1st Test (Leeds) - 20th June

[Uppercut]

Scoring quickly enough that the second new ball isn’t a factor is huge. Overs 50-80 with the duke are very bat friendly. It’s a very different proposition if they score at a ‘normal’ test cricket pace and the new ball is taken when they’re 75 runs short and 5 wickets down.

 

[the big bambino]

Sending the opposition in under clear skies on a road and then chasing 370 with Bumrah in the side, must be pretty consoling for England and concerning for India. India might have to review their Bumrah workload and play him in 4 tests at least. Maybe India's fielding is their biggest problem.

 

[Johan]

Gill said he wanted a 435 target, but truth be told, considering the innings ended with the greatest English batsman since Len Hutton batting on 53* and a very capable keeper bat like Jamie Smith at 44*, I'm not sure even 435 was going to be safe.

 

[the big bambino]

This is basically most test cricket in England

You mean like this one? Pitches in England have changed with bazball. Australian pitches in the last few series against Eng, SA and India have seamed like traditional English wickets.

 

[Shri]

drops cost us 166 runs (just jaiswal's drops) and batting collapse was what 13 wickets for 70ish across both innings? its a miracle we didn't lose in a much worse manner

 

[centurymaker]

Bumrah playing the 2nd test is looking likely, as long as he recovers well.

Him not playing would essentially mean 2-0, making series defeat almost certain. So they have to play him to give themselves some (false) hope of making it 1-1.

 

[Molehill]

Bumrah playing the 2nd test is looking likely, as long as he recovers well.

Him not playing would essentially mean 2-0, making series defeat almost certain. So they have to play him to give themselves some (false) hope of making it 1-1.

2 and 3, 4 and 5 are back to back. It would make sense for him to play 2, skip 3, play 4 and then see if there's any point in him playing 5.

 

[centurymaker]

Overs bowled

Bumrah 44 overs
Woakes 43 overs
Siraj 41 overs
Carse 41 overs
Tongue 38 overs
Prasidh 35 overs
Stokes 35 overs
Thakur 16 overs


England had 4 pacers sharing the load, unlike India.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

but this batting line up is now almost as strong as the 2010/11 version.

In easy conditions, but in tough ones - no.

They got bullied by the Pakistani spinners in tests 2 & 3 and by Will O'Rourke in the 3rd test in Hamilton - couldn't get behind the line.

 

[Spark]

Ten years ago the thesis was that the IPL, on top of India's general love of white ball cricket, was going to lead to India being a consistently world class fielding team, and the emergence of blokes like Kohli, Jadeja etc who were genuine guns in the field (even if Kohli had his issues in the cordon) seemed to confirm that thesis, so it's really quite perplexing that they've regressed so much. Maybe it just says that Gambhir is a **** coach, as "make sure you're a good fielding team" is actually one aspect of the game where the head coach has a lot of direct control.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ten years ago the thesis was that the IPL, on top of India's general love of white ball cricket, was going to lead to India being a consistently world class fielding team, and the emergence of blokes like Kohli, Jadeja etc who were genuine guns in the field (even if Kohli had his issues in the cordon) seemed to confirm that thesis, so it's really quite perplexing that they've regressed so much. Maybe it just says that Gambhir is a **** coach, as "make sure you're a good fielding team" is actually one aspect of the game where the head coach has a lot of direct control.

Is it a real regression or just a crap performance though? Genuinely asking as I didn't watch them in Aus.

 

[Spark]

Is it a real regression or just a crap performance though? Genuinely asking as I didn't watch them in Aus.

Oh no the regression had already started by then, they were notably mediocre in the field down here.

 

[jaydesh]

It doesn't matter if the no. 8/9/10 can hit a few runs or not if those same players are going to give back 60% of the runs when they bowl. I think people worrying about the tail collapses are worrying about a lesser problem, the bigger problem is how they're getting wickets.

