What's new

First Test between India and England ends in a nail-biting draw

Abdul

Abdul

ODI Debutant
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Runs
9,212
England 537 & 114/0 (37.0 ov)
India 488
England lead by 163 runs with 10 wickets remaining
 
England is in control. The only question - Can they force a win with limited amount of overs left.
 
The draw is inevitable barring a collapse, which looks very unlikely with the limited time as well
 
Looks like England is going for what I feared - back to back Test, therefore they might drain out the Indian bowlers till Tea :(
 
a super boring match. is this a return to the flatties of the 00s in india?
 
MMHS said:
Looks like England is going for what I feared - back to back Test, therefore they might drain out the Indian bowlers till Tea :(
Click to expand...

Off course ? Declaring early is pointless , if India loose early wickets they will also go for draw , better to get some batting practice.
 
Hameed is playing with someone who also has a 2nd innings debut hundred in India.
 
Justcrazy said:
Off course ? Declaring early is pointless , if India loose early wickets they will also go for draw , better to get some batting practice.
Click to expand...

This is why I don't agree with 4 Day Tests - game'll get even more boring with one team having even 5% advantage. On top of that, days like in Hobart will take out the interest from that game totally. This is Test cricket & no matter how much ranking point you give for a win, no team will go for suicidal declaration; rather dirty tricks like time wasting, negative bowling, restricting fielding will creep in to the game; whenever a team is in trouble.

We can't make Test cricket a 3 hours affair, therefore there is no point discussing 3/4 Day Tests - if one can follow it for 4 days, one more day doesn't matter. I would have made it opposite - 5 days, 98 overs/day (if not 105) & 5 runs penalty for every over missed for slow over rate. I'll just take out draw for lack of time - that'll make the match much faster & teams will play positively as they can't get away with a draw by defensive batting, neither by time wasting.

Sometimes, reverse psychology works better - the shorter duration for Test, the more defensive the game will be. Aussies play most attacking cricket - if one more days at Hobart is lost, I can bet Smith will go for absolute defensive tactics, delay SAF scoring as much as possible & then bat utmost carefully to pass out whatever time is left. Making 4 Day Test - almost every Test will go to that direction & it'll be a joke, if it's made 3 days.
 
MMHS said:
This is why I don't agree with 4 Day Tests - game'll get even more boring with one team having even 5% advantage. On top of that, days like in Hobart will take out the interest from that game totally. This is Test cricket & no matter how much ranking point you give for a win, no team will go for suicidal declaration; rather dirty tricks like time wasting, negative bowling, restricting fielding will creep in to the game; whenever a team is in trouble.

We can't make Test cricket a 3 hours affair, therefore there is no point discussing 3/4 Day Tests - if one can follow it for 4 days, one more day doesn't matter. I would have made it opposite - 5 days, 98 overs/day (if not 105) & 5 runs penalty for every over missed for slow over rate. I'll just take out draw for lack of time - that'll make the match much faster & teams will play positively as they can't get away with a draw by defensive batting, neither by time wasting.

Sometimes, reverse psychology works better - the shorter duration for Test, the more defensive the game will be. Aussies play most attacking cricket - if one more days at Hobart is lost, I can bet Smith will go for absolute defensive tactics, delay SAF scoring as much as possible & then bat utmost carefully to pass out whatever time is left. Making 4 Day Test - almost every Test will go to that direction & it'll be a joke, if it's made 3 days.
Click to expand...

Probably only way 4 day Test can work is having uncovered pitchees.

The lack of interest in Test is mainly because of flat pitches , and bowlers not having much in them. If there is no balance between bat and ball , then it is not cricket.
 
MMHS said:
This is why I don't agree with 4 Day Tests - game'll get even more boring with one team having even 5% advantage. On top of that, days like in Hobart will take out the interest from that game totally. This is Test cricket & no matter how much ranking point you give for a win, no team will go for suicidal declaration; rather dirty tricks like time wasting, negative bowling, restricting fielding will creep in to the game; whenever a team is in trouble.

We can't make Test cricket a 3 hours affair, therefore there is no point discussing 3/4 Day Tests - if one can follow it for 4 days, one more day doesn't matter. I would have made it opposite - 5 days, 98 overs/day (if not 105) & 5 runs penalty for every over missed for slow over rate. I'll just take out draw for lack of time - that'll make the match much faster & teams will play positively as they can't get away with a draw by defensive batting, neither by time wasting.

