Your Theories Please

[Richard]

What 4th innings at Sabina?

The third-innings just a week ago. Or have you already put it from your mind?

 

[GIMH]

What 4th innings at Sabina?

The third-innings just a week ago. Or have you already put it from your mind?

Was just being a smart-arse & pedant; there were only three innings at Sabina Park, hence our innings defeat

 

[wpdavid]

I believe (without looking) that that isnt true for England 1990s either.

There were very, very, very few games when we played no spinner in the 1990's IIRC.
Possibly as often in the 2000 WI series as in the whole 10 years beforehand combined.

 

[Goughy]

There were very, very, very few games when we played no spinner in the 1990's IIRC.
Possibly as often in the 2000 WI series as in the whole 10 years beforehand combined.

Actually, we played with 4 (or more) seamers many times in the 90s.

I wouldnt say it was common, but it was not rare.

 

[wpdavid]

Actually, we played with 4 (or more) seamers many times in the 90s.

I wouldnt say it was common, but it was not rare.

I'm sure we had this discussion not so long ago. Maybe I'm exaggerating to say you could count the occasions on the fingers of one hand, but not by much iirc. Maybe we can check it if things get quiet this afternoon.

 

[Goughy]

I'm sure we had this discussion not so long ago. Maybe I'm exaggerating to say you could count the occasions on the fingers of one hand, but not by much iirc. Maybe we can check it if things get quiet this afternoon.

Cricinfo Statsguru - England - Test matches - Team analysis

This is from excluding a whole host of spinners. Ive not had chance to check all the scorecards but I bet almost all 19 are all seam.

Excluding RDB Croft (Eng) or AF Giles (Eng) or EE Hemmings (Eng) or RK Illingworth (Eng) or MM Patel (Eng) or IDK Salisbury (Eng) or PM Such (Eng) or PCR Tufnell (Eng) or M Watkinson (Eng)

 

[wpdavid]

Cricinfo Statsguru - England - Test matches - Team analysis

This is from excluding a whole host of spinners. Ive not had chance to check all the scorecards but I bet almost all 19 are all seam.

Excluding RDB Croft (Eng) or AF Giles (Eng) or EE Hemmings (Eng) or RK Illingworth (Eng) or MM Patel (Eng) or IDK Salisbury (Eng) or PM Such (Eng) or PCR Tufnell (Eng) or M Watkinson (Eng)

Good effort mate - I'll have a look at them.

 

[Richard]

There were very, very, very few games when we played no spinner in the 1990's IIRC.
Possibly as often in the 2000 WI series as in the whole 10 years beforehand combined.

I thought that as well, so I looked. Seems Kev meant four seamers rather than no spinner judging by the above post, but there were 20 games between 1990 and 1999/2000 when England picked no specialist spinner:
The entire Wisden Trophy in the Caribbean in 1990 (four Tests)
The opening Test of the 1990/91 Ashes
The first two Tests of the 1991 Wisden Trophy
The First and Fourth Tests of the 1992 series against Pakistan
The Fourth Test of the 1993 Ashes
The opening Test of the 1994 Wisden Trophy in 1994
The Third Test against SA in 1994
The final game of the 1994/95 Ashes
The Second Test of the 1995/96 series in SA
The Second Test against India in 1996
The Second Test against Pakistan in 1996
The Second and Fourth Tests of the 1998/99 Ashes
The First and Fifth Tests of the 1999/2000 series in SA.

Most of these games were at renowned "pace-friendly" grounds: 4 at Headingley; 2 at Sabina Park; 2 at The WACA; 1 at The 'Gabba; 2 at The Wanderers; 2 at Lord's; and 1 at Kensington Oval; 1 at Edgbaston.

Only 5 were at others: 1 each at Queen's Park Oval, The ARG, The Oval, The MCG and Centurion Park.

Seems while I was posting this someone else was posting the same thing.

 

[wpdavid]

Yup, clearly more often than I had thought. Won 5 and lost 8, fwiw.

 

[Richard]

Don't forget the 1 where victory was patently denied by last-minute rain: Queen's Park Oval 1990.

 

[wpdavid]

Don't forget the 1 where victory was patently denied by last-minute rain: Queen's Park Oval 1990.

Fair comment.

