Given some of your posts in this thread, I ought to be alarmed if you agreed with my opinion.
England in India 2021
- Thread starter TheGame
- Start date
Given some of your posts in this thread, I ought to be alarmed if you agreed with my opinion.
More and more inclined to agree with this following India's second innings - although I don't think Pant as a keeper has been particularly noteworthy. But India pretty much dispelled all legitimate criticism of this surface today. Had it not been for their first innings total and England's collapse, they would have probably ended up with bigger score than their first knock.
If a pitch sees two sides struggle to bat through their innings without facing a formidable bowling attack, then surfaces can/should be condemned. This isn't an example of that.
Make no bones about it, India have massively out-performed England in every single department, and we're still likely going to have a game that goes into the final session of day 4.
The feeling is mutual mate . The part about years of entitlement & condescension was my favourite.
Bit of edge to this thread now it's 1-1. Great stuff.
Hope we all hate eachother by the end
Hope we all hate eachother by the end
Bit of edge to this thread now it's 1-1. Great stuff.
Hope we all hate eachother by the end
Would have been if this series was in England. In India I would expect India to win 3-1 from here
I have some mild optimism for the D/N test match. But yes, winning a test has already surpassed my expectations.
I still think England can make a bounce back in the D/N test.
It seems Paine has rejuvenated Ashwin.
India have outclassed England this match for sure. And the batting performance in the 2nd innings should stop all this talk about the supposed bad pitch.
OK - I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't wish to derail this thread. So my only reply to you.
Is this the marina beach you're talking about? I live a stone's throw from Besant Nagar and go to the beach 5 times a week after my runs and absolutely no one's masking up. There may be masks in some of the posh localities but how Chepauk is today is how the city is living. You can't actually think 15000 people at Chepauk got a mind of their own - it's the same people in the city.
Bit of edge to this thread now it's 1-1. Great stuff.
Hope we all hate eachother by the end
This thread is a clusterfeck now
I think a loss in the D/N match wouldn't be unexpected. Archer, Anderson, Broad with some movement will be good to watch. India are habituated to playing 5 bowlers at home recently and are used to not expecting runs from #7, but if there's movement we could be in trouble. In that sort of game, neither Axar nor Ashwin are legitimate #7s.
Jadeja has been averaging 50 with the bat in the past 4-5 years at #7.
I know he hasn't been discussed much due to his injury but for my money, he is the best player in subcontinent conditions in tests right now. Gun fielder, batting average of almost 50 in recent times and a bowling average of 25.
Him and Ashwin together are the main reason for India's dominance in Asia, and India would have comfortably drawn the first test with Jadeja instead of Nadeem.
Good article on the India covid situation from the bbc correspondent
https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-pandemic-finally-coming-end-002235377.html
My TL;DR is
a. reasonable high sero-prevalence in big urban centres (20-30%)
b. low mobility of population compared to Europe and the USA
c. people are generally mobilizing outdoors in warmer temperatures
d. likely lower spread of the UK/SA variant (closed borders) and better immunity to coronaviruses
I was out hiking a lot of popular trails in the US over the summer and a lot of them were packed without people wearing masks, and we saw no explosion of cases in August. It is very evident it doesn't spread as much in drier, warmer conditions.
Most of India's spread happened during the monsoons last year.
https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-pandemic-finally-coming-end-002235377.html
My TL;DR is
a. reasonable high sero-prevalence in big urban centres (20-30%)
b. low mobility of population compared to Europe and the USA
c. people are generally mobilizing outdoors in warmer temperatures
d. likely lower spread of the UK/SA variant (closed borders) and better immunity to coronaviruses
I was out hiking a lot of popular trails in the US over the summer and a lot of them were packed without people wearing masks, and we saw no explosion of cases in August. It is very evident it doesn't spread as much in drier, warmer conditions.
Most of India's spread happened during the monsoons last year.
Last edited:
So England should have been docked points since the first 4 tests in the last series in England all finished within 4 days.
Or we should allow idiots like Agnew continue acting like hypocrites and try to "understand their perspective".
Unless I am missing someone obvious, and if Ashwin continues his resurgence with the bat, he will almost certainly end as the GOAT spin allrounder in tests and should be considered as a peer of Botham, Imran.
Not counting Jadeja due to longevity.
You seem another poster with a chip on his shoulder regarding any criticism about the pitch. I have clearly stated in my message above, I do not agree with his viewpoint. I wouldn't call him an idiot, he's an excellent broadcaster with knowledge of the game. People can disagree with his view and have every right to do so. If you want to have an argument against his view go and contact him directly.
Great bit of batting by Kohli and Ashwin. Managing these conditions is an art in itself. Foakes did well yesterday too. 200/innings seems like a par score for this pitch.
Hypocrisy in plain sight is not a viewpoint but obviously is acceptable to you as something to be understood and not something that should be called out for what it is. Good luck and continue to regurgitate those viewpoints.