Sometimes, reverse psychology works better - the shorter duration for Test, the more defensive the game will be. Aussies play most attacking cricket - if one more days at Hobart is lost, I can bet Smith will go for absolute defensive tactics, delay SAF scoring as much as possible & then bat utmost carefully to pass out whatever time is left. Making 4 Day Test - almost every Test will go to that direction & it'll be a joke, if it's made 3 days.
Click to expand...

Rather it should be 6 days instead of 5 days. We will get results on flat pitch too. Draw in test will decrease surely. ICC should think about 6days test instead of ridiculous 4days theory.
 
MMHS said:
This is why I don't agree with 4 Day Tests - game'll get even more boring with one team having even 5% advantage. On top of that, days like in Hobart will take out the interest from that game totally. This is Test cricket & no matter how much ranking point you give for a win, no team will go for suicidal declaration; rather dirty tricks like time wasting, negative bowling, restricting fielding will creep in to the game; whenever a team is in trouble.

We can't make Test cricket a 3 hours affair, therefore there is no point discussing 3/4 Day Tests - if one can follow it for 4 days, one more day doesn't matter. I would have made it opposite - 5 days, 98 overs/day (if not 105) & 5 runs penalty for every over missed for slow over rate. I'll just take out draw for lack of time - that'll make the match much faster & teams will play positively as they can't get away with a draw by defensive batting, neither by time wasting.

Sometimes, reverse psychology works better - the shorter duration for Test, the more defensive the game will be. Aussies play most attacking cricket - if one more days at Hobart is lost, I can bet Smith will go for absolute defensive tactics, delay SAF scoring as much as possible & then bat utmost carefully to pass out whatever time is left. Making 4 Day Test - almost every Test will go to that direction & it'll be a joke, if it's made 3 days.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of us advocate just shortening Tests.

My plan has four pillars:

1. Reduce Tests to 4 days of 100 overs each.
2. Introduce a maximum First Innings length of 110 overs for both sides.
3. Make all Test series a minimum of 3 matches long, with the following points system per Test:
WIN = 10 points
DRAW = 2 points
LOSS = 0 points
FORFEITED SERIES: Team refusing to play = Minus 30 points, Team willing to play = Plus 30 points.
4. Make all teams play all other Division 1 (Top Eight) sides home and away every 4 years in a minimum 3 Test series.

I can guarantee you, even wickets like this would produce a result, because why accept a Draw and 2 points?
 
RA the great akhada bowler can't get wicket on flat pitch on day 5! Overrated by akhada pitch. Yasir is much more better bowler than him.
 
Junaids said:
I don't think any of us advocate just shortening Tests.

My plan has four pillars:

1. Reduce Tests to 4 days of 100 overs each.
2. Introduce a maximum First Innings length of 110 overs for both sides.
3. Make all Test series a minimum of 3 matches long, with the following points system per Test:
WIN = 10 points
DRAW = 2 points
LOSS = 0 points
FORFEITED SERIES: Team refusing to play = Minus 30 points, Team willing to play = Plus 30 points.
4. Make all teams play all other Division 1 (Top Eight) sides home and away every 4 years in a minimum 3 Test series.

I can guarantee you, even wickets like this would produce a result, because why accept a Draw and 2 points?
Click to expand...

Pak's point of view mostly. Not a neutral suggestions at all. And you miss the different weightage of home and away series idea.
 
Make India chase about 285 to make things interesting.
 
Nil Dhumrojal said:
Pak's point of view mostly. Not a neutral suggestions at all. And you miss the different weightage of home and away series idea.
Click to expand...

My model doesn't help Pakistan - they don't play any home series!

The point of doing it over a several year home and away cycle is that you eliminate for everyone else the effect of home and away series.
 
Suleiman said:
Make India chase about 285 to make things interesting.
Click to expand...

285 chase in 50 overs is not going to keep it interesting. Indians won't even try. Eng had to bat faster with 10 wickets in hands, but they have no intent here. They are playing for a draw unless Indians collapse in 50 odd overs.
 
Justcrazy said:
Probably only way 4 day Test can work is having uncovered pitchees.

The lack of interest in Test is mainly because of flat pitches , and bowlers not having much in them. If there is no balance between bat and ball , then it is not cricket.
Click to expand...

