3rd Test (Lord’s) - 10 July to 14 July

[Xix2565]

India's all rounders kept India in the game , Jadeja/Reddy/Sundar took 8/173 combined with the ball and scored 199/5 combined with the bat . That's like an average of 21 with ball , and nearly 40 with the bat that's more than enough for a 6/7/8 combo.


The problem for India was that the top order let them down in the match, Jaiswal , Nair and Gill not good enough , Rahul should have kicked on from 100 and that silly Pant run out cost India alot of runs first innings . Deep did not take enough wickets. Gambhir all rounder ploy was justified the specialists failed in this game

India's all rounders managed 3/112 in the first innings with the ball, and got the other 5/61 when the conditions deteriorated, and even then not everyone contributed. Reddy wasn't a sustainable pace option, Jadeja's barely taken a wicket this series, and Washington is just coming into his own as a spinner. And even with the bat, only Jadeja's been a consistent contributor. That's really not enough on both ends to be worthwhile, and the issues with the top order and the Indian pacers just make it even worse. Gambhir's AR ploy hasn't been worthwhile because none of them has really contributed with bat and ball the way Stokes has for England. They've basically been making up for 2 players, rather than 3/4.

 

[reyrey]

I just don't rate this English team highly and that is why it is frustrating to lose this way. This team are a Stokes retirement away from returning to their mediocre late 90s-early 00s era

This England team have the number 1 and 2 ranked batsman in the world and 2 others hovering around the top 10.

Their bowling isn't anything special, but English bowlers at home always decent.

 

[jaydesh]

The thing is you shouldn't be thinking of runs from any tailenders, regardless of how talented they might be with the bat. Rabada/Jansen/Cummins/Lyon/Carse/etc all are being picked to bowl more than they are to bat. You accept that they won't make 10-15 runs consistently in exchange for taking wickets consistently. The lower order batting in this game from India (Jadeja/Reddy/Sundar) was rendered moot anyway because of England's better pace bowling depth. It's hard to score runs even against the older ball when you have to keep going up against Carse/Woakes/Stokes/Archer compared to more Reddy/Jadeja/Sundar overs.

That's true. I never said the lower order is expected to contribute. Though it doesn't hurt if you have added stability so that there is at least some chance of adding 30-50 odd runs for the last 3 wickets at minimum, rather than it being done and dusted with 7 wickets down as it has been with India quite often (this match being the exception, of course). The performance can be the difference between a win and a loss. Take 2018 India vs England test series. There was almost no difference between the two teams, except for some young 20 year old lad from Surrey called Sam Curran. He would end up playing some swashbuckling rearguards that would end up making the difference in 2 of the matches that India could have easily won.

 

[jaydesh]

This England team have the number 1 and 2 ranked batsman in the world and 2 others hovering around the top 10.

Their bowling isn't anything special, but English bowlers at home always decent.

I think he was just referring to this whole Bazball hype. A lot of cheerleading English commentators (Ian Ward, Steve Harmison (TalkSport), and even really quality voices like Nasser Hussain) might make one think Stokes's side is on par with Lloyd's West Indies, Ponting/Waugh's Aussies, or Graeme Smith's South Africa. Granted, their win/loss ratio is 100x better than under Joe Root. That said, I think they have underachieved at times, with their weaknesses clearly shown. I mean, how do you lose in Pakistan, where there is a perpetual threat of a captain/coach/PCB director resignation after just 1 match? Even at home, they were pretty average against Sri Lanka as well. They probably might have lost that series, if SL just got another 50 odd runs at Old Trafford. And their overseas record is a mixed bag. Nice to win in New Zealand after a while, but in India, they were talking as if they won the whole series after that thriller in Hyderabad? "We can chase 700" yeah right.

If Stokes's side is to be judged based on the overall consistency, they don't even rank on par with the sides led by Vaughan, Strauss, or Cook. They might get there eventually, but I can't see this team troubling even a mediocre Australian lineup this winter (though they might not be bowled out for less than 30 as we saw in the Caribbean).

 

[Xix2565]

That's true. I never said the lower order is expected to contribute. Though it doesn't hurt if you have added stability so that there is at least some chance of adding 30-50 odd runs for the last 3 wickets at minimum, rather than it being done and dusted with 7 wickets down as it has been with India quite often (this match being the exception, of course). The performance can be the difference between a win and a loss. Take 2018 India vs England test series. There was almost no difference between the two teams, except for some young 20 year old lad from Surrey called Sam Curran. He would end up playing some swashbuckling rearguards that would end up making the difference in 2 of the matches that India could have easily won.

I mean it doesn't matter though if the primary job of the lower order (bowling) isn't working as well as they want it to. In general home teams are going to have more depth in general batting and bowling wise, just because of how well suited their players are to familiar conditions, and to overcome that away teams need to field stronger bowling attacks to reduce the batting depth's impact and match the bowling of the home side. Even in 2018 England had Stokes/Curran/Woakes along with the extra pacers and a spinner.