It may not be as big of a problem as their poor bowling and fielding, but it adds up in the end. England scored 110-120 runs approximately for the last 4 wickets, whereas for India, the last 4 wickets went for less than 20 runs. That's a glaring issue. As I said, other teams have solved this issue by improving the lower order batting in a way that can free up the top/middle order to take risks if needed. Tailenders getting out quickly might not have been a big problem 20-30 odd years back when test match batting was relatively better in comparison to today. But now, batsmen 8-11 in the lineup need to at least have a proper defensive technique, as well as dropping and running.

Take the WTC final, for example. It would have finished within 3 days had it not been for the last wicket partnership of Starc and Hazlewood to add about 60 odd and provide a stiffer target for South Africa. Starc himself had a rearguard with Alex Carey to bring AUS to at least a somewhat defensible total. Or in the 2023 Ashes series when Cummins and Lyon won the match for the Aussies in Edgbaston when Australia were 8 down with more than 50 runs left. That's what the Indian lower order should be able to do. It looked like they were getting somewhere a few years back with Ashwin, Ishant, Bhuvneshwar, and Bumrah. Seems to have fallen apart recently.

 

[Spark]

It doesn't matter if the no. 8/9/10 can hit a few runs or not if those same players are going to give back 60% of the runs when they bowl. I think people worrying about the tail collapses are worrying about a lesser problem, the bigger problem is how they're getting wickets.

Obviously bowlers should be picked on their bowling first and foremost but it's incredibly outdated to just ignore batting completely and every modern side who does it ends up regretting it deeply when they become a five-out/six-out, all-out side like India has over the past year.

 

[ashley bach]

Gill said he wanted a 435 target, but truth be told, considering the innings ended with the greatest English batsman since Len Hutton batting on 53* and a very capable keeper bat like Jamie Smith at 44*, I'm not sure even 435 was going to be safe.

The difference between chasing 350 instead of 415 on the final day is of gigantic proportions.
Yes they may have got there anyway but it would have taken an insane effort to do so.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

Obviously bowlers should be picked on their bowling first and foremost but it's incredibly outdated to just ignore batting completely and every modern side who does it ends up regretting it deeply when they become a five-out/six-out, all-out side like India has over the past year.

Not to mention, psychologically it lets the opposition walk off feeling somewhat good about themselves, especially when margins between the sides are thin. There's no way India wouldn't have been shellshocked crashing out from 430/3 and 330/4 and that's all the impetus a batting unit like England needs.

 

[Molehill]

In easy conditions, but in tough ones - no.

They got bullied by the Pakistani spinners in tests 2 & 3 and by Will O'Rourke in the 3rd test in Hamilton - couldn't get behind the line.

The ability to play spin is fair enough. But that 3rd Test they couldn't be arsed, 2-0 up with nothing on the line, they couldn't get to the golf course fast enough. They also didn't have Smith then who is really only behind Root from a technical standpoint.

 

[cnerd123]

Ten years ago the thesis was that the IPL, on top of India's general love of white ball cricket, was going to lead to India being a consistently world class fielding team, and the emergence of blokes like Kohli, Jadeja etc who were genuine guns in the field (even if Kohli had his issues in the cordon) seemed to confirm that thesis, so it's really quite perplexing that they've regressed so much. Maybe it just says that Gambhir is a **** coach, as "make sure you're a good fielding team" is actually one aspect of the game where the head coach has a lot of direct control.

Test fielding is very different than T20. Red ball, slip catching, having to focus all day long and get back up and do it again next day

 

[Ali TT]

Ten years ago the thesis was that the IPL, on top of India's general love of white ball cricket, was going to lead to India being a consistently world class fielding team, and the emergence of blokes like Kohli, Jadeja etc who were genuine guns in the field (even if Kohli had his issues in the cordon) seemed to confirm that thesis, so it's really quite perplexing that they've regressed so much. Maybe it just says that Gambhir is a **** coach, as "make sure you're a good fielding team" is actually one aspect of the game where the head coach has a lot of direct control.

I always remember Gambhir being pretty shite in the field as well

 

[Johan]

The difference between chasing 350 instead of 415 on the final day is of gigantic proportions.
Yes they may have got there anyway but it would have taken an insane effort to do so.

I think it would roughly play out the same but perhaps with Root and Jamie having more runs on the board tbh.