Second Test: India v England, Visakhapatnam, 17-21 November

[knocky1]

Ashwin beats the bat 3 times in this over and Kohli's fails to hang on to a catch at leg slip. Lucky Joe.

 

[knocky1]

*uckett out gloving behind with a big swish. I blame the selectors.

 

[knocky1]

Hard to doze through this with huge appeals every other ball on average.

 

[knocky1]

Jadeja hits the rough and left handed Moeen caught Kohli.

105-4 after a rare boundary by Root.

 

[knocky1]

New ball shared around and Jayant's off spin knocks over Stokes' wicket.

115-5

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Oh so predictable.
From the moment this toss was lost you thought...." this will be tough "

 

[jakarta]

No chance of a win but a good chance for the Middle Order to show some discipline and get some experience banked vs. top class spin bowling for the future.

I reckon it will be over before Tea but you never know...

Apologies Everyone...

 

[knocky1]

Carry Duckett again at Mohali and bring in Woakes for Ansari?

 

[Gwylan]

Interesting reading Kohli's comments after the game. He thought that England were guaranteed to lose once they set out to bat slowly. What's particularly interesting is that in an Australian newspaper last week, amidst the hand-wringing about their own national side, a journalist found time to talk about England and their negative approach to cricket.

It looked liked sour grapes at the time but there's some truth in it. England's approach in the two games has been to avoid defeat - even when they had the upper hand in the first test, they didn't go for a win. India clearly set out to win once they had the lead and were aggressive about doing it.

I'm not sure a change of personnel is going to help this mindset: Cook is an innately cautious captain and there need to be a few risks taken ... but the whole selection was too section for such an approach

 

[BensGrandad]

Surrendered without even a whimper.

 

[CHAPPERS]

No chance on that pitch batting second, I don't care what anyone says. I DON'T CARE.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Early failings bring England’s chickens home to roost

ACA-VDCA Cricket Stadium (final day of five): India beat England by 246 runs

Mike Atherton, Chief Cricket Correspondent

Following a massive defeat in Visakhapatnam, England will have to win the series the hard way. There are few tougher assignments in cricket than winning from behind here, a feat that only two touring sides in history - England in 1984-85 under David Gower and in 2012 under Alastair Cook - have managed.

It will take a monumental effort against a team that has its sights set on revenge after a humbling in England two years ago, and a captain keen to make amends for the one black mark against his record. Having batted his team to safety in Rajkot, Virat Kohli accepted the man of the match award for a batting performance that was touched with genius. He doesn’t look the type to rest on his laurels.

Four years ago, under Mahendra Singh Dhoni, India erred by complacently assuming that England were finished after an early defeat in Ahmedabad. Dhoni ordered rank turners, which brought Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann into the series, but England possess no such deterrent now. Although the general perception is that the next Test in Mohali may suit England’s seamers more than anywhere else, it should be noted that in the last Test there, 19 South African wickets fell to spin.

That said, England should be encouraged by the 20 wickets they took even on a pitch designed to nullify the seam attack. James Anderson’s return went as well as could have been expected and he and Stuart Broad shared nine wickets in unhelpful conditions. India’s batting is more brittle than is imagined and that may yet offer opportunities for England to get a foothold in the series.

England have some selection issues to resolve between now and the next Test. Broad will spend the next few days wearing a moon boot to take the stress off his injured right foot, but it seems unlikely that he will be risked. Chris Woakes will obviously return and there may be a chance for Steven Finn or Jake Ball, too. It will be an uncomfortable few days in the nets for the batsmen, against quick bowlers eager to impress.

For two of the new boys, Ben Duckett and Zafar Ansari, it would be kinder if the axe fell, so out of sorts did they seem. Duckett was dismissed by Ravichandran Ashwin for the third time in as many innings, although not defending this time but attacking. He has so little confidence in his defensive technique that he decided to hit his way out of trouble, only to glove an attempted sweep onto his thigh pad, before it ballooned up in the air. Having not bowled at all in England’s second innings, Ansari was bowled neck and crop for a duck. It was a nausea-inducing match for him in more ways than one.

Ansari’s position would be debatable in any case, as England’s pre-tour plan for Mohali included an extra seamer. Duckett’s position is likely to go to Jos Buttler, even though last time he played Test cricket, against Pakistan in the United Arab Emirates, he gave little notice that he has a trustworthy defence against spin, either. Nor has he had any first-class cricket since to find one. At least he is right-handed, which would rebalance things away from the predominance of left-handers, but England’s batting options are rather thin.

There was a sense of inevitability about the final morning when five wickets before lunch fell to some compelling cricket from Kohli’s team. The magnitude of Cook’s dismissal to the final ball of the fourth day was immediately made apparent when Duckett fell in the sixth over and Moeen Ali ten overs after that, caught around the corner, so exposing England’s lower middle order, with the second new ball not far away. Kohli took it immediately, judgement that was vindicated when Ben Stokes was bowled by a beauty from Jayant Yadav. The two previous deliveries had gone straight on from the same spot, and Stokes played back on that line, only to be beaten by one that spun sharply.

It felt like the end was going to come quickly when Stokes departed. Joe Root had been put down at leg-slip in the third over of the day, but after that had displayed impeccable judgment, playing back to the spinners and watching the ball intently until Mohammed Shami hurried one into his pads just before lunch. The ball wasn’t the only thing hurrying, as India’s over rate was a remarkable 17 an hour, propelled by Ravindra Jadeja, the fastest spinner in the east - through the air and his overs.

