Pakistan v England, 1st Test, Abu Dhabi, 13-17 October, 2015

Wowzer! Adil Rashid is the first English leggie to take a 5fer since 1959! Kin enda.

Good bouncebackability frem 'Yorkie lad.

vilkrang wrote:Really annoying face.

Eh?

Is that connected with the supposedly "disgraceful human" Bairstow? Did he do a gargoyle impression when he got out, or summat?

Very harsh, if so. He gave it a better shot than the other one-day batting specialists (Buttler, Stokes) in the fraught situation of lash out or get out. I wouldn't begrudge the lad a wee "octopus tentacle just went up my clacker" look in the circs.


Whether he's a Test match batsman is still highly dubious, of course. But it's not a Smiling Adonis At All Times contest, is it?

And at least he's no Shane Watson.

Plus, some very decent catching/fielding ....

Brass Monkey wrote:

tricycle wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

tricycle wrote:Farcical end. The light rule needs reviewing

I do agree that it needs reviewing - but it didn't look great out there

Yes, it wasn't great, but the current rule does allow for the fielding side to waste time.

Yeah definitely - 11 overs per hour is a shocker, especially given the fact that it was mainly spin being bowled

Indeed, if they had bowled at a halfway acceptable rate we would have had a result. Should be a ban for Misbah as an absolute minimum.

They really did pull the chain of integrity when they called the "extended rolling family conference" near the end - and the umps should have muttered some polite words about the remote possibility of - you never know - reporting the captain early in the piece. Since it was thunderously predictable it would increasingly slide to farce if England scored any runs at all.

However, in fairness and balance:

a) for a while at least, just about any side would have dragged it out a little bit (WIndies have been notorious for this over the years, and despite the highest ethical standards claimed, even Oz don't entirely run top-speed around the park to speed a defeat);

b) England might have got on with it a bit sooner, batting last evening (once they were starting to near the Pakistan total), and perhaps in the field at the start of their opponents' second knock. And Aussie or NZ briskness there might have made the difference.

Having said a) and b) - just in case it's not clear - Misbah's boys did increasingly bring themselves into disrepute in the latter stages. And the umpires might have taken out a sky rocket or two, and shown them as a courteous reminder, sooner. (But I said those two things at the top of this post, so shouldn't really be misunderstandable! )

Not quite another nail in the coffin of test cricket but it won't be winning any new fans. My mate showed a little interest during the Ashes but complained that there were no tight finishes. I thought today would be a good advert but instead it was a prime example of why test cricket will never progress whilst there are rules that punish spectators.

Nothing will change though, I hoped after the 2013 debacle that it might but no one cares enough about test cricket to do anything about it. This type of thing will keep happening. It's a joke that you can have matches played in total darkness but for flood lights yet teams go off for bad light when there is still day light and under flood lights.

Incidentally I'd have exactly the same feelings were Pakistan chasing and denied, the only loser in this situation is the game.

A word or two for Jimmy: 2 wickets in his opening spell to open up the middle order and three excellent catches at slip. It's just a pity he can't field there to his own bowling!

Great bowling by Rashid and sublime slippage by Jimmy. He really ought to be full time in the slips and Bell-end should (if he continues to be picked, with his increasingly dismal attitude) be put out somewhere else where he can be less costly.

And wtf was Butler doing calling for a review? Wasn't even close to being marginal - obviously not an issue in terms of how it impacted upon the result but it was dozy thinking given the need to maximise the use of the time/light available.

Bairstow's batting still not up to it - he looks his best when 20/20 slogging it, perhaps that ought to be his M.O. from here on in.

Roll on Dubai - and let's see how we go against their leggie.

This game was Rashid's career in microcosm. Periods of getting absolutely carted interspersed with the odd spell of ripping through a side.

Regardless of how the pitch changed, he was definitely putting more action into his delivery in the second digs and getting drift through the air as a result. For whatever reason, he doesn't do this every time he bowls and seems quite happy to just lob the ball down pretty flat. Maybe it's a confidence thing, I don't know. But the drift and dip that caused a little uncertainty in the batsmen's footwork was nowhere to be seen in the first innings. And he can't blame the pitch - it doesn't affect how the ball flies through the air.

Anyway, good on him. I don't think he's a potential world-beater, but if he can consistently find some kind of happy medium between match-changing five-fors and an all-you-can-eat buffet of full bungers, he could be a very decent spin option. You know, until James Tredwell somehow weasels his way back in.

There's no reason why we can't go with six bowlers beyond this series. Slot Moeen at 5, keep Rashid at eight and find another opener. Just don't ask me who that might be though.

Is it me or did Rashid keep his googly under wraps? All of his wickets came from leggies.

tricycle wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

tricycle wrote:Farcical end. The light rule needs reviewing

I do agree that it needs reviewing - but it didn't look great out there

Yes, it wasn't great, but the current rule does allow for the fielding threatened side to waste time.