Won't - uncovered wicket doesn't mean under prepared wicket. There were uncovered wickets till 1950s - there were scores over 600 frequently & matches were drawn as well unless it's played till result (timeless Test). This is absolute BULL SH!T that Bradman was God & he scored those runs on uncovered mine fields - easiest explanation is Lara, Tendulkar will maintain an average of 200 if they are to play club level bowlers, form whom 120KM is blowing Typhoon, natural angle from bowling stride at 120KM is like swing samurai; backed by fielders whose bread basket ran ahead of air basket (chest) - but I won't go to that discussion here.

Uncovered wicket might bring uncertainty, but it doesn't mean low scoring match or certain result. We can make under-prepared wickets to force result in 3 days, but that's not cricket - you don't need to uncover wicket for that. BUT, that'll make the game a lottery, batsmen'll start to slog instead of building a proper innings & most importantly - bowling skills will finish. Bowlers will learn to put darts on good spot & wait for wicket to get him a scalp or batman throwing wicket for going after.

This game is not about duration or run or wicket - it's about a good contest between bat & ball. Every rule in cricket is in favor of batsman & that's quite logical - a bowler can go for 36 in one over, but he can come back with a couple of wickets next over. A batsman can play flawless cricket for 2 hours, then first mistake, he is out & he gets just 2 bites on the cherry in a Test. That's why historically, batsmen never responses to any sledge - he'll never win.

A Test match should be played on good, firm wicket with pace & true bounce where batsman can play his shots & back his technique/temperament to survive; while bowlers will work hard, set traps & get a batsman out with the support of his fielders - gradually wickets 'll start to assist the bowler who knows how to use that deterioration, the condition & his cunningness to work out a batsman. Test cricket is like an Opera - to build the story & dramatization, you need proper duration - Gone with the Wind can't be made in 100 minutes, whoever is the Director. It's a simple, beautiful game - you try to bring efficiency in it like hatching 2 eggs a day by over dose of steroids - by product will be like T20 (don't bring anyone in front of me, who says that this BPL is ...................).
 
jeetu said:
Pretty sedate partnership considering match situation.
Click to expand...

They are simply playing for a draw and hoping to pick up few wickets later to scare India a bit. They are not playing to win this test. Simply make Indians bowlers bowl lots of overs and have them tired for the next match. That's the thought process.
 
England won't get this chance as it seems India will produce akhada for the next four match. Eng should have to try to win this one. Disappointed with Eng team.
 
Looks like, Eng players are fixing their average in ind series which was decreased by Bangladesh �� :D
 
Which part of Mishra's boot was behind the line?

I'm baffled. Seems like Ravi Shastri umpired that decision with his commentary.
 
Wonder if Cook would be willing to shake hands and call off the match in the last session or will be trying to tire the Indian bowlers to ground..
 
giving a target under 300 is suicidal imo that too on this highway

remember sehwag once rattled eng in one session at chennai

india may lack that kind of player now but have got very good hitters so setting any target will be bad
 
This pitch should be banned from hosting any match.

I would have understood if one team could score runs but both the team scoring almost 1000 runs.... Not good for test cricket.
 
Itachi said:
This pitch should be banned from hosting any match.

I would have understood if one team could score runs but both the team scoring almost 1000 runs.... Not good for test cricket.
Click to expand...

Now we know how Jadeja managed triple after triple.
 
Itachi said:
I think 350-360 declaration could make this match a little bit alive. Else, one should goto sleep for the Sunday afternoon.
Click to expand...

350 would make you fall asleep. No way India would even think of chasing. To make this match interesting, the target should not be more than 300. India might think of having a go at it.
 
Junaids said:
I don't think any of us advocate just shortening Tests.

My plan has four pillars:

1. Reduce Tests to 4 days of 100 overs each.
2. Introduce a maximum First Innings length of 110 overs for both sides.
3. Make all Test series a minimum of 3 matches long, with the following points system per Test:
WIN = 10 points
DRAW = 2 points
LOSS = 0 points
FORFEITED SERIES: Team refusing to play = Minus 30 points, Team willing to play = Plus 30 points.
4. Make all teams play all other Division 1 (Top Eight) sides home and away every 4 years in a minimum 3 Test series.

I can guarantee you, even wickets like this would produce a result, because why accept a Draw and 2 points?
Click to expand...

