England in this series so far...

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Have missed umpteen # of opportunities to pull off a win.

First things first at Rajkot, they could have declared at least 10-15 overs earlier by playing fast, they did not even lose wickets in bulk during their 2nd innings, so it was strange why they didn't go for it!

Coming to Vizag, they had 5 sessions to chase 405 in ~ 150 overs which means they needed to score 2.7 RPO. I know pitch was slow but is it impossible to even tick @ 2.5-2.7 RPO? Especially when you have players like Cook, Root, Stokes, Ali and Bairstow. This was not a rank turner by any means.

Is Cook's over defensive/ safety approach to be blamed here?

Last time in 2012, they were 0-1 down and won next 2 matches to take the series. I don't see any problem with their batting or bowling as of now except Duckett. What can they do to turn this around?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Last time, 4 out of 7 Indian bats were over the hill and Ashwin became useless

Doubt that would happen this time.

Plus England had KP, Swann and Panesar.

And no, they couldn't have chased this here.

And yes, they missed a chance in Rajkot.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Doubt that would happen this time.

Plus England had KP, Swann and Panesar.

They have Stokes, Root, Bairstow. Adil n Ali are picking wickets. There is no glaring weakness in the side so far apart from Duckett. Positive approach towards the game and Woakes inclusion can swing it their way at Mohali. Apart from Kohli our batters have been inconsistent this series so far :face palm:

 

[Mamoon]

They had no chance of winning/saving this match, and Cook made the right call in the first Test to go for a draw.

India with Kohli is the last time you would want to have a real go at a run chase, and a 'sporting' declaration could have resulted in India sneaking a win from the backdoor after England dominated the bulk of the match.

As I said before the series, England will be competitive but will not be able to close out games. Similar to how they are competitive in the UAE but are not able to provide the sucker punch, although they were minutes away from winning in Abu Dhabi.

They are a vastly superior team to Australia and NZ in these conditions and can go toe to toe with India for long periods of time, but India are unbeatable at home/in Asia at the moment unless you have a world class spinner.

If it is a flat wicket, their batting strength will ensure that they don't give the opposition 20 wickets and if there some turn, only few spinners can compete with Ashwin and Jadeja.

2012 was different because India had a batting lineup that was over the hill, and England had Swann and Panesar who are far better than Moeen, Rashid and Ansari.

The Pietersen factor is overrated. Sure he had a great series in India, but he was rubbish in the UAE. He was a wildcard in these conditions.

England do not have a standout middle-order batsman apart from Root right now, but the collective strength of Bairstow, Stokes and Moeen makes up for it. However, they need to drop Duckett who is not ready for these conditions.

 

[Suleiman]

I don't know, I feel like Jos is an improved batsman now and could've definitely been an inspired move in India akin to Sharjeel being selected for Aus/NZ but with a much more manageable risk v reward ratio. Give Jos the gloves and let Barstow bat in the top 4.

Idk if Jos is in the squad or not but if they do send him I'd go with him as the keeper.

With the way Bairstow is going this year he should Def bat in the top 4.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Kohli surprised by England's defensive tactics

Virat Kohli said that England's decision to stonewall in the second innings played into India's hands after they secured a 246-run victory in Visakhapatnam.

Set 405 on a wearing pitch with considerable variation in bounce, Alastair Cook and Haseeb Hameed dug in for 50.2 overs to put on 75 for the opening stand. It was high-class defensive batting from two batsmen with the technique to pull off such a difficult skill but Kohli felt that, in bowler-friendly conditions, not having the "intent" to score was not the way to go.

"We thought they would come out with more intent, to be honest," Kohli said. "And to see them approach that they had obviously gave us assurance that once we get a couple of wickets, it will crumble pretty quickly because there wasn't much intent from the batsmen."

India were able to break the opening stand late on the fourth day, an R Ashwin grubber pinning Hameed lbw and then, with what became the final ball of the day, Ravindra Jadeja dismissed Cook.

"It was a test of our patience," Kohli said. "We knew that they are going to try and annoy us by playing like this and hope that we lose that our cool, bowl with different plans and do too many things, which we did not. We maintained a similar field throughout.

"It's just that in the last over, the suggestion came from [Cheteshwar] Pujara that we could try probably a different field, have two more on the leg side and make him really defend well in the last six balls. Put a bit of doubt in his head, and it worked.

