England test cricket

[Maldini]

He could do. He his from Essex after all.

[liquidfootball2]

He could do. He his from Essex after all.

They all are aren't they?

[foxinthebox2001]

10 wickets in 1 session, in under 23 overs.
Back to the drawing board I suppose, but credit to Mehedi, what a talent and only just 19.

[forestfan]

A big result for cricket in Bangladesh, they should be capable of beating plenty of teams in their own conditions now.

Same old problems for England, without a world-class spinner and yet having to play three in these conditions... too much for the batsmen to do though doesn't excuse losing all 10 wickets for 60-odd. Same squad for India, despite the fact Ballance just looks totally without form, confidence and technique at the moment and will surely make way for Hameed or Buttler in the next Test - is it really any benefit for him to go there to carry drinks?

[forestfan]

Hameed looking really assured here, shows the benefit of giving youth a chance. Just like when Cook and Root made their debuts, looks like we could have found someone for the next 15 years here.

Too often we mess about with players not giving them a chance until their late 20s at which point it can be harder for them to adapt their game to a higher level, and there's nothing to invest in for the future if they're not immediately successful.

[foxinthebox2001]

To score 477 and still lose by an innings is quite an achievement, on such a benign strip that gives up 759 runs to India how could England get skittled out for just 207?
The bowling may have been a bit loose at times, and our spinners are no better than average but the pitch offered no help.
Even Sir Bob Willis said no team should get out in 1 day on it.
Have a feeling Cooks time as a captain may be up now.

[forestfan]

To score 477 and still lose by an innings is quite an achievement, on such a benign strip that gives up 759 runs to India how could England get skittled out for just 207?
The bowling may have been a bit loose at times, and our spinners are no better than average but the pitch offered no help.
Even Sir Bob Willis said no team should get out in 1 day on it.
Have a feeling Cooks time as a captain may be up now.

If Cook's asking himself questions about his future then he, and the selectors, already know the right answer. No point making a change on the eve of the Ashes or, in line with a few predecessors, midway through a home series with South Africa!

The team has stagnated this year and too often shown a lack of fight in the second innings. This isn't quite the capitulation in Australia a few years back, the opposition was better, conditions tougher and we made some half decent first innings scores - but the Test team has lost its way to an extent not seen since that low point. We may have found a couple of top order batsmen for some years to come, but other than that it's provided more questions than answers. I do like the all-rounders in our ranks and the options they provide, but we probably need a couple more out-and-out specialists. If there's no world-class spinner in the pipeline then either look at how we can import one, or just pick our best six batsmen, keeper and four seamers, as long as one of said six batsmen can turn his arm over to avoid the over-rate fines. No point playing lots of spinners just for the sake of it when they're just not up to the task.

[blahblah]

But Moen is that spinner already?

Yep to the 2nd Innings debacles. We have been winning or losing BIG for years?

[baganboy]

Nice! Cricket Discussion!

I think you did very well - India is not an easy place to come to, we perhaps have the best spin line up int he world, and our batsmen know the conditions inside out.

Your team selection and captaincy had a lot to answer for. You didn't play in the field like a 4-0 defeated team - so it is down to the captain and the selectors. A 2-0 or something would have been a perfectly fair result, and one I would have been pretty happy with.

I think your team batted with a lot of grit and heart. The one player about whom my opinion changed 180 degrees, was Ben Stokes. I really thought this was another of those home-condition fluffed-up-by-media all-bluster English glory boys. He is not. not by a long shot. results, and stats do not tell half the story. What a lion-hearted performer! You have got a player that will provide victories to you, and joy to cricket-lovers the world over, for years and years to come. Just don't overplay and break him now.

Wasn't as impressed by Joe Root. He is a good solid batsman, but among his generation, he is still at 4th for me. Kane W at 1, BTW.

[forestfan]

Stokes is so reminiscent of Flintoff, in that the stats don't tell the full story of what he brings in terms of game-changing ability with bat, ball and in the field. Hopefully he doesn't conk out through injuries as quickly as Fredalo did.

It's some contest for the title of best batsman of this modern generation - Kohli, Root, Williamson and Steve Smith (not writing off the likes of ABDV and Amla yet but they belong to the previous era really). I'm sure like tennis's big four they will each have their moments of supremacy.

[baganboy]

Stokes is so reminiscent of Flintoff, in that the stats don't tell the full story of what he brings in terms of game-changing ability with bat, ball and in the field. Hopefully he doesn't conk out through injuries as quickly as Fredalo did.

He is a glorious batsman though. Seems to me as better than Freddie has ever been (I am a fan of Freddie though). With the ball, he will need to pick up a few more tricks - and I am pretty sure he will. Also, seems more Botham / Kapil Dev, less Flintoff in terms of body structure... And those two guys lasted forever. Stokes is quicker it seems, though both Botham and Kapil were slippery when young.

