to provide.

Dr Cricket wrote:As a group India bowling attack was better although it was only marginally better so were not able to compensate the lack of runs as a group the India batsman were not able to provide.

England's bowlers: 97 wickets at 25.23
India's bowlers: 85 wickets at 30.74

Best averages: Anderson 18, Woakes 21, Moeen 21, Curran 23.5, Sharma 24

Gotta disagree that India's attack was better. They bowled well, especially the quicks (Moeen and Rashid both outbowled Ashwin and Jadeja), but England's quicks were better overall.

Agree to disagree imho.

bigfluffylemon wrote: 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.

Pace bowling looked unusually well prepared (maybe Ishant benefited from CC1 cricket). Batting looked woefully underprepared, though of course Kohli was the best bat on show. But not only was the batting raw, it looked badly coached, and they played too many reckless shots.

TBH a lot of the low average for Woakes and curran is mostly based on them not really bowling much because england had a lot more option, don't think Curran bowled much outside the first test when the condition were suiting him.
Bowled well but not sure he bowled much in the last 2 games where Ali, Anderson and broad did most of the bowling.

Woakes again got most of his average on lords and was poor in trent bridge and was dropped after that for an injury and i read an article from ecb journalist yesterday claiming they not happy with him because his pace drops everytime he has a niggle and isn't sure to tour sri lanka now.

Ali again only played 2 matches in the series as well although he bowled really well in the 2 games, although didn't have much success in the oval game.

Stats don't show it but as a group throughout the 5 test matches india were better, although it could always be a perception thing considering it always seemed england were struggling with the bat and india could always take wickets, play and misses and closes chances always looks good on tv, where as england didn't have the same threat outside Anderson and often you putted a lot of dismissal on bad batting.

Dr Cricket wrote:Also ridiculous to say India are expected to win in England when they only won 6 test matches before this tour in England ever.

I thought India were huge favourites. England are in a huge slump. Pakistan have been touring well over here, and India are a greater side than their rivals. India bowled well, but this should go down as a missed opportunity.

oh yeah it is a missed opportunity but not sure india were huge favorites, just like Australia were not huge fav to win the ashes in 2015.

TBH india results here and SA should be judged the same way england results in Sri lanka and UAE were in 2012.

England were competitive in UAE and sri lanka with batting being a let down, although they were enough signs their that they could do well if they click although not sure anyone saw them winning in India mind you.
likewise india were competitive in SA and england but without them clinching the vital moments, the judgement should be waited till the Australia series is over.

Although what pleases me in this series so far is that india done enough for people to say they are a good team and viable number 1.

tweet from Vaughan here is quite accurate.
"GREAT Test series ... Both teams playing a staring role ... Well done India who have a high class team to compete in all conditions ... but England at home prove once again they have a very very strong team for these conditions ."

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Dr Cricket wrote:Also ridiculous to say India are expected to win in England when they only won 6 test matches before this tour in England ever.

I thought India were huge favourites. England are in a huge slump. Pakistan have been touring well over here, and India are a greater side than their rivals. India bowled well, but this should go down as a missed opportunity.

Agree with this.

That series in UAE will remain a blot on England's otherwise impressive record from 2010-12, although I do note that Ajmal, who did all the damage, was subsequently banned for throwing, which raises doubts about the legitimacy of that result in my eyes.

Still only won 3 test from 9 asia test matches during that period.
which isn't far off india record of 2 from 6 test in SENA nations this time around with 4 test in Australia to still to come.

bigfluffylemon wrote:Tip of the hat to Sam Curran. After 5 tests, averages 36 with the bat and 23 with the ball. Yes, things will get tougher, he may well struggle given his pace if the ball doesn't swing. But given he's only 20, immensely promising start. Although he's a bowling allrounder, I'll be surprised if he doesn't end his career with a test match hundred to his name.

There's been a lot of talk about him actually being an English Steve Smith, before this series actually, so not just in the merit of his scores in recent games. Coaches believe his batting is way better than his record suggests, and that with more focus he could be a batter who bowls, more than the other way.