"He tried to play in front of his pad, not close to the body. That's it, little margins can give you the game. I think that was a crucial breakthrough we needed and end of day's play as well, so the new batsman did not get to face any more deliveries. He knew first thing in the morning, four more balls to go in the over and he's straightaway under pressure. As a batsman, I know that for a fact. It was a pretty crucial dismissal that for us and it really set the tone for us today."

As well as England had played to get to 87 for 2 in 59.2 overs, they lost their remaining eight wickets for only 71 runs and were bundled out 20 minutes after lunch on the fifth day.

Kohli himself made 167 in the first innings, when the pitch was at its best to bat on, but topped it up with 81 off 109 balls in the second innings when the ball began to misbehave quite frequently. He credited his success to a conscious decision not to go into a shell.

"That was the plan. To have intent. It is only if you have intent that you will be able to play the ball accordingly because you are looking to play with the bat. If you don't have intent, and you are looking to control the ball, and if it does something, then you are in no position to control it. So the edges fly off and you are not in position.

"If you are looking for runs, you defend well because your head is on the ball as well. So that was the idea to get runs as the pitch gets tougher to bat on, show intent and keep getting runs in between, extend the lead so the opposition feels the heat of those 30-40 runs. It is a pretty basic thing to do, to be honest, and if you don't have intent in the fourth innings, it is tough to play out four and a half sessions."

Cook, for his part, defended England's tactics saying there were times that players need to adapt and play against their natural way.

"We set our stall out pretty clearly that from the start of the innings that we wanted to take it as deep as possible," he said. "We saw in one game, South Africa played 140-odd overs. If we got to play 150-odd overs then we could have saved the game.

"Often in those circumstances, you just say, 'well I'll just play and we'll see where we end up at.' We made a conscious effort to play that way. Everyone bought into it. It's not some people's natural way of playing. But you say, 'play your natural way and suddenly you're four down then lower order start digging in and you think, 'why didn't we start that right at the beginning of the game'.

"So we made a very clear policy. Of course, when it does not work you feel you could have been more positive. Get the men out around the bat. You make a decision as a captain or as a leadership group. Everyone bought into it and we came up a bit short."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2016-17/content/story/1067603.html

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

"It's just that in the last over, the suggestion came from [Cheteshwar] Pujara that we could try probably a different field, have two more on the leg side and make him really defend well in the last six balls. Put a bit of doubt in his head, and it worked. He tried to play in front of his pad, not close to the body. That's it, little margins can give you the game. I think that was a crucial breakthrough we needed and end of day's play as well."


So, Cook's dismissal over plan was given by Pujara!!

 

[MMHS]

England had absolutely no chance of saving this match - had they gone with a positive approach, may be could have scored another 30-40 runs, but won't have survived 93 overs.

Cook missed a grand chance at Rajkot - in India, you have to take advantage of toss win & press hard if you have your nose ahead after first innings. I felt that Cook's declaration was after thought, once he got out; suddenly set an impossible target, other wise might have batted for another few overs at least.

India was never, never in contention of winning that Test once the Target was over 250. It's not easy to chase on 4th innings & teams can always adopt defensive/negative tactics if things start to go wrong. 114/0 in 38 overs in Day 4 - I do understand; but it was absolute dumb to bat for 147/3 in 40 overs on Day 5. Could have been another 120/6 in 20; setting 275 in 69 overs at 4 - enough to be beyond the reach of any contemporary team by 75 runs at least, on that wicket in last 2 seasons of a 5 Day Test.

 

[troodon]

Last time, 4 out of 7 Indian bats were over the hill and Ashwin became useless

Doubt that would happen this time.

Plus England had KP, Swann and Panesar.

And no, they couldn't have chased this here.

And yes, they missed a chance in Rajkot.

The bolded ones destroyed us last time. India really got embarrassed in their own den. The way KP played was the stuff of legends. Cook also played very well, but KP not only scored, he scored fast to dent India's confidence.

 

[Buffet]

Have missed umpteen # of opportunities to pull off a win.

First things first at Rajkot, they could have declared at least 10-15 overs earlier by playing fast, they did not even lose wickets in bulk during their 2nd innings, so it was strange why they didn't go for it!

Coming to Vizag, they had 5 sessions to chase 405 in ~ 150 overs which means they needed to score 2.7 RPO. I know pitch was slow but is it impossible to even tick @ 2.5-2.7 RPO? Especially when you have players like Cook, Root, Stokes, Ali and Bairstow. This was not a rank turner by any means.

Is Cook's over defensive/ safety approach to be blamed here?

Last time in 2012, they were 0-1 down and won next 2 matches to take the series. I don't see any problem with their batting or bowling as of now except Duckett. What can they do to turn this around?