 

[Uppercut]

He tried to run a few 2s but Bumrah wasn't willing. All the boundary riders were in by about 10 yards to cut that off as well.

There's no right answer to this situation. His approach added 68 runs with Bumrah and Siraj. That's basically unheard of. Extremely odd thing to criticise

I don’t feel like ‘if you strike at 2 runs an over with Bumrah and Siraj as partners, you will probably be stranded before you have enough runs’ is an odd criticism at all. Especially when the player who did it… was stranded before he had enough runs.

I find ‘you have to account for the fact that scoring runs is hard and that this player is bad at hitting boundaries and bad at running between the wickets’ much more odd.

 

[cnerd123]

I don’t feel like ‘if you strike at 2 runs an over with Bumrah and Siraj as partners, you will probably be stranded before you have enough runs’ is an odd criticism at all. Especially when the player who did it… was stranded before he had enough runs.

I find ‘you have to account for the fact that scoring runs is hard and that this player is bad at hitting boundaries and bad at running between the wickets’ much more odd.

I think you just find cricket as a sport odd. These are people playing in real conditions, not a video game algorithm. He was not perfect but he did extremely well. Most players in his situation would have either gotten out much earlier, or failed to control the strike well enough to take it as deep as he did.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

I think he was just referring to this whole Bazball hype. A lot of cheerleading English commentators (Ian Ward, Steve Harmison (TalkSport), and even really quality voices like Nasser Hussain) might make one think Stokes's side is on par with Lloyd's West Indies, Ponting/Waugh's Aussies, or Graeme Smith's South Africa. Granted, their win/loss ratio is 100x better than under Joe Root. That said, I think they have underachieved at times, with their weaknesses clearly shown. I mean, how do you lose in Pakistan, where there is a perpetual threat of a captain/coach/PCB director resignation after just 1 match? Even at home, they were pretty average against Sri Lanka as well. They probably might have lost that series, if SL just got another 50 odd runs at Old Trafford. And their overseas record is a mixed bag. Nice to win in New Zealand after a while, but in India, they were talking as if they won the whole series after that thriller in Hyderabad? "We can chase 700" yeah right.

If Stokes's side is to be judged based on the overall consistency, they don't even rank on par with the sides led by Vaughan, Strauss, or Cook. They might get there eventually, but I can't see this team troubling even a mediocre Australian lineup this winter (though they might not be bowled out for less than 30 as we saw in the Caribbean).

A big reason why England are 2-1 up is that they have the right mentality to win which is just as important as talent, they don't have the talent of some of the best sides in the past but their self belief is on par with any great team ..

They have chased down 350+ and defended a score below 200 in this series, even in the match they lost they managed to score a 300 run partnership from 87/5. Can't underestimate this lot

 

[cnerd123]

I mean it doesn't matter though if the primary job of the lower order (bowling) isn't working as well as they want it to. In general home teams are going to have more depth in general batting and bowling wise, just because of how well suited their players are to familiar conditions, and to overcome that away teams need to field stronger bowling attacks to reduce the batting depth's impact and match the bowling of the home side. Even in 2018 England had Stokes/Curran/Woakes along with the extra pacers and a spinner.

There is only one change India could have made with this current lot of bowlers to make this attack stronger, and that was to bring in Kuldeep in. However, the players who would have had to sit out - Reddy and Sundar - both did pretty well this Test. So the team selection, while no ideal, isn't the reason we lost

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

There is only one change India could have made with this current lot of bowlers to make this attack stronger, and that was to bring in Kuldeep in. However, the players who would have had to sit out - Reddy and Sundar - both did pretty well this Test. So the team selection, while no ideal, isn't the reason we lost

Reddy I think is vulnerable (maybe his theoretical all-rounderness will help him even if he’s not producing with bat or ball at the moment), but Kuldeep as a spinner feels very unlikely to get a look-in at this stage considering Jadeja and Washington are producing the goods with at least one of their disciplines

 

[Silver Silva]

I mean it doesn't matter though if the primary job of the lower order (bowling) isn't working as well as they want it to. In general home teams are going to have more depth in general batting and bowling wise, just because of how well suited their players are to familiar conditions, and to overcome that away teams need to field stronger bowling attacks to reduce the batting depth's impact and match the bowling of the home side. Even in 2018 England had Stokes/Curran/Woakes along with the extra pacers and a spinner.

Look at the margin of defeat it was 20 odd runs , that means the structure of the team is not the huge problem , it's the fine margins ..

India's attack took 20 wickets they did the job , many Indian fans if they are honest were expecting a win after bowling England out for 192 , unfortunately Test cricket is brutal you can't be so sloppy like that Pant run out in first innings , or concede 63 runs in extras . India have been very sloppy this entire series , they think England will roll over for them like a pancake but they won't .