It's some contest for the title of best batsman of this modern generation - Kohli, Root, Williamson and Steve Smith (not writing off the likes of ABDV and Amla yet but they belong to the previous era really). I'm sure like tennis's big four they will each have their moments of supremacy.

Root looks nice, but I do not know if he has the temperament to go with the talent. And look, I do know that he is 2 years younger than Kohli, and at the same stage in his career, KOhli was also not making the daddy hundreds. But you folks play so much cricket, where will be the chance to going back to the lab to improve and iron over the flaws?
PS : two points:
1. Big test, captaincy, still awaits Root. Te other three have thrived while carrying that poisoned chalice.
2. Cheteshwar Pujara has the same kind of numbers as Dravid at this stage in the career. And remember while we were all debating Lara vs Sachin vs Ponting, Dravid ended up with a record comparable with those three?

[baganboy]

PS: Jonny Bairstow - My dad mentions having listened on the radio to his dad playing test cricket against India. I read about the suicide. This is one guy I really want to succeed, and apparently he is going great guns.

[forestfan]

Stokes is so reminiscent of Flintoff, in that the stats don't tell the full story of what he brings in terms of game-changing ability with bat, ball and in the field. Hopefully he doesn't conk out through injuries as quickly as Fredalo did.

He is a glorious batsman though. Seems to me as better than Freddie has ever been (I am a fan of Freddie though). With the ball, he will need to pick up a few more tricks - and I am pretty sure he will. Also, seems more Botham / Kapil Dev, less Flintoff in terms of body structure... And those two guys lasted forever. Stokes is quicker it seems, though both Botham and Kapil were slippery when young.

It's some contest for the title of best batsman of this modern generation - Kohli, Root, Williamson and Steve Smith (not writing off the likes of ABDV and Amla yet but they belong to the previous era really). I'm sure like tennis's big four they will each have their moments of supremacy.

Root looks nice, but I do not know if he has the temperament to go with the talent. And look, I do know that he is 2 years younger than Kohli, and at the same stage in his career, KOhli was also not making the daddy hundreds. But you folks play so much cricket, where will be the chance to going back to the lab to improve and iron over the flaws?
PS : two points:
1. Big test, captaincy, still awaits Root. Te other three have thrived while carrying that poisoned chalice.
2. Cheteshwar Pujara has the same kind of numbers as Dravid at this stage in the career. And remember while we were all debating Lara vs Sachin vs Ponting, Dravid ended up with a record comparable with those three?

I guess because Dravid was seen as a "boring" batsman he didn't quite get talked about alongside those three, same perhaps goes for Kallis, even though their records were similar.

If Root doesn't have the temperament, then not quite sure how he's averaging over 50 after 40 or so Tests... no English batsman of the last half century can match that!

[baganboy]

If Root doesn't have the temperament, then not quite sure how he's averaging over 50 after 40 or so Tests... no English batsman of the last half century can match that!

We are talking best of a generation (that's a 10-15 year period). I do not think there was any English batsman in the last 50 years who could honestly lay claim to that.
Root is a talent, perhaps only Pieterson and Gower in the last 50 years compare in terms of talent (and not sure of that either). But often in the India series I felt that he threw his wicket away after a beautiful 50-odd or even a 100-odd. If you are doing that pretty-50 thing, you are expecting another player in the team to do not just as good, but better that you, to be competitive. Cardinal sin when you are the best bat in the team, and have got a start and are playing beautifully.
Is it fair on the player specifically? No. But such is the lot of the gun batsman of the team.
The modern day greats / almost-greats, Ponting, Sachin, Hayden, Younis, Amla, AB, Pieterson and Cook wouldn't do that. If you settle in, you close the deal and come back. After that, either you win or there's a draw.

[Zimbo]

If Root doesn't have the temperament, then not quite sure how he's averaging over 50 after 40 or so Tests... no English batsman of the last half century can match that!

We are talking best of a generation (that's a 10-15 year period). I do not think there was any English batsman in the last 50 years who could honestly lay claim to that.
Root is a talent, perhaps only Pieterson and Gower in the last 50 years compare in terms of talent (and not sure of that either). But often in the India series I felt that he threw his wicket away after a beautiful 50-odd or even a 100-odd. If you are doing that pretty-50 thing, you are expecting another player in the team to do not just as good, but better that you, to be competitive. Cardinal sin when you are the best bat in the team, and have got a start and are playing beautifully.
Is it fair on the player specifically? No. But such is the lot of the gun batsman of the team.
The modern day greats / almost-greats, Ponting, Sachin, Hayden, Younis, Amla, AB, Pieterson and Cook wouldn't do that. If you settle in, you close the deal and come back. After that, either you win or there's a draw.