 

[Richard]

I've got 20 to Kev's 19, as I included to the end of the 1999/2000 series in SA. The game in question, incidentally, was the infamous Cronje Centurion Test - officially, England won, but clearly this was a one-innings game, fix or no fix.

Of the 5 genuine draws (QPO 1990 excluded, as that was essentially a victory), 2 were rain-ruined, 2 were on exceptionally flat pitches on which a spinner would've made no difference, and the remaining one was Atherton's 185* match, which obviously would normally be lost.

So including that in the 8 defeats, did the lack of a spinner really cost anything?
Kensington Oval 1990 - Bishop and Ambrose shared 15 wickets, Marshall got 2 and Moseley 3.
ARG 1990 - Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh shared 19, Baptiste took 1.
'Gabba 1990/91 - Alderman, Reid and Hughes shared 18 England wickets, Stephen Waugh got 1.
Headingley 1993 - this just turned-out rather flatter than anyone was expecting and Australia got 653 for 4. Worth noting that such massive Australian scores happened on plenty of other occasions this series when England did have a spinner, though. Also worth noting Shane Warne's match figures - 1-106.
Sabina Park 1994 - 19 wickets to Ambrose, Walsh and the Benjamins.
WACA 1994/95 - beaten easily. 9 wickets to McDermott, 6 to McGrath and 3 to Mark Waugh (who bowled seam in those days). Just 2-69 to Warne.
Wanderers 1995/96 - Clive Elksteen bowled 52 wicketless overs in the second-innings, having filched 3-12 off 11 in the first-innings. 12 were shared by Donald, Pringle, Pollock and McMillan.
WACA 1998/99 - only spinner on view in this match was the part-time stuff of Miller (who bowled 12 overs, most of which were probably seam-up).
Wanderers 1999/2000 - 19 wickets to Donald and Pollock routed England, before Adams got gifted the last one.

I think it's fair to say that the lack of a spinner cost England precisely nothing in any of these defeats - every single one, it was the opposition seamers who destroyed them, and often the opposition had no spinner either.

 

[Goughy]

I've got 20 to Kev's 19, as I included to the end of the 1999/2000 series in SA. The game in question, incidentally, was the infamous Cronje Centurion Test - officially, England won, but clearly this was a one-innings game, fix or no fix.

TBH, the game took place in 2000 so its pretty hard to include it in 1990s.

Doesnt make much difference overall though. But the number is 19 not 20

 

[Richard]

I tend to include the 1999/2000 season as "1990s" TBH - I make the cricketing distinction on September, not January. "The 1990s" for the England Test team = 24th February 1990 to 18th January 2000. "The 2000s" start in the home 2000 season. I can't see how it makes too much sense to make a distinction between 26th December 1999 and 2nd January 2000 when 2 Tests were played in the same series in them. Obviously, to go on the absolute calendar would be fair enough in some ways.

Funnily enough, England played an all-seam attack in each of these bookend games I mention.

 

[Furball]

I tend to include the 1999/2000 season as "1990s" TBH - I make the cricketing distinction on September, not January. "The 1990s" for the England Test team = 24th February 1990 to 18th January 2000. "The 2000s" start in the home 2000 season. I can't see how it makes too much sense to make a distinction between 26th December 1999 and 2nd January 2000 when 2 Tests were played in the same series in them. Obviously, to go on the absolute calendar would be fair enough in some ways.

Funnily enough, England played an all-seam attack in each of these bookend games I mention.

Regardless of the season or place in the series, a Test which started on 2nd January 2000 did not take place in the 1990s.

 

[Richard]

No it didn't. The point is, the start and end of a series is a more important cricketing distinction than a calendar decade.

 

[honestbharani]

How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

flat ARG track, tbh..





But seriously, it often happens that the most inept of displays makes people do much much better the next time out. It happens at work, it happens in sport, it happens in academics, everywhere.. Just one of those things I guess.. If we ever came to know why exacly it is like that, life will become that much more dull.

 

[honestbharani]

Pretty much. It's all great cricket when it happens, but there's a tendency to overreact. An awkward wicket and some top-quality bowling, collapses happen. They happen to every team.

India got bowled out for 76 recently, AT HOME.. And we are supposed to be the friggin best batting line up in the world..