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

[alfie]

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?

Well hang on , Arthur : Rashid was in the squad - and has been omnipresent in the XI ...so what was wrong with picking a "control" option to go with him ? Not as if Moeen is renowned for his economy rate. I was not enthusiastic about the Batty selection ; but Ansari was already seen as next in line ( now we've seen he doesn't look up to it ; but was he not worth a try ?)...
Is Rayner really the next big thing ? Leach has had a great season for Somerset ; but I do respect the view of Chris Rogers (pretty unbiased , I think) that he probably wasn't ready. Big difference bowling out county players on helpful pitches from coming up against Kohli & co on flat ones... He has time if he really is the answer.
Fact is : since Swann , there just hasn't (yet) been a full range spinner to select. And I wonder if everyone "knew" Swann would succeed before he was brought into the team , years after he first made the fringes of the team.

Lots to criticize around this tour ; but I don't think picking Dawson is one of them. At the least , he's demonstrated he would probably make a like for like replacement for Moeen in the preferred Home Test template - if they are to continue with that.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your aesthetic preference for "pure" spin bowlers...but in practice , England have generally fared better with say , a Giles , supporting a pace attack , than trying to find a genius spinner : Laker - Underwood - Swann : have been some big gaps in between.

[hopeforthebest]

Apparently there has been a newspaper reporting that Leach is under scrutiny for a suspect action. This has been discussed on TMS where of course Vic Marks po pooed the idea. He has been tested as all spinners are who England take under their wing and the claim is that he failed the 15 degree test. The newspaper put this forward as the reason why Dawson was chosen ahead of him to join the test squad. No idea which bewspaper they were talking about. Sounds strange to me as I can't imagine he would have gone to the UAE with the Lions.

[rich1uk]

starting to get worried now

i might have to go look for my collapse gif

[alfie]

Cook out to a schoolboy error. Surely he must have know that man was there.

yeah i dont understand the mentality of that shot in this situation, hes almost gambling that the fielder wont catch it

Jadeja seems to have had Cook's number all through the series. To be honest I'm a little surprised he hasn't found a way of playing him , as he has generally been able to adjust to a persistent problem in the past. Perhaps the compressed nature of this tour has done him in : certainly his fairly ordinary scores since the First Test have been a factor in England's problems : when Cook gets out early , especially in second innings , England tend to struggle.
Thankfully this time he and Jennings have at least set some kind of platform. Hopefully Root & others can build on it...

[rich1uk]

Well hang on , Arthur : Rashid was in the squad - and has been omnipresent in the XI ...so what was wrong with picking a "control" option to go with him ? Not as if Moeen is renowned for his economy rate. I was not enthusiastic about the Batty selection ; but Ansari was already seen as next in line ( now we've seen he doesn't look up to it ; but was he not worth a try ?)...
Is Rayner really the next big thing ? Leach has had a great season for Somerset ; but I do respect the view of Chris Rogers (pretty unbiased , I think) that he probably wasn't ready. Big difference bowling out county players on helpful pitches from coming up against Kohli & co on flat ones... He has time if he really is the answer.
Fact is : since Swann , there just hasn't (yet) been a full range spinner to select. And I wonder if everyone "knew" Swann would succeed before he was brought into the team , years after he first made the fringes of the team.

Lots to criticize around this tour ; but I don't think picking Dawson is one of them. At the least , he's demonstrated he would probably make a like for like replacement for Moeen in the preferred Home Test template - if they are to continue with that.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your aesthetic preference for "pure" spin bowlers...but in practice , England have generally fared better with say , a Giles , supporting a pace attack , than trying to find a genius spinner : Laker - Underwood - Swann : have been some big gaps in between.

the problem with that argument alfie is you are saying we should be careful about picking players who are in form and proven themselves, even if it is over just one season, just in case they cant handle test cricket, but defending picking players who haven't even proven themselves at domestic level and also have no guarantees they will cope with playing test cricket

[Arthur Crabtree]

There will be a better option than Dawson, we just need to find it. Same with Gilo. Though I was a big supporter of the KOS and it's difficult to put Dawson in a similar category, given Giles' pretty impressive fc record.