He just turned 26. Plenty of top class innings already and hopefully nearly a decade of international cricket left in front of him. I can remember Sangakkara played a load of "pretty" innings in the first 6-7 years of his international career and look where he needed up?

[baganboy]

He just turned 26. Plenty of top class innings already and hopefully nearly a decade of international cricket left in front of him. I can remember Sangakkara played a load of "pretty" innings in the first 6-7 years of his international career and look where he needed up?

Agreed. By the next couple of seasons, he can very well turn into the unquestioned best of in the world.
Sangakkara is a good case in point.

[Zimbo]

Baganboy.... with match winning in mind, Do you rate Kohli way ahead of Root then? What about batsman like AB Devilliers....how does he compare to these 2?

[baganboy]

Baganboy.... with match winning in mind, Do you rate Kohli way ahead of Root then? What about batsman like AB Devilliers....how does he compare to these 2?

Kohli, mm, let me put it this way: As an all-around, all-format batsman, yes I think VK is the best among his peers (which is SS, JR and KW).

He is a good bit ahead of his peers in ODI and T20 - it is scary what he can do, we are talking of a Sachin / Lara level of dominance here. KW, JR and SS are all accomplished players in the limited-over formats, but VK is a different level altogether - should not even be compared. Kohli can, right now, be a contender for an all-time ODI XI. As a pure finisher of games, I would consider VK higher than the greatest of ODI finishers - Bevan, Dhoni, Miandad, Hussey.

Test cricket:
Let me take a detour and explain what I mean by the closer, in test cricket. The closer is the main batsman of the team, who, if well set - should be trusted upon to take his team to a position where there are only two results possible - your team wins if your bowlers perform, or there is a draw if they don't. The other players can and would support, but the gun batsman should be the man to carry his team through to that 'closed' scenario as often as possible. Ponting would do this ever so often, because there was always support. Viv too. Lara would do this whenever he got any support. Sachin would do this whenever he got support, which was round about in the middle of his career - with Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Sehwag (there's a reason why India was the most competitive of all countries, against the best test team of all time). That's why these guys are all-time greats.

In test cricket specifically, I rate Williamson at top. He is an all-condition player. 1. Bouncy Australia/SA conditions; 2. Swingy England / NZ conditions; 3. Flat decks of the UAE, Central India, Pakistan and other places; 4. Bouncy-spin - parts of Pakistan, Northern part of India, Australia; 5. low-and-slow spin - Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, parts of India. And as the gun-batsman of his team, he is also a closer.
I will rate Kohli and Smith at an equal second. Neither is a true all-condition player yet at international level - Kohli in English conditions and Smith in flat tracks + low/slow conditions have yet to prove themselves. Both, though, are closers - and if past record and not just 2016 is considered, Smith is a slightly more accomplished closer than Kohli. I still rate Kohli as the equal of Smith, and that's because I get to follow some Indian domestic cricket - and I know that he can do the swinging conditions. Lahli is the one ground in India that approximates English conditions, and if one can play Mohammed Shami in Lahli, swinging conditions anywhere else should be fine. Caveat remains though - yet to prove it on proper English conditions.
Root fourth. Not in terms of talent. If anything, I would say he is more proven as a plain runscorer than Smith and Kohli in tests. But he is not a true gun batsman yet. He is not a closer, and that is the first requirement if we are considering best-in-the-world stakes. Not saying that he cannot be. If anything, he should be soon. But not yet.

Small caveat: Match-winning - More often than not, bowlers win Test matches. Batsmen can at the best close out test matches for the bowlers to then do their thing.

AB and Amla, as are KP and Cook, seem a half-generation ahead of these four. KP is gone and the others are coming off their peak when these four are just about to start into theirs.
Where do I put AB? Very highly as a pure batsman and a pure cricketer. I would rather see him bat than almost any other batsman I have seen play. Small caveat - I do not go to the stadium for the IPL, but I hear that during IPL, only two players, coming into bat, can get as much of a cheer as AB can - Sachin (obviously) and Dhoni. Not even Kohli. That says a lot, I believe.
But somehow I always feel that the true gun batsman of the best SA test teams was Amla. Like Cook was for England, even during the KP days.

Whoah! That was an essay! didn't plan it that way.

[Zimbo]

Wow.... thanks for taking the time Baganboy.

Very insightful.

[blahblah]

Losing at home to the Windies, what chance Down Under? (Well apart from them being a bit pants?)

Just watching the highlights and after the slating they (Windies) got on the Radio yesterday from their bod, I'm happy for them. Dumping Anderson, with the new ball, over his head for 6, was a tad reminiscent of yesteryear....

[foxinthebox2001]

Losing at home to the Windies, what chance Down Under? (Well apart from them being a bit pants?)

Just watching the highlights and after the slating they (Windies) got on the Radio yesterday from their bod, I'm happy for them. Dumping Anderson, with the new ball, over his head for 6, was a tad reminiscent of yesteryear....