Great effort by England. Shame it was a draw.

Batting sides have done it, too ... another set of gloves please. I'm a bit thirsty.

The rules just need a little tweak so that they stipulate that 90 overs will be bowled in a day as far as weather permits and so long as players' safety is not compromised.

Welly well well - England almost pulled off a remarkable victory!! Well done to Rashid on his Michelle.

Delighted for Rashid. Hopefully this will permanently convince the likes of Cook that a leg spinner is a mighty handy asset to have. He bowled extremely well, too. It wasn't like he got wickets through long hops and full tosses.

But yeah, EVERY time one of these bad light situations comes up, we lament cricket's ability to shoot itself in the foot. What can be done? Well, if the pink ball day/night tests go well, maybe ALL test cricket should be played with a pink ball? So when the lights are needed, there can be no complaints about not being able to see the ball.

Obviously tradition states that the ball for tests should be red, but test cricket can't afford to shun the fans in favour of tradition anymore.

Basil wrote:The rules just need a little tweak so that they stipulate that 90 overs will be bowled in a day as far as weather permits and so long as players' safety is not compromised.

Seems so simple doesn't it? Additionally, the fielding side should be docked runs if they time waste to such an extent that the batting side doesn't have enough time to bat said overs.

The problem is that it shouldn't become like how ODIs were where only one side gets punished for slow over rates. Would need to be applied uniformly.

Cook did a remarkable imitation of S Waugh...despite being the in-form man, he elected to send others in.

horace wrote:Cook did a remarkable imitation of S Waugh...despite being the in-form man, he elected to send others in.

Not fair on Chef: he's palpably unsuited to the hurly-burly of a run-chase - just look at his ODI record.

Basil wrote:

horace wrote:Cook did a remarkable imitation of S Waugh...despite being the in-form man, he elected to send others in.

Not fair on Chef: he's palpably unsuited to the hurly-burly of a run-chase - just look at his ODI record.

Damn straight - however much I've disliked his decision making and stubbornness and his buck passing, he's never shirked on the pitch.

He was trying to win the game and the best tactic for winning that game was to put players in with a greater shot selection. The weak decision would have been to keep the batting order the same.

Seems to me like horold (surprise, surprise) is clouding his judgement on the basis of how much he likes a player as a person, rather than his actions.

Or dusting off his WUTP shtick?

Henry wrote:Delighted for Rashid. Hopefully this will permanently convince the likes of Cook that a leg spinner is a mighty handy asset to have. He bowled extremely well, too. It wasn't like he got wickets through long hops and full tosses.

...

Personally, I think Case Rashid is still unproven.

And I say that as a cautious advocate of his selection earlier.

I think I've said on here (others certainly have elsewhere) that he is never likely to be 100% consistent, or massively economical, in Test cricket. That's the standard truth for leggies. There have probably only been five/six leggies in the whole of Test history who have been both metronomic and "tight" (or even particularly one of those). It's not generally their strength. They are attackers. Leg spinners often have the ambitious temperament of an especially feisty quick. Not generally calm, reflective, philosophical types.

And the wrist is not as precise as the fingers.

Rashid will certainly have off days, and unlucky days, where it's not just leaking boundaries, but fruitless churning. Where he seems a liability (and you can only hope he contributes a good score with the bat - as he is talented enough to do,,, on occasion.) Pudding pitches are often the death for legspinners, since if there's no spring, no grip, no bounce in the pitch, the ball tends all too predictably to "sit up and beg".

However, he has an approach, and angles (and "weapons") other bowlers don't. On his day, he can win matches.

Someone (Boycott??) said recently he is a "second-innings bowler". Well, quite often pretty much true of any spinner - deteriorating and/or drying pitch, etc. But he meant more than that. Once Rashid starts to strike, he really gets his teeth in. He has a killer's instinct - to finish a team, and match, off.

While England have the luxury of six bowlers (or seven, if you include Root), my inclination is to have him in more than out. But it does to an extent depend on the pitch. ....


And - you know - "we'll see".

Provided we have six bowling options, we can afford to "carry" Rashid, especially if he's going to disembowel lower order batting like he did in this test. It will be interesting to see him bowl on South African pitches with their greater bounce

Brass Monkey wrote:

Basil wrote:

horace wrote:Cook did a remarkable imitation of S Waugh...despite being the in-form man, he elected to send others in.

Not fair on Chef: he's palpably unsuited to the hurly-burly of a run-chase - just look at his ODI record.

Damn straight - however much I've disliked his decision making and stubbornness and his buck passing, he's never shirked on the pitch.

He was trying to win the game and the best tactic for winning that game was to put players in with a greater shot selection. The weak decision would have been to keep the batting order the same.

Seems to me like horold (surprise, surprise) is clouding his judgement on the basis of how much he likes a player as a person, rather than his actions.

I admire Cook's toughness and abilities...he can also score freely...not a wu