You have a good point of missing a chance to win for the first test. You are equally bad point of missing the chance in the second test. Eng had very little chance to win in the second test. It's very hard to chase 400+

 

[MMHS]

You have a good point of missing a chance to win for the first test. You are equally bad point of missing the chance in the second test. Eng had very little chance to win in the second test. It's very hard to chase 400+

England had absolutely no chance of winning or even saving the 2nd match without over loss for some reason. In 150 overs, you'll get more than 20 balls like the one Ham got on this wicket. Chance lost in 1st Test - may be, not saying India would have been all out in 69 overs; but a target beyond 200 in last 2 sessions on that wicket, is near impossible.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

You have a good point of missing a chance to win for the first test. You are equally bad point of missing the chance in the second test. Eng had very little chance to win in the second test. It's very hard to chase 400+

Trying to chase 405 in 150 overs vs blocking 150 overs, which one is a safer option? Field would have been spread if they had some intent which would have unsettled field placements and length of bowlers.

 

[Buffet]

Trying to chase 405 in 150 overs vs blocking 150 overs, which one is a safer option? Field would have been spread if they had some intent which would have unsettled field placements and length of bowlers.

Both option would have resulted in loss for Eng. Chance of win was very low. Now, I do think that Eng may have been better off by playing normal game because when you simply block everything, bowler is under no pressure at all. I was only commenting about chance of win in 2nd test. There was very little chance to chase 400+.

 

[King Kong]

England were spot on with their decisions in both tests. You just can't give any target less than 300 for India with Kohli in the side. Had they given a target of 260 in 70 overs, India would have most likely won the match with Kohli being not out at the end. You could see how he determined he was in that innings of 49*. He was playing his shots effortlessly and scoring at a good rate. You can't risk losing a match especially after dominating the first 4 days in the first test of a 5-match series. People should understand that these are not the days of Dhoni where India would settle for a draw even if 80 runs were needed in 15 overs with 7 wickets in end. Indian team under Kohli is a revelation. You are gonna see India being ruthless at home and competitive outside Asia under his captaincy. He would do anything for the team and has no bias and favouritism when it comes to picking players. He is not stubborn and adamant like Dhoni; he always tries different things if his tactics are not working.

 

[Buffet]

England had absolutely no chance of winning or even saving the 2nd match without over loss for some reason. In 150 overs, you'll get more than 20 balls like the one Ham got on this wicket. Chance lost in 1st Test - may be, not saying India would have been all out in 69 overs; but a target beyond 200 in last 2 sessions on that wicket, is near impossible.

Eng was absolutely in no trouble with all wickets in hand in first test after 4th day so I never understood why will you not give yourself a chance to win by playing fast? It was a poor decision from Cook. India getting out or not out doesn't matter. You at least try to win the game. He just played for a draw despite being in a super strong position without any risk of losing.

Not often you find a visiting team with that kind of strong position in 1st test in India. Winning or losing is a different issue, but you at least try to win when you have no chance of losing. Kohli being a gun chaser talk is non-sense. In test cricket, you can bowl negative line and put fielders wherever you want. It's not ODI.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Eng was absolutely in no trouble with all wickets in hand in first test after 4th day so I never understood why will you not give yourself a chance to win by playing fast? It was a poor decision from Cook. India getting out or not out doesn't matter. You at least try to win the game. He just played for a draw despite being in a super strong position without any risk of losing.

Not often you find a visiting team with that kind of strong position in 1st test in India. Winning or losing is a different issue, but you at least try to win when you have no chance of losing. Kohli being a gun chaser talk is non-sense. In test cricket, you can bowl negative line and put fielders wherever you want. It's not ODI.

Tell that to SL in Sharjah 2014....

 

[MMHS]

England were spot on with their decisions in both tests. You just can't give any target less than 300 for India with Kohli in the side. Had they given a target of 260 in 70 overs, India would have most likely won the match with Kohli being not out at the end. You could see how he determined he was in that innings of 49*. He was playing his shots effortlessly and scoring at a good rate. You can't risk losing a match especially after dominating the first 4 days in the first test of a 5-match series. People should understand that these are not the days of Dhoni where India would settle for a draw even if 80 runs were needed in 15 overs with 7 wickets in end. Indian team under Kohli is a revelation. You are gonna see India being ruthless at home and competitive outside Asia under his captaincy. He would do anything for the team and has no bias and favouritism when it comes to picking players. He is not stubborn and adamant like Dhoni; he always tries different things if his tactics are not working.

