Fifth Test: India v England, 16-20 Dec (Chennai)

[hopeforthebest]

Rich I do agree about Broad - and the pace men generally. Think a bit more aggressive attack from them (not just in this match) might have been a good idea. Though I'm not the one sweating it out on flat decks in the heat and dust of India

As for Dawson : I am not suggesting he has been revealed as the new Swann. Just that he did his job rather better than the others that have been tried this series. As to having him bowl at the start of a session I can't see any evidence from this series that anyone else would have enjoyed success in his place : they've tried putting the 'attacking" bowlers on early and the result has been India racing away - this time they tried something different ...and of course it didn't work either. Though if they hadn't wasted two reviews the day before...

Not sure Dawson will play many more Tests ; but if he is prepared to work hard with the spin coach I don't think it is out of the question that he develop into one who might be seriously considered. He isn't that old , for a spinner.

its not really dawson i am having a go at tbh, its the selection of him and then how he was used by cook. he was bowling at times we needed to be attacking. i'm not sure a guy who has never taken more than 30 wickets in a full FC season in his career is going to develop into a good quality test spinner alfie, no matter how much coaching he gets.

i just think he was a very negative selection and harks back to the days of bits and pieces players, and we put him into a team that already has a few of them.

It's all very well calling Dawson a negative selection but who from this squad would you prefer in his place. It's no good saying someone else should be in Chennai before him but that other person isn't in Chennai.

[rich1uk]

Rich I do agree about Broad - and the pace men generally. Think a bit more aggressive attack from them (not just in this match) might have been a good idea. Though I'm not the one sweating it out on flat decks in the heat and dust of India

As for Dawson : I am not suggesting he has been revealed as the new Swann. Just that he did his job rather better than the others that have been tried this series. As to having him bowl at the start of a session I can't see any evidence from this series that anyone else would have enjoyed success in his place : they've tried putting the 'attacking" bowlers on early and the result has been India racing away - this time they tried something different ...and of course it didn't work either. Though if they hadn't wasted two reviews the day before...

Not sure Dawson will play many more Tests ; but if he is prepared to work hard with the spin coach I don't think it is out of the question that he develop into one who might be seriously considered. He isn't that old , for a spinner.

its not really dawson i am having a go at tbh, its the selection of him and then how he was used by cook. he was bowling at times we needed to be attacking. i'm not sure a guy who has never taken more than 30 wickets in a full FC season in his career is going to develop into a good quality test spinner alfie, no matter how much coaching he gets.

i just think he was a very negative selection and harks back to the days of bits and pieces players, and we put him into a team that already has a few of them.

It's all very well calling Dawson a negative selection but who from this squad would you prefer in his place. It's no good saying someone else should be in Chennai before him but that other person isn't in Chennai.

i meant bringing him into the squad in the first place was a negative selection as he doesn't solve any of the problems we were having

[Arthur Crabtree]

England prepared badly for this tour because they did so little to consider alternatives to Moeen at any level since Swann was forced out in Australia. Given that situation, they had little alternative than to pick the best performing spinners in the CC. That was still a gamble, Jeetan Patel (the best CC bowler) had a bad tour of India recently, but there just isn't any sense in picking bowlers who have been revealed to be less successful in the only conditions they have been tested in. And that meant, not Batty, Ansari and Dawson, but Rashid, Rayner and Leach. And the assertion that they might have failed like the others, isn't really a reason not to. By the same argument, so might Haseeb and Jennings.

The tactic of picking batters who bowl is hard to defend in England, but has a little logic. In India, when they will be your main bowlers, the seamers your support bowlers, it was complete folly. It was one of those England decisions that was so counterintuitive, that it had to work, otherwise they would look idiotic.

Also, it's possible that Dawson's lack of familiarity to the Indians, and not having been through the grind of the previous Tests meant India sat in a bit to him. Plus bowling for so long to the batters when not set. You could argue that this made it sensible to actually bowl him, but to me, this just shows how crazy England's thinking has become over the pressure of a tough series, how much like Sydney 2014. If the others are so damaged, why pick them? If there are no prepared alternatives, why not?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good start to the day. Cook dropped I see.

[rich1uk]

England prepared badly for this tour because they did so little to consider alternatives to Moeen at any level since Swann was forced out in Australia. Given that situation, they had little alternative than to pick the best performing spinners in the CC. That was still a gamble, Jeetan Patel (the best CC bowler) had a bad tour of India recently, but there just isn't any sense in picking bowlers who have been revealed to be less successful in the only conditions they have been tested in. And that meant, not Batty, Ansari and Dawson, but Rashid, Rayner and Leach. And the assertion that they might have failed like the others, isn't really a reason not to. By the same argument, so might Haseeb and Jennings.

The tactic of picking batters who bowl is hard to defend in England, but has a little logic. In India, when they will be your main bowlers, the seamers your support bowlers, it was complete folly. It was one of those England decisions that was so counterintuitive, that it had to work, otherwise they would look idiotic.