Agnew has a long history of being a weirdo and acting as someone who came from immense privilege.
People have different opinions and viewpoints, you agree or disagree with them. Presumably you pick out any Indian viewpoint you see as hypocritical?
So now you attack the person individually? WTF's his background go to do with whether you agree or disagree with his viewpoint? He's one of the best broadcasters in England and highly respected and your biased opinions in your post above seem to be evident.
I do not go about repeating any Indian viewpoints which are clearly hypocritical or try to understand where they are coming from. Clearly you do and are going to keep defending them, good luck !
Agnew is known for attacking other journalists personally when they disagree with him. Barney Ronay (who is actually excellent) and Jonathan Liew amongst others have been subject to those tirades. Knowing his history is not a personal attack, and most sports fans in Australia and India are aware of his hypocrisy and trying to arbitrarily police what is ok and is not in the game. He was the guy who jumped prematurely on the unfortunate Woolmer death and wanted the WC cancelled at a massive loss to Caribbean cricket amongst many other incidents in his chequered broadcasting career.
I don't know if this is a good time to post this question with tempers fraying, but it's always struck me that the pitches debate revolves around a difference of cultures regarding what teams are good at.
English fans and commentators have been brought up on a diet of swing and fast bowling and are largely inclined to think that that is when cricket is at its best. When you hear people talk wistfully about some of the best batting performances they can remember it tends to be talked of in terms of courage and getting runs on tough pitches where there is a real sense of physical danger and bowlers are 'getting the batsmen's ticker going'. The result is a perception that cricket is at its best when it's being played in conditions that allow for that, and a failure to appreciate the craft and guile of spinners on slow pitches who are out thinking and out manoeuvring batsmen. The West Indies pacers are basically beloved in England and Waqar Younis, Imran Khan, and Wasim Akram are talked about in hushed whispers as if they were otherworldly. The likes of Muttiah Muralitharan or Anil Kumble don't seem to get anywhere near the same reverence, and even, I would argue, Zaheer Khan and Chaminda Vaas are remembered as fondly as spinners who were, frankly, far better.
India, historically, haven't produced teams that do well on those sorts of pitches but now, I would argue, they have a team that is probably best suited to them (other than maybe the Australians, but we did see what just happened last series against them) out of anyone in world cricket. And, at least, I'd be backing India to win a test on a fast, bouncy wicket over England most days. Since that development do Indian fans also prefer watching their team play, and win, on quick pitches, or would you rather watch India at home on a bunsen bundling out clueless batsmen who aren't good enough to play spin with their undeniable craft and guile.
Which I guess is a really long winded way of asking if we're naturally inclined to enjoy high octane stuff more and thats a universal truth amongst cricket fans, or if the perception that high octane cricket (and even that the quick bowlers bowling) is more enjoyable is an anglo-centric approach to the game which mistakes the cricket we grew up watching as 'good cricket' and everything else as inferior.
That's probably clumsily expressed. Hopefully it's clear what I mean.
English fans and commentators have been brought up on a diet of swing and fast bowling and are largely inclined to think that that is when cricket is at its best. When you hear people talk wistfully about some of the best batting performances they can remember it tends to be talked of in terms of courage and getting runs on tough pitches where there is a real sense of physical danger and bowlers are 'getting the batsmen's ticker going'. The result is a perception that cricket is at its best when it's being played in conditions that allow for that, and a failure to appreciate the craft and guile of spinners on slow pitches who are out thinking and out manoeuvring batsmen. The West Indies pacers are basically beloved in England and Waqar Younis, Imran Khan, and Wasim Akram are talked about in hushed whispers as if they were otherworldly. The likes of Muttiah Muralitharan or Anil Kumble don't seem to get anywhere near the same reverence, and even, I would argue, Zaheer Khan and Chaminda Vaas are remembered as fondly as spinners who were, frankly, far better.
India, historically, haven't produced teams that do well on those sorts of pitches but now, I would argue, they have a team that is probably best suited to them (other than maybe the Australians, but we did see what just happened last series against them) out of anyone in world cricket. And, at least, I'd be backing India to win a test on a fast, bouncy wicket over England most days. Since that development do Indian fans also prefer watching their team play, and win, on quick pitches, or would you rather watch India at home on a bunsen bundling out clueless batsmen who aren't good enough to play spin with their undeniable craft and guile.
Which I guess is a really long winded way of asking if we're naturally inclined to enjoy high octane stuff more and thats a universal truth amongst cricket fans, or if the perception that high octane cricket (and even that the quick bowlers bowling) is more enjoyable is an anglo-centric approach to the game which mistakes the cricket we grew up watching as 'good cricket' and everything else as inferior.
That's probably clumsily expressed. Hopefully it's clear what I mean.
I responded to another poster who mentioned the article and then clearly stated in my post that I didn't agree with his viewpoint, why don't you learn to read!