Won't friend. You can write that now because the game is done.

Normally, when you have 50 overs to survive, you are very clear about your options. Set 250 in 5 sessions - game is different. I watched every ball of that 53'4 overs - if you think that IND/Kohli would have chased 260 in 70 overs, I won't argue, as long as it keeps you happy & bullish.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

England were spot on with their decisions in both tests. You just can't give any target less than 300 for India with Kohli in the side. Had they given a target of 260 in 70 overs, India would have most likely won the match with Kohli being not out at the end. You could see how he determined he was in that innings of 49*. He was playing his shots effortlessly and scoring at a good rate. You can't risk losing a match especially after dominating the first 4 days in the first test of a 5-match series. People should understand that these are not the days of Dhoni where India would settle for a draw even if 80 runs were needed in 15 overs with 7 wickets in end. Indian team under Kohli is a revelation. You are gonna see India being ruthless at home and competitive outside Asia under his captaincy. He would do anything for the team and has no bias and favouritism when it comes to picking players. He is not stubborn and adamant like Dhoni; he always tries different things if his tactics are not working.

This is an unknown. He would have tried but we all saw how much the ball was spinning there, once he's gone it would have resulted in ENG victory.

ENG started day 5 @ 164/0. They had to score 136 runs in 21-22 overs and declare which means 300 in 68 overs for us, Ash was off color and Mishra was trash, it was definitely possible.

 

[King Kong]

Won't friend. You can write that now because the game is done.

Normally, when you have 50 overs to survive, you are very clear about your options. Set 250 in 5 sessions - game is different. I watched every ball of that 53'4 overs - if you think that IND/Kohli would have chased 260 in 70 overs, I won't argue, as long as it keeps you happy & bullish. ��

India under Kohli is different. Kohli's Adelaide knock is a proof for that.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Tell that to SL in Sharjah 2014....

That was an epic chase by PAK.

 

[Buffet]

England were spot on with their decisions in both tests. You just can't give any target less than 300 for India with Kohli in the side. Had they given a target of 260 in 70 overs, India would have most likely won the match with Kohli being not out at the end. You could see how he determined he was in that innings of 49*.

We also saw that India was 6 down for 130 odd runs.

Let's run through a scenario.

Eng had a lead of 130 runs after 20 overs of play in second inning with 10 wickets in hands.

Eng could have batted for 40 more overs with 10 wickets to go. 5 runs and over would have put it totally out of reach for India with a target of 330 runs. 4.5 runs an over would have still put it out of reach for India with a target of 310 runs. 4.5 runs an over was not too much to ask because Eng anyway batted with 3.5 runs an over for 75 overs with so many wickets in hand. Simply there was no intention to win from Eng. 310 runs in two session is very hard for any team to chase in the test match.

 

[MMHS]

India under Kohli is different. Kohli's Adelaide knock is a proof for that.

That's why they lost the Test. I am not questioning the approach - I am talking about ability to chase. In a no win situation, it's not that the match ended IND 170/2 - they lost 6/150 & then 10 overs of read-guard with only intention of playing out overs - how do you expect them to add 100 more at 6/over on that track in 30th hour of the match?

 

[Buffet]

Tell that to SL in Sharjah 2014....

Tell that to so many countless teams who couldn't do it. You can't go with one outcome out of 50 times and decide that it's likely to happen. Your example is like some one saying WI chased 400 one time so 400 is likely to be chased in test match.

 

[Buffet]

That was an epic chase by PAK.

Bold part is key here. Epic is used here because it rarely happens. Otherwise we won't call it an epic chase.

 

[King Kong]

That's why they lost the Test. I am not questioning the approach - I am talking about ability to chase. In a no win situation, it's not that the match ended IND 170/2 - they lost 6/150 & then 10 overs of read-guard with only intention of playing out overs - how do you expect them to add 100 more at 6/over on that track in 30th hour of the match?

India would have played more aggressively right from the start. They would have put more price on their wicket. Rahane, Ashwin, Saha, even Jadeja at the end, all were out because of careless shots as they knew the match was already over.

 

[MMHS]

India would have played more aggressively right from the start. They would have put more price on their wicket. Rahane, Ashwin, Saha, even Jadeja at the end, all were out because of careless shots as they knew the match was already over.

That's why I say - not necessarily IND would have lost 10 wickets in 70 overs. What you are saying is - they would have played more cautiously, would have put more value to their wicket & then they would have scored 260+ at 4/over .......

