England v India, 5th Test, The Oval, 7-11 September, 2018

It probably is the best Indian seam attack I’ve seen - the fact said seamers can’t bat, however, is a major weakness in this day and age. Carrying three genuine rabbits (who scored 75 runs @ 3.75 between them in this series!) is going to cost you a lot of runs. England’s lower middle order was the deciding factor, and the fact that 9, 10 and jack could be trusted to hang around with one of them was a major help to that.

SACK KOHLI NOW!!!!!!

furriner wrote:SACK KOHLI NOW!!!!!!

Big Dog wrote:

furriner wrote:SACK KOHLI NOW!!!!!!

WOTAQUNT! IF HE WAS ANY KIND OF BATSMAN HE'D HAVE WON THIS IN A DODDLE. SACK THE B@STARD!!!

So ... that was never a 4-1 in the play, although in the final score.

For fun, a wind-up or in all earnestness, Horrie used to be fond of banging on about doctored pitches - maybe he still does. But it's a good case of home conditions, which should be no cause for objection unless something is concealed before the start, or switched during the 5 days. The England attack was fast-medium at best, medium-fast at times, but the swing and seam made speed not the prime concern.

Was also a case of India - most notably at Lord's - not getting the rub of the green in key periods of play. Oh, and - while top orders were both substandard in form - the Indian tail was quite a bit longer.

India have quite a bit to draw on, for all the ostensibly thumping series defeat. They competed (for the most part) with more resolve and talent than Indian teams have often done abroad. They have the makings of an excellent four-man speed attack (if they can keep them fit), which should stand them in good stead Down Under and elsewhere where speed matters more. And two very decent spinners (ditto re: fitness). The concern is of course the reliance of their batting on Kohli. Hopefully as far as they are concerned, the England series was more about a dip in form and confidence (in unpredictable conditions) than a decline in class.

Even England's management set-up must realise - as Root clearly does - the 4-1 is far from what it seems. In a sense, England's worries are greater than India's. The same continuing wonkiness in the top order - and not just in form in the case of Jennings, I fear, he's stiff as a board and has not improved on that. As with Ballance, and a rotating door of attempted openers, you can't excuse nerves for ever.

And then England have two veterans leading their attack - how much longer will even their bodies take it? - and other seamers and swingers without great pace, whose best performances are likely to stay in English conditions. Don't get me wrong, Curran was great, he can really bat - but there's a strong risk,,if he can't add a yard or more of pace, he will be cannon fodder especially in the Southern Hemisphere. Overton (J) and/or possibly the Middlesex guy whose name I can't even remember - if he ever comes back - Roland-Jones, that's the name - someone is going to have to be found for tours who can hurry batsmen on a bit. Maybe Rashid - brought back controversially, and obviously against Root's wishes, given how little he bowls him - is the answer, but I'd rather see Leach at this stage. In Tests.

You've got to like Moeen. Except he's not really a number 3 at Test level, any more than Root. He's borderline Test batting at all, you might say, and borderline Test bowling outside England. I'd still find him a place if there's an obvious gap, as he usually produces something.

I've gone on about Burns (R) before. But despite his unorthodox stance, he pressed a fine case for selection all summer and was roundly ignored by the selectors.

Smith made some odd decisions - not just in easy retrospect - a couple of which paid off to an extent. Buttler batting only, at 7, was a qualified success. Rashid? Hmm, maybe. Mo at 3? Well, to an extent. But persisting with the wardrobe Jennings, sticking Pope in at 4 where he's rarely played at County level, then hooking him out, playing Bairstow with a broken finger, whistling Stokes straight back out of court into the team, and dropping man-of-the-match Curran to accommodate him, insisting on Root at 3 when he hates padding up from the start, and facing the moving new ball as he repeatedly had to do, Bairstow at 4 and Stokes at 5 .... bizarre acts.

Some structure for the Southern Hemisphere like:

Burns R
Bairstow
Hildreth (or Mitchell D ***)
Root *
Moeen or Pope
Buttler +
Curran S
Overton J
Broad or Woakes
Leach?
Anderson or Wood

(*** - HILDRETH/Mitchell??? Well, until Kohler-Cadmore, Brook, Abell, Joe Clarke or someone presses a better, more consistent case than at present. Or Bell-Drummond recovers his form.)
Naming a ready substitute for the two veteran semi-quicks, in case they break down.

Good to see you, Peter.

Good to see you too, Skulls. I hope all's well, and more than fair to Middleton, with you.

I don’t see Bairstow as a Test opening option right now, he’s barely justifying his place at 5 or 6. Unless maybe you send him in with Roy and tell them to pretend the ball is white.

Aggers was suggesting giving someone like Woakes a go at the top of the order I think... a semi-permanent nightwatchman, in effect. It might be the way opening is going, it’s a waste of a place picking a “specialist” opener who averages 25, you might as well bat your number 8 with reasonable technique there instead, or go for an out-and-out pinch-hitter.

Geez, England is so bereft of talented openers that trying a no. 8 there is worth a go?? And I thought Aus was going bad!!!

And yet England have just come away with a 4-1 series victory!!! I guess I see Aggers point.

The thing is, Bairstow was batting the last two and a half Tests - where he produced nothing with the bat - after/with a busted finger. Not sure if it was technically "healed" by the 5th Test. But he should never have played in the 4th, probably not the 5th either.

He is so manically keen about playing for England (intensified, it would seem, by fear of losing his place to Buttler), he was not going to stand down. Shouldn't have been his choice.

And the point of that is, it's not just the physical limitation/debilitation, and risk of further complications. It's the psychological cramping effect. Look what happened to Hameed when he bravely (bravely?) kept batting with a busted finger.

Eccentric Burns aside - there I go again - I think Bairstow's got about as sound a technique as any other candidate at the moment, finger apart (painful pun intended.) He's not just a pinch hitter.

And playing him as an opener opens another batting spot in the overcrowded ##4-8 zone.


I mean, I WAS partly joking ... as with the omission of Stokes. But only half. As with the omission of the unsackable Stokes, who seems to be trouble waiting to reignite at the moment. Half joking.

skully wrote:Geez, England is so bereft of talented openers that trying a no. 8 there is worth a go?? And I thought Aus was going bad!!!

And yet England have just come away with a 4-1 series victory!!! I guess I see Aggers point.

I think opening is such a thankless task now that it’s a waste of a “specialist batsman” place. I see Test cricket going in the direction that you put your best batsmen at positions 3-7 or even 4-8, and the top two or three are just employed to protect them from the new ball, as far as possible, while also filling another role in the side (bowler, outstanding fielder, specialist captain, or maybe wicketkeeper, though it’s not ideal).