Can't say much else other than to repeat myself. Dawson looks like Tredwell in that his skills are fairly prosaic. He doesn't get many revs, and so there's no loop or dip, he just varies pace and length and angle. Which can be effective. Moeen on a good day is more like Swann in that he does get drift and dip, and that fizz that good bowlers have, but he has too little control over what he does. With Daws, you've probably got a good plasterer. Fine, if that's what you need. Moeen is a bad sculptor.

[alfie]

Not saying that at all , rich.

Just that it is possible to take either view : what selectors are for. Sometimes they make a wrong choice - or at least one that fails ; but armchair observers sometimes tend to assume the other option would have been better - when in fact we don't know . And can't , since isn't tested.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Apparently there has been a newspaper reporting that Leach is under scrutiny for a suspect action. This has been discussed on TMS where of course Vic Marks po pooed the idea. He has been tested as all spinners are who England take under their wing and the claim is that he failed the 15 degree test. The newspaper put this forward as the reason why Dawson was chosen ahead of him to join the test squad. No idea which bewspaper they were talking about. Sounds strange to me as I can't imagine he would have gone to the UAE with the Lions.

Interesting. I guess we'll hear more.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not saying that at all , rich.

Just that it is possible to take either view : what selectors are for. Sometimes they make a wrong choice - or at least one that fails ; but armchair observers sometimes tend to assume the other option would have been better - when in fact we don't know . And can't , since isn't tested.

Of course. But if you offer up a counterintuitive plan, then it's quite understandable if it fails it will be questioned. If England had picked their form spinners, it's quite reasonable to suggest that the alternatives can't be assumed to have done better. But if you pick bowlers who have failed at that level (Batty) or bowlers who have not excelled, or even operated in that role at a lower level (Dawson), and then expect them to step up, then you expose yourself. You have to be right for observers not to wonder why they didn't do the more obvious thing.

[rich1uk]

Not saying that at all , rich.

Just that it is possible to take either view : what selectors are for. Sometimes they make a wrong choice - or at least one that fails ; but armchair observers sometimes tend to assume the other option would have been better - when in fact we don't know . And can't , since isn't tested.

but you were saying that

you said why should we take a player who has taken their wickets on county pitches when its going to be more of a challenge to bowl against the likes of kohli, but defended picking guys that aren't anywhere near as successful on those helpful county pitches when there is also no guarantee they can step up to the task at test level

doesn't common sense suggest if you have 2 bowlers, neither has played test cricket, one has taken 68 wickets at 22 in the CC, the other took 20 wickets at 44 that you go with the first one ?

neither has any guarantee of success but you have to pick the one that has at least shown he might

and its not like dawson just had a really down year, that was a fairly typical year for him in FC cricket

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe too much on this for a match thread...

[rich1uk]

Maybe too much on this for a match thread...

its more interesting than watching the game

[hopeforthebest]

The argument about who should or should not have been selected is a red herring when talking about this test. There was a joice to be made about the bowling attack for this test. Anderson was ruled out so it was a choice between, Finn, Ball. Woakes, Batty and Dawson who should join Broad. They chose Ball and Dawson which is difficult to argue with.

[alfie]

Meanwhile , back at the ranch...

I am a little concerned that England have stopped scoring. I was pleased that Cook and Jennings were taking runs fairly freely in their partnership , as I don't see England getting out of this with a total blockathon...it doesn't suit their natures.

Fair enough these two are cautious after the two wickets went down ; but I hope they get the runs moving again soon. Apart from the psychology , it would be nice to get up around the Indian score so that if late wickets fall they are able to get in front rather than have to agonize until the bitter end knowing a couple of misbehaving deliveries could finish them off.

And there's a big blow as Root falls to an lbw review that Kohli got right !

Bad feeling about this...

[rich1uk]

oh dear root gone as well

this could get ugly quick