So you pick out a couple of incidents and suddenly call it a chequered career? Then you mention the world cup so because he argued it to be moved after a death of a coach that somehow works against him? Again another viewpoint you don't like.
As you said it's matter of perception. Fast bowlers are always looked fondly. What sometimes people don't understand is spin is also an art and playing them is equally challenging. I love watching spinners dominate the batters just like watching pacers get the better of batsmen. I think it's important teams work on their skills. There is a reason Kevin Pietersen is regarded highly among Indian fans and pundits. The way he batted in that 2012 series was just magnificent and he ultimately proved that spin can be conquered.
I feel India as a team habe evolved and worked in their skills and are producing some amazing quick bowlers too now and not just relying on spinners. I feel england should do the same and give more priority to produce quality spinners. This will be ultimately good for cricket.
I prefer winning away on faster tracks, but I can't separate out whether it's because faster is better than spin or because we're not naturally good at faster and therefore, winning on them seems better. I think it's the latter, because one of the other things I enjoy a lot in cricket is when a good side whose home is fast pitches comes and competes in Asia. I also love watching tours like England in Sri Lanka - the contrast in styles is what makes cricket exciting for me.
So in conclusion, it's not the case for me.
A lot of people here would tell you winning away on fast pitches means more(that is the general perception here, people love tours to the SENA countries of the fans I know), but I'm not sure if they'd agree with my view point or not.
I think there's definitely something in that. When I watched county cricket I was watching the likes of Hick and Botham smash pace bowlers around with hardly any spin in sight and I grew up watching that.
That's changed for me though and now I love watching close fielders and the pressure of bowler friendly conditions whether in England or abroad as there's a real tension to every ball. That can happen whether it's spinner friendly conditions or if the ball is swinging / seaming / raw pace. I would much rather watch a match with bowlers putting pressure on every ball than a 5 dayer with hardly any excitement and batsmen scoring at will whether it be against pace or spin.
I think the only difference between conditions is that when a wicket starts turning in favour of spin it's pretty much going to stay that way which is why it can happen too quickly in a game. With swing bowling it can be cloudy in the morning and clear up in the afternoon creating different advantages as it goes on.
Yes if he can continue doing the good work with the bat and stay fit, I can see him playing another 25 to 30 test easily and end up with 500 plus wickets and close to 3500 to 4000 runs. That would be some achievement. Also let us not forget Ashwin made his debut when he was 24 so it's not like he started young. His fitness is his biggest enemy.
Curious - are you enjoying this match?
I've loved what I've seen in terms of pressure on the batsmen yeah. I haven't been able to watch a lot of it due to work though.
Sub continental tests are attritional but I have loved watching games come alive exactly as you describe on the last session of day 3.
I’ve been watching test cricket for 12 years, and it’ll look flat, listless and Dhoni, and the spinners will summon some black magic and a procession of wickets will begin, noise around the stumps. Love it.
Yeah, that's one of the best aspects of cricket when the pressure is on and there's 5 close fielders talking away at the batsmen.
Yeah, and I think that's what makes it such a difficult question to try to answer, I do think I prefer watching cricket where seamers are bowling the majority of the overs, but I do think that England being typically shit if it spins is a part of that. It's not often we have a spinner bowling well enough to create the pressure around the bat that @Balljy is talking about and invariably its hard to enjoy a test you're going to lose.
But I think that reverence of pace is fairly universal; England are crying out for a good spinner, but if you tell me about some new prospect who bowls 90mph+ or an offspinner who's taking wickets at 15s in the Championship I think I'm naturally inclined to be more excited about the former.
I do wonder if this a fairly recent phenomenon. A lot of the English spinners with very good test records are from the era of uncovered pitches, it feels like the spinner became viewed as a defensive option after that. So many players of Derek Underwood's era talk so highly about him. I'd love to read a history on spin bowling in England.
That's a fair point too, and probably adds some credence to the idea that it is a product of environment rather than an objective fact. I remember Bumble has talked before about the old county 'balanced attack' included two spinners which could between them turn it both ways. It's a far cry from nowadays.
The only truly world class spinner England have had for many many years is Swann. Moeen was very good for a while in England but struggled hugely away in general. Swann was great in all conditions.
I hope we dedicate more time to spin bowling in the future.
I hope we dedicate more time to spin bowling in the future.
Think they really need to tweak umpires call after watching that Root appeal, Looked plumb to me real time.
Wasn't Ashley giles highly regarded. I thought he too was decent.
I know our spin options are poor but you can't make the comparison that Mason Crane was poor in the test he played in so Parkinson will be you can't use that mentality. Someone mentioned Virdi but he's not in the squad Parkinson is because the test selectors can see something in him. If we end up going 2-1 down then we should at least give him a go, We have nothing to lose.
He was good but not in the world class bracket, compared to the likes of Warne/Vettori/Kumble/Ajmal/Murali
It was either him or Gareth Batty at one point... Which was a terrible time for spin options, Thankfully Panesar put in a couple of good years.