[Cricket] India v England Test Series

[Eeyore]

Nothing wrong with the pitch India have made 600 runs, it’s a nightmare for our batsman because they aren’t used to it, just like a 90mph seaming green top is a nightmare for Indian batsman.

Be grateful we got out of Chennai at 1-1 going into the day night pink ball test.

A 90mph seaming green top is a nightmare for any batsman. A pitch that explodes through an unwanted clay top soil on the first morning is not fit for purpose.

I suspect the pitch may well be subject to sanctions.

As I said on the first morning, no team should be allowed to make 300 here. India have that as a mean score and will crush England.

The victory will be a reflection of a poor pitch and a woefully inadequate English spin attack.

India have played the pitch better, that is to be expected, but were given 100 runs that they shouldn't have been in each innings.

 

[Si Gull]

Oh well, fun watching Moeen at the end, shame he didn't make 50.

 

[Gwylan]

A 90mph seaming green top is a nightmare for any batsman. A pitch that explodes through an unwanted clay top soil on the first morning is not fit for purpose.

I suspect the pitch may well be subject to sanctions.

Sanctions by whom?

It was a challenging pitch but by no means a shocker: it went into the fourth day with more than 900 runs scored on it: two batsmen made tons and there were two fifties too.

I had a quick look at last summer in England and the (non rain-affected) tests: they lasted on, on average 310 overs, this test lasted just over 295. I don't understand why 310 overs is a perfectly acceptable number but 295 isn't.

Personally, I'd rather see a pitch like this than a road where teams plod their way to 500/600 runs in a first innings and shake hands at tea on the fifth day.

 

[big nuts]

Sanctions by whom?

It was a challenging pitch but by no means a shocker: it went into the fourth day with more than 900 runs scored on it: two batsmen made tons and there were two fifties too.

I had a quick look at last summer in England and the (non rain-affected) tests: they lasted on, on average 310 overs, this test lasted just over 295. I don't understand why 310 overs is a perfectly acceptable number but 295 isn't.

Personally, I'd rather see a pitch like this than a road where teams plod their way to 500/600 runs in a first innings and shake hands at tea on the fifth day.

It’s not just about runs scored and overs played, it’s how the pitch played during that time.

It really wasn’t good and if England had a spin attack as good as India you wouldn’t have got to the end of day 3.

It was a poor pitch, but a pitch where India were able to adapt and play far better then us.

I’m with you on the pitches where teams rack up 600+ but this was too far the other way and the spin and uneven bounce on day 1, was far too much.

 

[knocky1]

£380 bet on this Test.
£16 net winnings plus £34 cash out.
Nice betting spin at lunch on Day 1 with a big switch hit on India. Ruled out a draw. Cashed in England on Sunday at 5:30am. Only fears were India 86-5 at 5am yesterday and Moeen today. Slight fear that pitch would become too dangerous for play to continue.

£150 Series winnings to play on the toss at Sundar Patel Stadium now.
Has any cricket been played in the new biggest cricket stadium in the world?

 

[Guinness Boy]

It’s not just about runs scored and overs played, it’s how the pitch played during that time.

It really wasn’t good and if England had a spin attack as good as India you wouldn’t have got to the end of day 3.

It was a poor pitch, but a pitch where India were able to adapt and play far better then us.

I’m with you on the pitches where teams rack up 600+ but this was too far the other way and the spin and uneven bounce on day 1, was far too much.

All of this. Spot on.

Aggers agreed on the BBC as well.

 

[Gwylan]

It’s not just about runs scored and overs played

That's just nonsense - that's precisely what it's about.

My definition of a decent wicket is one where a side is bowled out for between 300 and 400 runs. Any more than that is too favourable for batting, fewer is too bowler heavy.

India got more than 300 in the first innings and slightly fewer in the second, which suggests that the pitch was probably favourable to bowlers but not excessively so. The fact that England batted so poorly has little to do with the pitch.

It's strange but a few years back when Stuart Broad ripped through the Aussies for 60 odd, NSC was full of posts lauding his achievement and rejoicing in the Aussies' discomfort: I don't recall a single post saying what a disgrace the pitch was. It's really not very edifying to hold the double standard that if England dismiss a team for a low score, aren't our bowlers great but if another team bowls us cheaply, it's a shocking pitch.

It was good to see George Dobell write in Cricinfo about the need for more pitches like this one and a call for the ECB to stop punishing teams producing turners - which I posted yesterday. I want to see more spin friendly surfaces, it will make cricket far more interesting.

 

[big nuts]

That's just nonsense - that's precisely what it's about.

My definition of a decent wicket is one where a side is bowled out for between 300 and 400 runs. Any more than that is too favourable for batting, fewer is too bowler heavy.

India got more than 300 in the first innings and slightly fewer in the second, which suggests that the pitch was probably favourable to bowlers but not excessively so. The fact that England batted so poorly has little to do with the pitch.

It's strange but a few years back when Stuart Broad ripped through the Aussies for 60 odd, NSC was full of posts lauding his achievement and rejoicing in the Aussies' discomfort: I don't recall a single post saying what a disgrace the pitch was. It's really not very edifying to hold the double standard that if England dismiss a team for a low score, aren't our bowlers great but if another team bowls us cheaply, it's a shocking pitch.

It was good to see George Dobell write in Cricinfo about the need for more pitches like this one and a call for the ECB to stop punishing teams producing turners - which I posted yesterday. I want to see more spin friendly surfaces, it will make cricket far more interesting.

It was the kind of pitch where a score of 200 kept you right in the game.

England let India off the hook, because their spinners kept bowling a ‘four’ ball per over.

Look at the Root wicket today and the ball to Stokes which of a good length was taken at head height by Pant.