Won't work - let me explain you why, 1 by 1

1. Cricket's future is in Asia - playing 100 overs/day is near impossible in cricket season. Over rate in UK/AUS is far better because teams know that delaying rate will simply make them work for longer. Take the Sharja Test - both team knew that after 5:10, it's not possible to continue - despite all sorts of fines & demerit points, both team was happy to bowl 83 overs/day & shake hands at 5:10. It's human nature - whenever a side will be in trouble, they'll simply waste time as a survival tool. May be we can use lights & other staff, but still don't see that.

2. I'll NEVER restrict the 1st innings - that kills one of the fundamentals of the game : SCORE BOARD PRESSURE. Test cricket is built on character - on absolute belters, I have seen top class batting line-up collapsing facing a 1st innings of 600/4D. That takes one of the most critical factors that makes Test cricket entertaining - coming back on 2nd innings.

The 2nd aspect you missed is quite obvious, I was expecting that from an English man. You are signing the death penalty for spinners - how, I can explain, but I don't think that'll be required.

3rd, restricting 1st innings doesn't encourage positive cricket, rather, it'll make the game even boring & ugly. Why - I give 2 scenarios - on a green top or turner team 1 goes to Tea at 170/5 in 60 overs, no issues. BUT, at another scenario, that same team goes to Tea at 200/2 - I'll bet my house on this, after Tea, fielding Captain will set T20 fielding & ask his bowlers to bowl ODI wide - instead of working hard to get 10 wickets, it's better to stop scoring for next 55 overs. In that case, another fundamental is gone - those 1, 2 & 3 of batting side are basically costing their team - top 3 are to set the game, here they are costing the game by preserving wicket. This will again finish bowling skills - teams will go for accurate darters with batting skills so that the game becomes an 110 over ODI game. In 90s, ECB used that 100 overs rule for bonus point - eventually they changed that after similar explanation I am writing here given by a gentleman name Richi Benaud (JP Agnew asked him, why English bowlers struggle to finish off the tail - he said, it's too easy for them in County to knock the tail & then explained)

Besides, batting records are established by players batting 10, 12, even 16 hours - why should we deprive modern players in a way that he can maximum reach 200. It's not County cricket that Steve Osagnesy will get 70km full toss with fielders helping him to fastest FC hundred (& set a target) - if I restrict innings by 110 overs, we'll not get a single double hundred in Test & then some day you'll come up with theories that Sobers was so great that he scored 365*, Joe Root can't even score 165.

3 & 4 are fine, though I'll keep iconic 5 Test Series in tact, while no point playing 3 Test Series between IND/PAK/AUS/ENG vs ZIM & BD (in their home).

But, I don't agree with you conclusion regarding points. Because, you are looking at this only from one angle - I see it both ways. First, it's not about 2 points for a draw - it's about depriving your opponent of 10 points. A side with 100 runs 1st innings lead will go crazy for a win in 4 Day Test - simply because after innings of 450 & 353, there can be only one winner in a 4 Day Test. But, what's the incentive for the side having a 97 deficit? It's not that the 1st side will set them 250 in 70 overs. It's always better to get 2 points from a draw than losing & thus depriving other team 10 points. I give a real life example - giving 3 points for a win doesn't made teams to "start Bus" at Old Traford, when Fergi was there - 1 point for a draw was better than ZERO.

You asked who'll accept draw with 2 points - I change the rule : 1,000 points for a win, 1 for draw & 0 for a lose. 100% time, team with a disadvantage will play for draw if there is not enough time for them to make a come back & force win.


PS: Sorry for the grammatical errors - typing & watching game.
 
King Kong said:
350 would make you fall asleep. No way India would even think of chasing. To make this match interesting, the target should not be more than 300. India might think of having a go at it.
Click to expand...

Cook is defensive like Dhoni. Don't think he'll go for it.

But certainly it could have made it much interesting.
 
Varun said:
Stokes.

A declaration is imminent.
Click to expand...

"Imminent"?

I think England want to bat another hour after lunch and score another 70 in 14 overs, leaving a target of 320 in 40 overs.

Seriously, I think that's the plan.
 
Itachi said:
You are talking about A RUN????? SERIOUSLY????
Click to expand...

Cook was on 99. He was never trying to take risks. Why would you want him to score hundred that easily by having fielders at the boundary?. Should have made him take risks.
 
England 537 & 206/2 (64.5 ov)
India 488
England lead by 255 runs with 8 wickets remaining
 
Didnt watch the watch today. Out of station.

