England tour of India

[sussexpob]

The most important thing for England is issuing the follow on. If England come out and bat again then they are doing everything India want. India are more than a whole days scoring away from England's total, and we are unlikely to see India looking to push that score on quickly, most likely to see them dig in for the draw. 330 behind, Id say thats what, 4 sessions of scoring with 6 left.

At the very best case scenario India would be setting England a session to survive with a target of around a 100. If you cripple your chances of winning on the basis your scared to bat out a draw with 10 wickets in the last session, then you dont deserve to win tests.

Englanad might not get a chance like this again in the series. Be bold. Play to win

India are under pressure too. 200-300 runs behind and the best part of 2 days to see out, thats the sort of pressure that makes inroads and forces errors.

If England bat again, then Root needs his head tsting. Seamers have hardly bowled either

[alfie]

Another good day for England. You could question some of the Indian batting : two days plus in the field can affect the concentration. But England have actually bowled pretty well on a pitch that really didn't do any tricks most of the day - though that last over from Leach suggests that is changing rapidly.
These two fellows have stonewalled the last hour very capably . Not too hard to do , perhaps , against an old and soft ball. The new one - due in six overs - might be a different proposition.
If India are still batting after lunch tomorrow I think the draw might be favourite . But England will surely feel that if they can break this pair in the morning the last three are unlikely to threaten the 578. Provided they do get them out in reasonable time I'd think there should be plenty of time to get the lead back up to provide a safety margin (I don't think the follow on is a serious consideration) and get India back in to bat more than a day to save the game.
(Which all might be getting ahead of ourselves a bit. But I do think England will fancy their chances from here ...with the caution that the early session tomorrow is rather important.)
Been another good day to watch. Some good bowling , some fantastic catching - and a typically lively exhibition of hitting from the irrepressible Pant

[alfie]

And I see SP is an advocate for the follow on. Well maybe ...if they get these last four wickets in half an hour , and the pitch is going south rapidly. But if they have to work hard to finish this off I'd be very surprised if Root asked his bowlers to back up immediately in this heat.
We will see.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'd bat again I think. Let the pitch get worse (there was a lot of dust being knocked out of the surface today). Plenty of bowling ahead in the series for the attack who don't want potentially three days back to back in the heat and humidity (though it is probably that Anderson and possibly Archer won't be playing in the next game I suppose). Spinners can't just bowl indefinitely. I've got a feeling Root will prefer to bowl again though.

Still possible India will get past the follow on. But given the pitch seems to be breaking up, surviving the new ball might be hazardous.

I presume England are going to alternate Anderson and Broad. Might be a case though for bringing Moeen in for Anderson instead.

[sussexpob]

In short, there is zero logical reason for England to bat on. Right now to give you an indication of the sort of result probabilities in play, India are 35/1 win the one bookie I just checked, or a win probability of 2%. Worth remembering the bookies inflate their odds to cover their own margins, so the actual probability calculation might be 1 percent. On the flip, England's chances of a win/draw 41/57 percent respectively. Its fair to say India's chance of winning is currently sitting in a bar on miracle street ordering a double whiskey as the bell rings for last orders.

What does batting on achieve? Well, it does England no favours in win probability. Being 330 runs ahead, the increased draw probability is of no interest. So the only additional benefit of batting on is the reduction of this 1-2 percent loss probability.

There are 180 overs left. Assuming proportionality, that means ever single over that passes, England's probabilty of losing would decrease 0.01 percent. The odds of a draw increase in the same period by 0.32 percent, at the determent of your odds of winning. England require 14 wickets to win, so really their odds only increase if they are striving towards that goal.

Assuming India get bowled out tomorrow instantly in 4 balls. 177 overs remain.

If England bat 10 overs - 1.90% loss, 60.1% draw, 38% win
If England bat 20 overs - 1.80% loss, 63.2% draw, 35% win
If England bat 30 overs - 1.70% loss, 66.3% draw, 32% win

This is a crude calculation admittedly, because there are very complex factors in dictating the actual probabilities. But they do demonstrate the fact that on a probability level, the value of batting on has a thirty fold impact on your ability to win the game, than it does protecting it from losing.

From a tactical level one has to ask, with such outside levels of risk in play in losing, why anyone would want to even begin to consider reducing their odds on winning. The risk is not at any appreciable level to justify such a tactical approach. I mean this is a bit like a poker player folding a win probability on a hand of 98% win on the basis his opponent may have a massive outside shot of beating them. No one would do that. Of course 1 time in 100 you get hit by an rank outside shot, but not calling on that basis would lose you 99 other wins in the same scenario.

These probabilities play out too. Three teams in history have won a game following on. One of these can instantly be dismissed, it was in a test that had no limitations and the result fell on day 7. The other two instances are also not really applicable.... in both those instances the superior first innings was just over 400.

No one has ever overturned a follow on result playing against near 600. 2 tests of 5 days in 1000s have been overturned. None of them had gone into the 4th day with a first innings still taking place.