Shami induced an edge from Adil Rashid after which he retreated to allow Ashwin, eight wickets in the match, and Jayant, who proved to be a smart selection, to finish the job. Ansari was bowled by the kind of shooter rarely sighted at the Oval; Broad fell leg-before sweeping and, fittingly, given the difficulties endured by umpire Kumar Dharmasena in the last four Tests, Anderson fell to a review. Anderson suffered the ignominy of a king pair on his comeback.

In any match there are moments of regret, and England’s focus should fall on the early stages of the game: the first morning when, at 35 for two, Cook failed to recognise the need to press home his advantage; the first afternoon, when Rashid dropped Kohli on 56 at fine-leg, as Kohli top-edged an attempted hook, and then on the second day, when England’s middle order panicked after the unnecessary run-out of Hameed.

After the match, Kohli twisted the knife a little, suggesting that England had played into India’s hands with their cautious approach on the fourth afternoon. Balancing attack and defence judiciously is the key to batting in India, but the reality is that England did well to bat almost 100 overs in the second innings. Of the two collapses - 50 for one to 80 for five in the first innings and 87 for one to 158 all out in the second - it was the first innings that was most damaging.

An enduring truth about Test cricket in India is that the game is invariably determined by what happens in the first innings, and it was a long way back from a deficit of 200. England lost the match in the first two days, not the last two.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/kohli-puts-feeble-england-out-of-their-misery-lbdpztz9k

 

[Pantani]

Interesting reading Kohli's comments after the game. He thought that England were guaranteed to lose once they set out to bat slowly. What's particularly interesting is that in an Australian newspaper last week, amidst the hand-wringing about their own national side, a journalist found time to talk about England and their negative approach to cricket.

It looked liked sour grapes at the time but there's some truth in it. England's approach in the two games has been to avoid defeat - even when they had the upper hand in the first test, they didn't go for a win. India clearly set out to win once they had the lead and were aggressive about doing it.

I'm not sure a change of personnel is going to help this mindset: Cook is an innately cautious captain and there need to be a few risks taken ... but the whole selection was too section for such an approach

Easy to chat about negative cricket when England concede a 200 run first innings lead. Or lose 5 wickets for nothing. England scored at a faster rate than India in both innings first test. Yes, the declaration was a little conservative, but they were very unlikely to bowl India out on a pitch that had not deterioated as much as expected. India batted very conservatively when they had 550 to chase first innings, maybe Kohli should look at that. He certainly did not think India were going to win when Cook at Hameed had survived 50 overs together.

This test, the pitch was scheduled to fall apart at lunch on the second day
Win the toss win the match. If England had batted better they may have been closer but they still would have lost. No amount of aggression would have changed that.

 

[Gwylan]

Yes, the declaration was a little conservative, but they were very unlikely to bowl India out on a pitch that had not deterioated as much as expected.

A little conservative? India were set a target of six an over! If it hadn't deteriorated as much as expected, why did they only leave 53 overs to bowl them out? England's priority was not to lose, rather than win. When India had the upper hand, they went for the jugular.

And more aggressive intent from England may have given Kohli something to think about - as it was, he could keep men around the bat the whole time as he knew England weren't going for it

 

[Pantani]

A little conservative? India were set a target of six an over! If it hadn't deteriorated as much as expected, why did they only leave 53 overs to bowl them out? England's priority was not to lose, rather than win. When India had the upper hand, they went for the jugular.

And more aggressive intent from England may have given Kohli something to think about - as it was, he could keep men around the bat the whole time as he knew England weren't going for it

Did India go for the jugular? Or had England's collapse first innings meant that it was all over. England's upper hand was a 50 run first innings lead, India's was 200 runs. Third innings run rates England 3.01, India 3.22. Hardly going for the jugular.

Kohli has realised that England's best two batsmen in these condiotion are Cook and Hameed. They are much easier to get out if they start playing shots. Also Kohli did not start putting men around the bat until England started losing wickets. Michael Vaughan spent ages talking about it third session yesterday.

Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. England need to stick in there doggedly, they play aggressively they will get taken apart.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Changes for the next test? Ansari and Duckett obviously out. Broad probably injured. Balance can't be recalled, surely. Looks a bit worrying? Is there anyone from the Saxons squad that it's worth/practicable to bring in?

 

[knocky1]

Changes for the next test? Ansari and Duckett obviously out. Broad probably injured. Balance can't be recalled, surely. Looks a bit worrying? Is there anyone from the Saxons squad that it's worth/practicable to bring in?

Woakes for Broad, Finn for Ansari (unless Ball is sharp in nets), Buttler for Duckett (unless we make a cheeky grab for Matt Renshaw).

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Woakes for Broad, Finn for Ansari (unless Ball is sharp in nets), Buttler for Duckett (unless we make a cheeky grab for Matt Renshaw).

Yes, I guess this will be the case. It's just a bit depressing that 3 of the squad are, in effect, unselectable.

 

[Machiavelli]

Woakes for Broad, Finn for Ansari (unless Ball is sharp in nets), Buttler for Duckett (unless we make a cheeky grab for Matt Renshaw).

Do we really need to play six bowlers, and four quicks?

 

[LlcoolJ]

Did India go for the jugular? Or had England's collapse first innings meant that it was all over. England's upper hand was a 50 run first innings lead, India's was 200 runs. Third innings run rates England 3.01, India 3.22. Hardly going for the jugular.

Kohli has realised that England's best two batsmen in these condiotion are Cook and Hameed. They are much easier to get out if they start playing shots. Also Kohli did not start putting men around the bat until England started losing wickets. Michael Vaughan spent ages talking about it third session yesterday.

Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. England need to stick in there doggedly, they play aggressively they will get taken apart.

Completely agree with this. Kohli is talking bollocks and attempting to play mind games.