Looks like shami and ashwin bowled really tight in the morning. Seems like ashwin has been putting more body today and created quite a few chances.

Good signs for india moving forward in this series.

Should draw this match without much problem. And congo mishy boy for the 2 wickets.
 
Ashwin now has two wickets for 266 in the match.

Batted Cooky.
 
2 wickets for 213.....

Garbage bowling earlier.

Good bowling today.

Not a big deal. Its the garbage bowling which can be annoying. Stats will take care of itself soon.
 
It seems Kohli's one-day chasing reputation induces them to delay their declaration:kohli
 
MMHS said:
Won't work - let me explain you why, 1 by 1

1. Cricket's future is in Asia -
2. I'll NEVER restrict the 1st innings - that kills one of the fundamentals of the game : SCORE BOARD PRESSURE. .
Click to expand...

My friend, we've got to do something to salvage Test cricket in Asia.

The Adelaide experience last year at the Day/Night Test made me realise that there is a huge problem here.

Most Aussies prefer Tests, and only watch 20/50 overs cricket because it's on when they can watch it. As soon as Test cricket was available in that evening time slot, that's what they watched.

But Test cricket is dying in Asia, and the initial experience tells us that the Pink Ball alone won't save it - in fact it isn't at all suited to use in Asia.

We need to take bold action to salvage Test cricket. We can't afford the mismatches and we can't afford the high scoring draws (or even victories) to continue.

My template would be a bit different to yours.

Let's say England hosts India at Trent Bridge and wins the toss. My 110 over cap means that the First Innings is closed at 380-7 before Lunch on Day 2, after some late slogging from 280-3 at 90 overs. Under current rules they would have posted 550.

India then don't bat very well, but end up 260 all out an hour before Lunch on Day 3.

Under old Test rules the match would be boring now - trailing by 290 on First Innings. But under my 110 over cap, they only trail by 120 and so the game is still alive.

When England bat again, they can't afford to just bat India out of the game because they might open up the draw as a possibility. So they bat positively for 70 overs and score 280-6 declared, then leave India to face 5 overs before the close and a chase for 400 in 95 overs.

The game stays alive. The better team is likely to win, but this is still recognisable as Test cricket even though it is speeded up.

And it's the First Innings cap and the positive declaration driven by points which keeps it exciting and alive.
 
Junaids said:
My friend, we've got to do something to salvage Test cricket in Asia.

The Adelaide experience last year at the Day/Night Test made me realise that there is a huge problem here.

Most Aussies prefer Tests, and only watch 20/50 overs cricket because it's on when they can watch it. As soon as Test cricket was available in that evening time slot, that's what they watched.

But Test cricket is dying in Asia, and the initial experience tells us that the Pink Ball alone won't save it - in fact it isn't at all suited to use in Asia.

We need to take bold action to salvage Test cricket. We can't afford the mismatches and we can't afford the high scoring draws (or even victories) to continue.

My template would be a bit different to yours.

Let's say England hosts India at Trent Bridge and wins the toss. My 110 over cap means that the First Innings is closed at 380-7 before Lunch on Day 2, after some late slogging from 280-3 at 90 overs. Under current rules they would have posted 550.

India then don't bat very well, but end up 260 all out an hour before Lunch on Day 3.

Under old Test rules the match would be boring now - trailing by 290 on First Innings. But under my 110 over cap, they only trail by 120 and so the game is still alive.

When England bat again, they can't afford to just bat India out of the game because they might open up the draw as a possibility. So they bat positively for 70 overs and score 280-6 declared, then leave India to face 5 overs before the close and a chase for 400 in 95 overs.

The game stays alive. The better team is likely to win, but this is still recognisable as Test cricket even though it is speeded up.

And it's the First Innings cap and the positive declaration driven by points which keeps it exciting and alive.
Click to expand...

I think, Test Cricket is doing quite well in Asia, particularly in IND & now BD. We are in 2016 - you don't need to spend 8 hours in stadium to follow the game. Personally, I am more than happy to watch the game in screen & do my other staffs. Besides, in UK, 90% stadium fans are pensioner, next year might be resting at a cemetery, rather than coming to Lord's; in Asia, young people follow the game. The world has changed - if you check the bank balance of Reeds Hastings (Netflix) or Jeff Bezos (Amazon.Com), you'll be surprised - no one visits their shops!!!!!!!