Someone less cynical than I could suggest that England (maybe subconsciously) took their foot off the gas.
Lords is usually a well supported ground for WI, as is the Oval, the victory for the tourists keeps the series alive. I wonder if the ticket sales for days 3 and 4 have had a slight surge today.

[blahblah]

That would explain the good\bad\good\bad cycle of recent times

[baganboy]

Losing at home to the Windies, what chance Down Under? (Well apart from them being a bit pants?)

Just watching the highlights and after the slating they (Windies) got on the Radio yesterday from their bod, I'm happy for them. Dumping Anderson, with the new ball, over his head for 6, was a tad reminiscent of yesteryear....

A healthy West indies test team is critical for test cricket to survive. And the match yesterday was pure magic, but a freak happening.

You have a fine team. If you are a) Not complacent - stay humble; and b) Do not get out-hustled by the Aussies, you have a chance at the Ashes.
You have the best of the 4 openers. You have better quick bowlers. You have worse spinners, but their spinners are not world-beaters either. There is little to choose between your gun batsmen. The fourth and fifth batsman should not decide the series.

One identified problem - You have three allrounders (Stokes, Ali, Bairstow) which is great, but all three of them are batting allrounders i.e. batting is their best suit. Your team is therefore most susceptible to a bowling underperformance, like yesterday, if the two gun bowlers (and you have two of the best) are below par - and remember, SB and JA are not young guys anymore.
It will be cruel on Ali, but you need to have the third allrounder to be a bowling allrounder - and Stokes is more quality. Maybe Woakes? And get in the best spinner that England has (or a fifth quick bowler). Play a pure bowler i.e. Mark Wood.

Batting allrounders (excluding proper WK allrounders like Gilchrist and Dhoni and YJB) are great to have if they can bat in the top 5 (e.g. Kallis), and useless if they bat at 7. Conversely, a bowling allrounder is great to have at 6 (Botham, Imran, Kapil Dev), and very useful even at 7 and 8 (Hadlee, Akram, Pollock, Ashwin, Jadeja). Useless at 9 - as for India, I do not care how much our no.9, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar scores as a batsman (and he is a fine bat), and do not mind that he is rotated with Yadav and Ishant who are far, far inferior batsmen, or if we are using the third spinner, Kuldeep, who is another who can hold a bat.

Can England be brave and play Ali, Bairstow and Stokes at 5,6,7? Woakes at 8, and accommodate another bowler at 9.

[blahblah]

I know far less about England, since they sold their soul to Sky; but I think that you are avoiding the issue. There are 3 Batting spots up for grabs, which is a tad bad, although the point about shifting everyone up one to allow another Bowler would take that down to just an Opener and Number 3

Oh and why do England Capt's let Broad go to the third Umpire? He is worse than that Aussie(Watson?).

[Striker]

Root has said that he has no regrets over his declaration and England lost as a result of their poor batting performance in the first innings. There seems to be a lack of logic there. I agree that in isolation both statements are not unreasonable, but in combination there's a problem. If England after a poor first innings, the second wasn't good enough to make up for it, it was a poor declaration. If as in my view the second innings was good enough to make up for it, it was a perfectly reasonable declaration. But in that case we didn't lose the game as the result of poor first innings batting. The reason was mainly due to a magnificent West Indies batting display, aided by us putting down a couple of key chances.

[baganboy]

I know far less about England, since they sold their soul to Sky; but I think that you are avoiding the issue. There are 3 Batting spots up for grabs, which is a tad bad, although the point about shifting everyone up one to allow another Bowler would take that down to just an Opener and Number 3

Oh and why do England Capt's let Broad go to the third Umpire? He is worse than that Aussie(Watson?).

Cook, Root and the allrounders. That is English batting anyway.

Australia is worse - Smith and Warner and lower order slogging from Mitch Starc.

Both England and Australia came down to my country earlier in the year. England was the better team, but Australia had the more hustle. Added to it, India was at its peak physically and mentally, and was not complacent against England. So while it seems that the Aussies put up a better fight, I do not think there is much between the two teams at all.
In fact, if you ask me to nail it down, I will say that Smith gets (daddy) hundreds more often than Root, who throws it away after 50 way too often for someone of his calibre. That's the difference between the two teams.

[blahblah]

Yep a substandard Ashes, which will be hyped up to be the Clash of the Giants

[baganboy]

it's still Test cricket. I shall be watching

[baganboy]

PS: Comment from an acquaintance on my facebook feed:

Ashes 2017/18 ~ Where the losers of Tests against West Indies & Bangladesh will square off.

[blahblah]

The reason was mainly due to a magnificent West Indies batting display, aided by us putting down a couple of key chances.

Or poor bowling (inc field placing etc)?