So you ended up advocating governing your team tactics on a 1 to 100 long shot scenario outcome. This to me is insanity.

[meninblue]

Jimmy and Jofra have bowled only 27 overs. That is not too much for pacers. Also both of them will bowl less on Day 4.

Dominic and Jack are spinners. Although, I doubt they get to bowl 35 overs in county matches in innings, spinners certainly can bowl a huge chunk of overs.

I guess follow on decission will also depend on how soon England bowl out India. If India bats more than a session then that is 104 overs of bowling. England can enforce follow on. However, if India bats 135 overs then it will be difficult for even finger spinners to bowl efficiently wiyth tired fingers. The problem is if in second innings England spinners are unable to pick wickets then pacers will have to bowl more which may increase injury for ageing Jimmy and even Jofra will have to bowl more. However, if England spinners bowl well then England will not need pacers to do much.

I feel England should enforce follow on in case England bowlers bowl only 104 overs in first innings. If India bats for 130 overs then bat again.

[sussexpob]

Provided they do get them out in reasonable time I'd think there should be plenty of time to get the lead back up to provide a safety margin (I don't think the follow on is a serious consideration) and get India back in to bat more than a day to save the game

Again, I dont understand the logic here. Surely the longer India bat on, the more the follow on becomes absolutely essential?

I mean lets pan this out. If India bat to the point of 200 behind (the longest relevant for the decision to be made):

120 runs at 2.5 an over takes out 48 overs. With 2 overs innings change, 130 overs remain.
120 runs at 3 an over takes out 40 overs. 138 overs remain.

The deficit would be 200. To bat this out (reduced by 2 overs incase of batting change being needed)

At 2.5 runs per over, 80 overs are taken out the game. This would leave 48 max overs left for India to set a target and win
At 3 runs per over, 67 overs are taken out the game. 71 overs remain in this scenario.

Lets assume India can get England back in and bowled out. The lowest ever innings in amount of overs faced in India is 20. Even using that benchmark

India batting at 2.5 an over would only have 28 overs to set a target. They would at this point be 80 overs into an innings so there is a range of different scenarios. But there would doubtless be no middle ground. At this point India would either be settling for a draw or trying to slog out on a miracle win.

India have lost wickets and are playing to draw....negligible runs scored, most likely scenario is England knock off in 20 overs what India manage with ease assuming they get an opportunity. England heavily unlikely to lose.

India have top order wickets left and are playing for a draw... most likely scenario, England dont bat.

India scored 5- 6 an over, leave a T20 scenario ending..... most likely scenario draw. England dont risk the loss. They would have to match and beat the rate set by Indias slogging, due to having 8 overs less.

Second scenario India have roughly 50 overs to set a target max. India know that there is a very dubious sweet spot to the calculations here. Every over batted out reduces England time to chase, but the more runs on the board, the more likely England do not chase. Additionally, India are unlikely to leave England anything worth chasing.

Assuming India have the wickets and firepower to win

50 overs left at 6 . leaves England 300 to chase in 20 overs... draw. Requires record breaking short innings against a blocking opponent.
40 overs left at 6.... 240 in 30 overs....draw. Requires a near record breaking short innings against a blocking opponent.
30 overs left at 6....180 in 40 overs....draw. Unlikely either team commit to winning
25 overs left at 6.... 150 in 45.... unlikely to occur. Leaves England too much of an opportunity, too little risk.
20 ovrs at 6.... 120 in 50.... never happening. India would not bank on bowling England out for so little.

Factor to 4 runs an over

50 overs.... 200 in 20... draw
40 overs.....160 in 30... draw
30 overs.... 120 in 40... Never happening
Other scenarios are fantastic.



India are not at all likely to win. The longer they bad, the more thats true. So the longer their first innings goes, the more England need to issue the follow on.

[Arthur Crabtree]

In short, there is zero logical reason for England to bat on. Right now to give you an indication of the sort of result probabilities in play, India are 35/1 win the one bookie I just checked, or a win probability of 2%. Worth remembering the bookies inflate their odds to cover their own margins, so the actual probability calculation might be 1 percent. On the flip, England's chances of a win/draw 41/57 percent respectively. Its fair to say India's chance of winning is currently sitting in a bar on miracle street ordering a double whiskey as the bell rings for last orders.

What does batting on achieve? Well, it does England no favours in win probability. Being 330 runs ahead, the increased draw probability is of no interest. So the only additional benefit of batting on is the reduction of this 1-2 percent loss probability.

There are 180 overs left. Assuming proportionality, that means ever single over that passes, England's probabilty of losing would decrease 0.01 percent. The odds of a draw increase in the same period by 0.32 percent, at the determent of your odds of winning. England require 14 wickets to win, so really their odds only increase if they are striving towards that goal.

Assuming India get bowled out tomorrow instantly in 4 balls. 177 overs remain.