Coming to the 1st innings restriction - why it needs to be enforced? Take this match - ENG made 538, which is fine; now IND is No. 1 team, playing at home & it doesn't cost much if they lose this Test, there are 4 more to make up. Why Virat didn't declare at 414/6 on 4th day lunch? ENG with a 125 lead, bats for 50 overs & set IND 370 in 110 overs ...... so, forget about that "positive" declaration. That won't ever happen. It CAN happen in current context as well - trailing 0-1, Smith declared on 5th morning at SCG to set Aussies 300 in 85 overs, because it doesn't matter much losing 2-0 or 1-0 - Panta won that Test. But, leading 1-0, in the 2nd & Final Test, Misbah didn't go for that (NZ, 2011) & rightly so......... PAK won that series 1-0.

If there is a 110 overs cap, let me tell you what will happen. First, IND will drop Mishra, Umesh & Sami - will pick Pandeya, Karan Sharma & Stuart Binny.

2nd, Virat won't allow Poms to reach 280/3 in 90 overs - he'll set T20 fielding after lunch, unless Poms go to lunch at 90/4 against the swing & pace or Pandeya & Binny.

3rd, ENG scores 380, some how - IND'll make sure that they bat 110 overs with Jadeja coming at 11 - may be they score 260. 224 of 400 overs gone.

Virat will start 2nd innings to make sure that ENG doesn't score at more than 2; ENG won't slog either, because of 120 lead, and that length of Indian batting, if they are 90/4 now, IND might get a target of 280.

Finally, ENG sets, 375 in 105 overs - IND will bat with classic Pujara/Vijay style - 176/1 in 75 overs, then they'll try to score 200 in 30 overs - couple of wickets down, again back to safe mood - Cook & Virat shaking hands 30 minutes before with score of 233/5....

I can tell the opposite story if the match is at Nagpur, instead of Nottingham.

A Test match is always alive, because of 3 results - a draw is a result in Test. I am just suggesting that, a match is not drawn because of lack of time.
 
England have adopted the right strategy. Those complaining that they haven't pushed for a win today don't understand.

Well done Cook and England. Thou shall not go down easily like South Africa and New Zealand.

The Queen will fight and fight.

Go England.
 
Bangladesh Test was a good practice for England. They are well prepared for the Four tests ahead, getting a lot of batting practice here. Ashwin probably has a mental block against England.
 
Nil Dhumrojal said:
Rather it should be 6 days instead of 5 days. We will get results on flat pitch too. Draw in test will decrease surely. ICC should think about 6days test instead of ridiculous 4days theory.
Click to expand...

One way, but there is no end - we can make it 7 days as well.

Rather, I am looking for a balance - 5 Day Test are established; just the productivity has to increase. Till 70s, in a 5 Day Test, average overs were bowled around 500 to 550 (due to over rate - those days, great fast bowlers could bowl 170km speed from 12 step run-ups & 18 overs/hour rate). Lloyd found out that, instead of toiling for 96 overs (16/hour), his bowlers are better to bowl at 12/hour & get 20 wickets in 3 days work, while his batsmen could easily out do that 3 day batting effort in 2 days. Unfortunately, every team took it from Lloyd's book, without his "tools" - hence we got so many draws in 80s & 90s.

ICC did a great job to make it 450 overs with make up time for delays; which unless it's a wash out, producing around 80% W/L results (& teams like BD are suffering :() - I just want to take it to 95% level with adding just about 35-38 overs, keeping the days at 5.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
England (171/9) defeat India (145/9) by 26 runs to register their first win in the 5-match T20I series
2 3 4
Replies
266
Views
5K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
The Bald Eagle
  • Locked
England vs India | 1st Test | Headingley | June 20-24 | Pre-Match Discussion
2
Replies
80
Views
2K
Rajdeep
R
FearlessRoar
Zimbabwe (133/8) defeat Pakistan (132/7) in a nail-biting encounter by 2 wickets to register win in the 3rd T20I - Pakistan win the series by 2-1
2 3 4
Replies
308
Views
6K
Dantheone
Dantheone
The Bald Eagle
India (166/8) clinch a thrilling victory over England (165/9) in the second T20I, leading 2-0 in the 5-match series
3 4 5
Replies
320
Views
5K
Devadwal
Devadwal
BouncerGuy
  • Locked
England vs India | 2nd Test | Edgbaston | July 02-06 | Pre-Match Discussion
2
Replies
152
Views
3K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Back
Top