Also, it's possible that Dawson's lack of familiarity to the Indians, and not having been through the grind of the previous Tests meant India sat in a bit to him. Plus bowling for so long to the batters when not set. You could argue that this made it sensible to actually bowl him, but to me, this just shows how crazy England's thinking has become over the pressure of a tough series, how much like Sydney 2014. If the others are so damaged, why pick them? If there are no prepared alternatives, why not?

the BiB is the best argument in this whole discussion about selection

if you are worried about bringing new players in to the test environment because there is no guarantee of success then at least bring in guys who are in form and specialists at the role they are going to be expected to play

[rich1uk]

if you looked at the list of batting averages for england they have just shown you would never believe we have been absolutely thumped in this series

[Arthur Crabtree]

POTS?

Ashwin or Kohli? I'd toss a coin.

For England? Must be Joe Root.

[rich1uk]

POTS?

Ashwin or Kohli? I'd toss a coin.

For England? Must be Joe Root.

got to be ashwin

by end of today he'll have taken 30+ wickets and contributed with the bat

[Arthur Crabtree]

Forgot about his batting. Ashwin then.

[rich1uk]

just looking at the stats he hasn't got his wickets that cheaply, so maybe kohli scoring 655 runs at an average of over 100 is a better achievement

[bigfluffylemon]

if you looked at the list of batting averages for england they have just shown you would never believe we have been absolutely thumped in this series

It's the same for the whole year. We have five batters (Cook, Root, Bairstow, Moeen and Stokes) averaging 45+ for the year, plus Hameed (3 tests only), and Woakes averaging over 30 at number 8. There are four quicks (Broad, Woakes, Anderson and Stokes) averaging 26 or under with the ball. Rashid's average is around 33 this year, which while not great, is far from catastrophic. Those are not the statistics of a poorly performing team, they're the stats of at least eight of 11 players, arguably 9, who've been pretty solid all year.

Yet England's record for the year: P16, W6 D3 L7, with one still in play that at best will be a draw, but more probably a loss. That's a pretty poor record, really, and not what you expect.

It also points to selection issues: all of those players have done enough not to be dropped, yet somehow they don't win test matches with any consistency. And while you could argue that 9 men is not 11, show me a team in which all XI are performing to top class standards and there are no selection issues, and I'll show you one of the best teams to have ever played the game. Even teams who are top of the rankings have selection issues and underperforming individuals. After all, despite thumping England, India has several players (Rahane, Gambhir, Saha, U Yadav, Mishra) who've had pretty poor returns or been dropped.

[bigfluffylemon]

POTS?

Ashwin or Kohli? I'd toss a coin.

For England? Must be Joe Root.

got to be ashwin

by end of today he'll have taken 30+ wickets and contributed with the bat

Ashwin without a doubt.

[rich1uk]

if you looked at the list of batting averages for england they have just shown you would never believe we have been absolutely thumped in this series

It's the same for the whole year. We have five batters (Cook, Root, Bairstow, Moeen and Stokes) averaging 45+ for the year, plus Hameed (3 tests only), and Woakes averaging over 30 at number 8. There are four quicks (Broad, Woakes, Anderson and Stokes) averaging 26 or under with the ball. Rashid's average is around 33 this year, which while not great, is far from catastrophic. Those are not the statistics of a poorly performing team, they're the stats of at least eight of 11 players, arguably 9, who've been pretty solid all year.

Yet England's record for the year: P16, W6 D3 L7, with one still in play that at best will be a draw, but more probably a loss. That's a pretty poor record, really, and not what you expect.

It also points to selection issues: all of those players have done enough not to be dropped, yet somehow they don't win test matches with any consistency. And while you could argue that 9 men is not 11, show me a team in which all XI are performing to top class standards and there are no selection issues, and I'll show you one of the best teams to have ever played the game. Even teams who are top of the rankings have selection issues and underperforming individuals. After all, despite thumping England, India has several players (Rahane, Gambhir, Saha, U Yadav, Mishra) who've had pretty poor returns or been dropped.

its something i have mentioned a few times, we have alot of players who are pretty consistent at a good level but just dont get enough match winning performances

[hopeforthebest]

England prepared badly for this tour because they did so little to consider alternatives to Moeen at any level since Swann was forced out in Australia. Given that situation, they had little alternative than to pick the best performing spinners in the CC. That was still a gamble, Jeetan Patel (the best CC bowler) had a bad tour of India recently, but there just isn't any sense in picking bowlers who have been revealed to be less successful in the only conditions they have been tested in. And that meant, not Batty, Ansari and Dawson, but Rashid, Rayner and Leach. And the assertion that they might have failed like the others, isn't really a reason not to. By the same argument, so might Haseeb and Jennings.

The tactic of picking batters who bowl is hard to defend in England, but has a little logic. In India, when they will be your main bowlers, the seamers your support bowlers, it was complete folly. It was one of those England decisions that was so counterintuitive, that it had to work, otherwise they would look idiotic.

Also, it's possible that Dawson's lack of familiarity to the Indians, and not having been through the grind of the previous Tests meant India sat in a bit to him. Plus bowling for so long to the batters when not set. You could argue that this made it sensible to actually bowl him, but to me, this just shows how crazy England's thinking has become over the pressure of a tough series, how much like Sydney 2014. If the others are so damaged, why pick them? If there are no prepared alternatives, why not?

I imagine Dawson's experience in the ODI team will have weighed in his favour when deciding who to should replace Ansari in this squad. That the original squad has been poorly selected has nothing to do with how Dawson should be judged in this game..

[Arthur Crabtree]

Though Dawson has played one ODI and went at nine an over.