These weren’t isolated deliveries, it happened regularly throughout the match.

A good pitch, shouldn’t have as much uneven bounce until you get through to the final day. This was happening on day 1.

 

[knocky1]

[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] I was at Trent Bridge in 2015. Broad bowled out Australia taking advantage of English overcast conditions. The sun then came out and Root made hay. Typical Trent Bridge. My favourite Test venue.

 

[dazzer6666]

Home team, one down in a series, prepares pitch to suit their game and not the opposition shocker............

 

[Papa Lazarou]

[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] I was at Trent Bridge in 2015. Broad bowled out Australia taking advantage of English overcast conditions. The sun then came out and Root made hay. Typical Trent Bridge. My favourite Test venue.

So, nothing to do with the actual pitch then.

 

[big nuts]

So, nothing to do with the actual pitch then.

I might have got this wrong but isn’t there a saying that when you win the toss you look at the pitch, but at Headingley & Trent Bridge you look at the sky.

I suppose that’s true for most of England, particularly with a Duke ball.

 

[vegster]

Home team, one down in a series, prepares pitch to suit their game and not the opposition shocker............

As if we would produce a wicket which gives seam movement when we play the Indians at home ?

 

[Gwylan]

Home team, one down in a series, prepares pitch to suit their game and not the opposition shocker............

Quite. All teams do it.

It does sometimes go wrong: I was at Edgbaston in 1995 when England prepared a seam-friendly pitch against a West Indian team with Ambrose and Walsh

It's noticeable that Root didn't complain about the pitch in his post-match interview and there have been a few ex-England players who saw nothing wrong with it: Swann, Pietersen and Panesar to name just three. And Mike Atherton, who's probably the best English cricket writer right now, thought it wasn't ideal but not as bad as people make it out to be. England just aren't used to playing on a bunsen and India are.

Athers also makes one very good point about the pitch: because it was turning from day one, the toss wasn't decisive. If India had lost the toss, they'd probably still have won. I actually thought the pitch for the First Test was worse because it was a flat batting track for two days and then cracked up: the winner of the toss was in a prime position,

One thing that could change this would be to give the visiting side first choice (as happened in the CC for a couple of seasons). I think that would help restore the balance a bit - although it probably wouldn't have made a difference in this match

 

[big nuts]

Quite. All teams do it.

It does sometimes go wrong: I was at Edgbaston in 1995 when England prepared a seam-friendly pitch against a West Indian team with Ambrose and Walsh

It's noticeable that Root didn't complain about the pitch in his post-match interview and there have been a few ex-England players who saw nothing wrong with it: Swann, Pietersen and Panesar to name just three. And Mike Atherton, who's probably the best English cricket writer right now, thought it wasn't ideal but not as bad as people make it out to be. England just aren't used to playing on a bunsen and India are.

Athers also makes one very good point about the pitch: because it was turning from day one, the toss wasn't decisive. If India had lost the toss, they'd probably still have won. I actually thought the pitch for the First Test was worse because it was a flat batting track for two days and then cracked up: the winner of the toss was in a prime position,

One thing that could change this would be to give the visiting side first choice (as happened in the CC for a couple of seasons). I think that would help restore the balance a bit - although it probably wouldn't have made a difference in this match

I’ve always liked the idea of both captains making closed bids for the toss e.g Root is prepared to forfeit 40 runs to bat first, if Kohli feels its not so important he’d bid 25 runs.

Root would win the toss and England start minus 40 for none

Much more skill/strategy needed rather than the luck of the toss.

 

[Gwylan]

I’ve always liked the idea of both captains making closed bids for the toss e.g Root is prepared to forfeit 40 runs to bat first, if Kohli feels its not so important he’d bid 25 runs.

Root would win the toss and England start minus 40 for none

Much more skill/strategy needed rather than the luck of the toss.

I've never seen that suggested before - that's quite a good idea.

 

[Gwylan]

Moving away from the pitch, I'd mention one other thing: how appallingly have England handed Moeen.

This is his first test match (actually his first F/C game) for nearly 18 months - it's hardly surprising that there were a few loose balls in his opening spell. He bowled better in the second innings and now, having got a bit of rhythm back, he's going home.

It's also not good for Bess who didn't bowl well in the first test (he was flattered by the number of wickets he took) but who also didn't get a chance to bowl on a friendly pitch and get a bit of confidence. India played three spinners, I'm not sure why we didn't

 

[keaton]

We should have played Ollie Robinson who could have offered pace and spin

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Moving away from the pitch, I'd mention one other thing: how appallingly have England handed Moeen.

This is his first test match (actually his first F/C game) for nearly 18 months - it's hardly surprising that there were a few loose balls in his opening spell. He bowled better in the second innings and now, having got a bit of rhythm back, he's going home.

It's also not good for Bess who didn't bowl well in the first test (he was flattered by the number of wickets he took) but who also didn't get a chance to bowl on a friendly pitch and get a bit of confidence. India played three spinners, I'm not sure why we didn't

He was always scheduled to go home after this Test.

They way I read it is that because he’s performed quite well and they’ve realised they’re leaving themselves short, they’ve asked him at the last minute to stay on. He’s been stuck in the bubble for months and has chosen to stick with the plan, and go home to his family.

England announcing it as him ‘choosing to go’ is unfair - makes it look like he’s doing a runner ahead of time.

 

[Gwylan]

England announcing it as him ‘choosing to go’ is unfair - makes it look like he’s doing a runner ahead of time.

Totally agree: it's appalling PR. Archer, Bairstow, Buttler, Burns and Stokes have been "rested", Moeen has "chosen" to go home. It's totally unfair to him

But it's also terrible planning. We have two spinners for the last two tests and you can bet those won't be greentops - what happens if one of them is injured?