England Versus India - 1st Test (9 Nov - 13 Nov)

[sussexpob]

It seems a given that spinners do better in India, but I have looked at the stats in my lifetime and wrote articles (you might find them in the archive here or 606, if the latter still exist) about how poorly each given teams headline spinner has in comparison to their headline seamer. I think there is a tendancy still for people to pick inferior spinners over better seamers and expect them to do well. But at times teams would do better to pick the most restrictive, defensive spinners possible, as unless they buck a trend, the only real use they have is to rest your pace attack.

Seamers who are willing to pitch the ball that little bit fuller do well in India. If you bowl on natural lengths then you will be unaffective. You have to get the ball certainly on the full side of a length, on the cusp of bowling half volleys. But as the article you post suggest, very few teams come to India and do their research, they all try to bowl orthodox ways and dont have an impact.

When you think of Indian's best spinners in recent times who have played full or longer careers, Kumble didnt rely at all on spin in a pitch, he relied on the ability to get the ball to bounce at varying degrees off the pitch and operated behind a very good googly, and that made (as Prasanna alludes to) batsman very wary of really using their feet or being positive to him. Harbi was also a player who had that hand action that seemed to get the ball to hang in the air just that fraction, and have people guessing on length, and one thing that by memory made Harbi difficult to bat on was again his ability to generate bounce of suprising levels.

We come to the modern day, and I have said this before above, but Ashwin's main weapon is that arm ball and good accuracy. So many people dont read the straight one, or are playing back in the crease waiting to try to read the pitch because they dont spot the arm. And Ravi Jadeja has to be one of the most frequently accurate bowlers I have seen. You dont often see Ravi get taken apart, he is tidy and ineffective, or tidy and effective.

These arent players who's main asset is worn pitches that turn at right angles. Their skills are so much more subtle, and that I think is the main difference between why the big turning Murali and Warne get bashed about in India. IF all you bring is huge revs, Indians seem very comfortable to playing it, because generally most pitches arent actually going to help you that much.

To be successful as a spinner in India, you have to take wickets on surfaces that dont actually turn. The increasing levels of turn assist you, but they shouldnt define you.

[hopeforthebest]

Very nice piece sussex.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Different kinds of spinners can do well on responsive Indian tracks, if they bowl well. When England won in 2012, there was quite a contrast between the way Monty and Swann bowled. Going back, Bedi and Chandrasekhar could hardly be more different.

England's good performances in India, and Asia generally, have been dependent on spin. Apart from Monty/Swann, the two other wins in India I can recall were big series for Underwood (29 wickets in 76-7), a Monty type bowler and Edmonds and Pocock, Swann type bowlers (who won the equalising Test in Pune). And across Asia generally, good performances have relied on spin, even when the spinners haven't been that great, and I'm thinking Nick Cook in Pakistan, and Ashley Giles in SL and Pakistan. Shaun Udal and Michael Clarke. Over the life of a ball and five days and five games, there will be a role for different kinds of bowling.

It was Flower in 2012 who concluded he would win in India as he won in Sydney, and could hardly have been proven more wrong at Ahmedabad where England couldn't get the ball to reverse or the edges to carry. If ENgland are to get anything out of this tour, then spin is the key, bowling it and batting against it, on pitches that in recent yours have been curated to produce turn (the slider only works under the threat of the variation). And if England go in with four seamers, at least two of them won't get to bowl more than a spell each.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Boycott's pretty hopeless as an expert. He always bangs on about knowing Indian cricket too. I thought he was quite popular there.

Boycott's reputation as a pundit takes a further hit as he endorses Theresa May.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Vic Marks sets the scene nicely for Rajkot's big day. And suggests Buttler may return.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... s#comments

[Dr Cricket]

TBH always get the impression of india being a brutal place for players for all kinds, which is one reason I never really get the hate for the pitches and the stereotypes.
today waddle was having a go at the india pitches, not really sure why considering the pitches were very good for the NZ series.

Which pitch would you rather watch test cricket, Kanpur, Calcutta Indore or current WACA? Last year excepted give me Perth every time.

from what I see from indian pitches since 2003, always get the impression, below par batsman, spinners, pace bowlers get nothing and will struggle badly whereas exceptional spinners, batsman and pace bowlers do very well.
you only really have to look at 2012 series where Swann, Monty outbowled Ashwin and co, lets not forget ashwin averaged 55 on some really helpful pitches.
Anderson, Steyn, Mc grath etc have all done well in india as well and below par pace bowler will likely get destroyed like finn was in bangladesh recently.

Surely the best pitches are the ones where bad players do bad and very good players prosper.