 

[Xix2565]

There is only one change India could have made with this current lot of bowlers to make this attack stronger, and that was to bring in Kuldeep in. However, the players who would have had to sit out - Reddy and Sundar - both did pretty well this Test. So the team selection, while no ideal, isn't the reason we lost

Look at the margin of defeat it was 20 odd runs , that means the structure of the team is not the huge problem , it's the fine margins ..

India's attack took 20 wickets they did the job , many Indian fans if they are honest were expecting a win after bowling England out for 192 , unfortunately Test cricket is brutal you can't be so sloppy like that Pant run out in first innings , or concede 63 runs in extras . India have been very sloppy this entire series , they think England will roll over for them like a pancake but they won't .

They could've also gone with Jadeja + 4 pacers (one of the remaining fast bowlers in the squad would be the 4th), or any other variation with Kuldeep where you don't have all 3 of Reddy/Sundar/Jadeja. And as seen, they've had issues with maintaining control across whole innings given how often England's been able to field partnerships around Jamie and the bowlers, and also not contributed enough runs to make up for the weaker bowling. Reddy, Jadeja and Sundar doing well in parts across the Test just exacerbates this issue because now you're thinking that none of them should be dropped because of their contributions, even if it might improve the team balance for the better, since it might mean an extra batter and bowler would play who can contribute more consistently.

Saying that the selection didn't impact the loss is bizarre in this regard. Imagine if there was a Jurel with the bat who could shepherd the tail, or an extra pacer to take advantage of the bounce/seam movement, or even Kuldeep for more attacking spin options given this English side does struggle with spinners. You'd be able to concede less runs, and reduce the burden on the batting lineup. The fine margins would be beneficial instead of hindering. This is an inexperienced side overall, and they need to set themselves up as well as possible from start to finish, so that when they do make stupid mistakes at times, they don't get hurt too much.

 

[cnerd123]

Jadeja + 4 Pacers? Have you not seen the filth Prasidh has been serving? Peak Agendaposting. Both NKR and Sundar have easily outbowled Prasidh this series and we have no idea what Arshdeep would serve.

 

[Xix2565]

Jadeja + 4 Pacers? Have you not seen the filth Prasidh has been serving? Peak Agendaposting. Both NKR and Sundar have easily outbowled Prasidh this series and we have no idea what Arshdeep would serve.

Reddy hasn't outbowled Prasidh at all let's be clear here. He's bowled far less overs precisely because he couldn't be trusted to bowl, and nothing in this Test suggests he's improved drastically to be a clear lock in the side over any of the other Indian pacers left out at the moment. Sundar is probably the one AR pick who's delivered somewhat with bat and ball, but I don't think it's going to be popular to suggest India should play him over Jadeja.

Is it risky to suggest that India weaken their no. 8 batting for potentially better bowling than what we've seen this Test? Absolutely yes, but that doesn't mean it's Agendaposting like you're suggesting here. It's a risk I think worthwhile to help their chances of winning Tests, and so far we've seen that Gambhir's strategy hasn't been that successful, from the BGT to now.

 

[honestbharani]

. India have been very sloppy this entire series , they think England will roll over for them like a pancake but they won't .

That second phrase is like a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge reach. I dont think this side has played anything like that.

I would actually say England were guilty of the bolded in the second test far more than we ever were anytime in this series.

 

[cnerd123]

Reddy hasn't outbowled Prasidh at all let's be clear here. He's bowled far less overs precisely because he couldn't be trusted to bowl, and nothing in this Test suggests he's improved drastically to be a clear lock in the side over any of the other Indian pacers left out at the moment.

You're nuts.

 

[chris.hinton]

What a win. On balance India threw it away but I will take it.

Pope, Crawley and Bashir need to be moved on

 

[Xix2565]

You're nuts.

View attachment 48643

He's only gotten 3 wickets though to Prasidh's 6. And all on a much better pitch for bowling compared to Prasidh. You're the crazy one for thinking he's more acceptable than Prasidh at the moment.

 

[BigBeefy]

What’s Old Trafford pitch like nowadays? Used to be a bouncy paceman paradise but since they redeveloped the ground it changed didn’t it?

Would you want a spinner ideally or you could go pace only there still?

 

[Spark]

The thing is you shouldn't be thinking of runs from any tailenders, regardless of how talented they might be with the bat. Rabada/Jansen/Cummins/Lyon/Carse/etc all are being picked to bowl more than they are to bat. You accept that they won't make 10-15 runs consistently in exchange for taking wickets consistently. The lower order batting in this game from India (Jadeja/Reddy/Sundar) was rendered moot anyway because of England's better pace bowling depth. It's hard to score runs even against the older ball when you have to keep going up against Carse/Woakes/Stokes/Archer compared to more Reddy/Jadeja/Sundar overs.

Could not have picked a worse example than Cummins for this list, a guy who has literally won multiple Test matches through his batting.

If you want a specific example of a case where a bowler should have been picked over the slightly better (or more credentialed bowler) specifically because of his batting, Neser in 2023 is the best example of this. Still think that him not playing a single game that series was a massive blunder that might have made the difference in the series.