If England bat 10 overs - 1.90% loss, 60.1% draw, 38% win
If England bat 20 overs - 1.80% loss, 63.2% draw, 35% win
If England bat 30 overs - 1.70% loss, 66.3% draw, 32% win

This is a crude calculation admittedly, because there are very complex factors in dictating the actual probabilities. But they do demonstrate the fact that on a probability level, the value of batting on has a thirty fold impact on your ability to win the game, than it does protecting it from losing.

From a tactical level one has to ask, with such outside levels of risk in play in losing, why anyone would want to even begin to consider reducing their odds on winning. The risk is not at any appreciable level to justify such a tactical approach. I mean this is a bit like a poker player folding a win probability on a hand of 98% win on the basis his opponent may have a massive outside shot of beating them. No one would do that. Of course 1 time in 100 you get hit by an rank outside shot, but not calling on that basis would lose you 99 other wins in the same scenario.

These probabilities play out too. Three teams in history have won a game following on. One of these can instantly be dismissed, it was in a test that had no limitations and the result fell on day 7. The other two instances are also not really applicable.... in both those instances the superior first innings was just over 400.

No one has ever overturned a follow on result playing against near 600. 2 tests of 5 days in 1000s have been overturned. None of them had gone into the 4th day with a first innings still taking place.

So you ended up advocating governing your team tactics on a 1 to 100 long shot scenario outcome. This to me is insanity.

It's the vibe of the thing.

[sussexpob]

It's the vibe of the thing.

Indeed. That vibe being Indians delighted to be fielding, watching the clock tick away and seeing the mountain of overs needed for safety ticking away with no risk

Indians would love England to go out to bat. Do what your opponent doesnt want you to.....

[Durhamfootman]

I imagine England are worried that if they enforce the follow on they might have to bat a session on day 5 chasing a 100 with the ball turning square.... they've lost those sorts of matches before now. It would also be asking a lot of the players to field for nearly 3 days in the Chennai heat, particularly with back to back tests, if the India second innings doesn't roll over to get its tummy tickled.

Then again.... they have a big enough squad to ensure some rotation of personnel. The 3 seamers haven't had to bowl any really long spells on day 3, and might not have to bowl that much on day 4, but Capt Joe is going to have to work out how best to manage his spinners.... Bess was definitely tiring today and I expect to see a few more overs from the captain tomorrow. It will certainly be a big day for Leach after being brutalised by Pant today.

Of course there are still 4 wickets to take, so they might not get a choice, but if they do get a choice then at least they will have had some time on day 4 to assess how much and how quickly the pitch is deteriorating. We know that England find it hard to bat a full day to save a test match... perhaps India will too.

I have a lot of sympathy for the 'foot on your opponent's throat' approach, but unless the India tail hangs around for a long time then I think England will bat again and try and bowl India out in an hour and 3 sessions

[Gingerfinch]

I do think put them back in. England have a great chance of going 1 up in India and may not have a better chance at winning a game this series than this. BE BRAVE!

[Arthur Crabtree]

There are changable factors in the game that will alter the likely outcome, like the state of the pitch or the fitness and attitude of the players on either side. If England get a lead of around 300, then they should be in a position to win either way unless they play badly. If the pitch being another couple of sessions older (with further rolling of the surface) means England have a chance of bowling India out in the second innings by flogging the bowlers a bit less in more helpful bowling conditions, then they will benefit from that further into the series. Or if giving the bowlers a few hours to recharge makes it beneficial for bowling India out a second time more efficiently then take that option. I'm not really looking at it negatively, that England could save themselves a tricky session at the end. Or that much about the psychological effect of putting the game beyond India.

Still, they have to get India out the first time yet.

[sussexpob]

they've lost those sorts of matches before now.

England have never lost a test when 200 runs up after both teams have batted. In fact, its happened only 6 times in the history of the game.

1 of these tests was a timeless one, and would have ended as a draw inside 5 days
1 of the tests was the Pakistan forfeit of 2006 in England... they were never going to lose that test in a million years
1 of the tests was in 2010 when Pakistan toured..... 3 of the team ended in Prison in a series confirmed to have been fixed. Doesnt seem that genuine.
1 of the tests was Murali's debut in Australia.... Australia overturned a huge first innings deficit, but this is the famous match Emerson starts calling Murali.

The only other two instances are the 1981 Headingley Test and the 2001 test in Kolkata.

[sussexpob]

Still, they have to get India out the first time yet.

All of those things you mention are lovely in an ideal world, but the current situation hardly presents itself for allowing England such luxuries. As a very good indication, the bookies have draw as statistical favourite (and under even odds of 1.8) so England if anything are fighting against the expected result and have to act accordingly.

Historically, England have declined the follow on in 14 games I could find. In only one, have they not been batting again by Day 3, Session 2. If India survive 3 overs it would be the latest incident in history. Again that shows you the progress in the game has gone too far.

[bigfluffylemon]

Agree with SP, and let's not forget the psychological effect of a follow on. India are undefeated at home for years, haven't lost a series at home since 2012 and just beat Australia away. Asking them to follow on is humiliating. Potentially winning a match in India by an innings is huge.

England will have the opportunity to draw other matches. They may not have another good chance to win a game. They need to take it.