[m@tt]

The return of Anderson to the squad just adds to the complexities of selection and won't raise the confidence of the other pace bowlers. Woakes in particular will feel his place in the team is now even more uncertain. Cook seems to be desperate to get him in the team on the assumption that he's the same bowler that had success 4 years ago, that's a long shot
It confuses my FL team selection as well.

I think if Anderson is included, it will mean a return to a 4+2 attack rather than 3+3. Can't see Woakes being dropped at the moment.

I would stay 3+3 for the time being, keeping Ansari due to the right-handers in India's team - and hope he can settle and find a consistent line+length. If England do go 4+2, I'd rather see Ball than Finn - but Finn seems to still be ahead in the pecking order.

For the batting, my preference for Bangladesh was Duckett at 4 with Hameed opening. But England have made life more difficult for themselves by not playing both - Ballance's low scores were no surprise at all and now if they do want to play both, it means Duckett changing position and another new opening partnership. That said, Buttler seems to be favourite to start the series despite his lack of red ball form.

[sussexpob]

England's good performances in India, and Asia generally, have been dependent on spin. Apart from Monty/Swann, the two other wins in India I can recall were big series for Underwood (29 wickets in 76-7), a Monty type bowler and Edmonds and Pocock, Swann type bowlers (who won the equalising Test in Pune)

Tour by tour bowling performances since Underwood began.....

In 1972, Underwood and Pocock took took 29 wickets between them and both averaged either side of 30. Englands seamers took 42 wickets, Chris old (15 at 24), Greig (11 at 22) and Arnold (17 at 17) and clearly outbowled them

In 1977, Underwood took 29 at 17 each..... Lever and Willis took 46 at 15 each between them, and Chris Old averaged 20 for his ten wickets.

In the single 1980 Jubilee test, Botham took 13 wickets, Underwood not a single one

In 1981-82, Botham and Willis both take more wickets at cheaper rates per wicket than Underwood (38 each for pace, 43 for Underwood). Lever averages 29 with pace, Emburey took a handful for 40.

In 1984-85, Foster/Cowans (pace) and Edmonds and Pocock (spin) all take 13 or 14 wickets each.... they average 20/44 and 41/50 respectively.

In 1992-93... all of Englands three spinners average between 68 and 76... Jarvis is the top of specialist bowlers with 41 bowing pace, but this tour is a slaughter for all bowlers

In 2001/02... Hoggard and Flintoff outwicket Dawson and Giles, and produce a lower average.

2005/2006.... Hoggard averages 17 with most wickets, Anderson averages 13 in one test with 6 wickets, Flintoff averages 30, Panesar took less than a wicket per innings with average of 62.

2008/09 - Flintoff comfortably outbowls both spinners

2012/13.... The first and only time an England spinner can be considered the best bowler of tour in 42 years. Anderson also has a good tour.

One in a lot does not make a trend. And for every Udal cleaning the tail in an innings, there is a crap part-timer like Sourav Ganguly mowing through Australia on a dead Kolkata pitch that India scored over 600 on (he took 3/28).

[sussexpob]

The general jist is that Englands world class spinners have done well (Panesar averages just under 40 in India, so on a whole has been not exactly brilliant over his career), but come around once every 3 decades, and that Englands patch jobs have largely been massacred, while at least one seamer does very good on a tour.

The horrifying thing is, Underwood, Swann and Montys figures are all incredibly boosted by one venue.... Mumbai. Take Mumbai out the equation, and they even start to look plain.

Panesar averages 22 in Mumbai and took 11 wickets on one dust bowl
Swann averages 14 in Mumbai
Underwood averages 22

[Dr Cricket]

Sky bet reporting 60% of the money on the series is on india winning 5-0 and suspect that the case for all the betting agencies.
Really can't see how england will nick a test or win 2.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes, I know seamers have been influential too. I'm not suggesting England go in without pace options. But spin has been very influential in England's (infrequent) success. And lack of it has been a factor in their failure. It's not a polarised picture. Spin hasn't worked everywhere and always, and neither has pace.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good point about Mumbai.

Greig usually bowled spin in India I think. Slightly before my time.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe have to add a pinch of salt to the England seamers in 76-7 because of the ball tampering?

[Making_Splinters]

I always think you should play to your strengths above the conditions. Let's face it England have a shocking set of spinners, but we have a pretty good set of pacers. I'd have Anderson, Broad, Woakes and Stokes with two of the spinners.

[sussexpob]

Maybe have to add a pinch of salt to the England seamers in 76-7 because of the ball tampering?

You could probably do that to every single seamers figures till 2000 if you want to do that.