 

[Buffet]

India would have played more aggressively right from the start. They would have put more price on their wicket. Rahane, Ashwin, Saha, even Jadeja at the end, all were out because of careless shots as they knew the match was already over.

Do you think Indian batsmen don't play careless shots unless they are trying to bat out 50-60 overs to save a test? They have done it so many time in 4 innings in this series itself.

They didn't have to score fast and just bat overs. Lost 6 wickets. You are saying that batting fast would have resulted in putting higher price on their wickets? Chasing around 300 looks unrealistic to me.

 

[TestMatch]

This might turn into a "win toss, bat first and win game" tour. That seems to be the way tours of India always go.

 

[King Kong]

That's why I say - not necessarily IND would have lost 10 wickets in 70 overs. What you are saying is - they would have played more cautiously, would have put more value to their wicket & then they would have scored 260+ at 4/over .......

I never said India would definitely win. But posted they are more likely to win than lose.

 

[King Kong]

This might turn into a "win toss, bat first and win game" tour. That seems to be the way tours of India always go.

No. You are completely wrong. Check the results of matches in India in the last 5 years.

 

[Buffet]

I never said India would definitely win. But posted they are more likely to win than lose.

No team is more likely to win chasing 280-300 runs in two sessions on 5th day in a test match. Not saying that it will never happen, but likelihood of any team chasing 300 runs in two session is not high. If you go for chase then that creates chance for Eng to win as well.

 

[Buffet]

This might turn into a "win toss, bat first and win game" tour. That seems to be the way tours of India always go.

Mare games have been won by bating second in India in recent years due to gap in quality of teams in Indian conditions.

 

[King Kong]

No team is more likely to win chasing 280-300 runs in two sessions on 5th day in a test match. Not saying that it will never happen, but likelihood of any team chasing 300 runs in two session is not high. If you go for chase then that creates chance for Eng to win as well.

300 would have resulted in England's victory. Was talking about 250-260 target.

 

[Buffet]

300 would have resulted in England's victory. Was talking about 250-260 target.

Eng could have easily set a target of around 300 if they had shown some urgency. Stoke put run a ball 30 runs. With a long batting line up, few more batsmen could have done that and even openers could have scored faster after getting to a certain lead.

 

[MMHS]

I never said India would definitely win. But posted they are more likely to win than lose.

That's not the debate - teams have chased tougher targets, teams had slipped against much easier targets. Here the issue is Cook's timing of declaration - you backed his decision, considering that it would have been foolish to set 260 in 70 overs against Virat Kohli, which I think, it's a bit OTT estimate for a player averaging below 45 before this Series. It's not ODI on absolute belters, that we are discussing here.

Any Captain will be in his dream land, if he thinks that he'll come to India (South Asia) & beat the host playing safety first game. Cook had to take some calculative risks - in Test match, the difference of a Run Rate of 2.2 & 3.5 is just about 2 fielders - put a sweeper & a long-off; you are chopping 75% of boundary chances unless your bowlers do what Mathew's lot did at Sharjah; therefore ENG was always safe, as long as the target was over 250.

Almost 12 years back, recall how PAK won the Bangalore Test, on a far better track, against a far, far, far better Indian batting line-up. Inzi set 380 in over 100 overs against a line-up of Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, VVS, Ganguly, Kartik, Kumble, IK Pathan, Bhajji & Balaji on a wicket that had scores of 570, 450, 260/2 dec. (50 Overs) ......with an attack of Sami, Razzak, Kaneria, Arshad & Afridi. It's tough to chase in Test on 4th innings - make that on 5th Day, in IND, against a decent leggi & couple of acurate finger spinners - it's damn, damn tough.

It was a poor, poor, poor choice by Cook - and he made it worse by declaring on the moment he got out.

 

[Tusker]

This might turn into a "win toss, bat first and win game" tour. That seems to be the way tours of India always go.

Actually India have won more matches after losing toss and fielding first (Since 2000):

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval1=span;template=results;toss=1;type=team

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval2=span;template=results;toss=2;type=team

 

[Robert]

I don't know, I feel like Jos is an improved batsman now and could've definitely been an inspired move in India akin to Sharjeel being selected for Aus/NZ but with a much more manageable risk v reward ratio. Give Jos the gloves and let Barstow bat in the top 4.

Idk if Jos is in the squad or not but if they do send him I'd go with him as the keeper.

With the way Bairstow is going this year he should Def bat in the top 4.

The word seems to be that Butler will play as a batsman and Bairstow keeps the gloves. In which case I suppose Mooen would move up to #4?