What we learned from the 5th Test

[Adders]

I'm your sub

Itsl

 

[centurymaker]

If Jurel had taken over from Pant in Indian conditions, then I'd have said it's a clear advantage because Jurel's a much better keeper against spin at the moment. Pant's keeping vs spin appears to have regressed a lot since his car accident.

 

[Spark]

I truly think this idea that Jurel is and average keeper against pace is something you've made up in your head tbh. The overwhelming majority of byes he gave away were either of the "should be wides" or "bounced three feet in front of him" variety which is not a reflection on his keeping at all. To me he looks much more sound technically than Pant.

 

[Prince EWS]

I truly think this idea that Jurel is and average keeper against pace is something you've made up in your head tbh. The overwhelming majority of byes he gave away were either of the "should be wides" or "bounced three feet in front of him" variety which is not a reflection on his keeping at all. To me he looks much more sound technically than Pant.

Yeah agree, I think it's over-reacting to that one game. He did have a poor game but keeping in a Test in England the first couple of times has thrown lots of top notch keepers, and when I've seen him keep other times he looks great.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Didn't Pant drop a few crucial catches early in the series?

 

[andruid]

I learned that several England players have questions to answer, of which Root is not one of them.

 

[chris.hinton]

What a series, 2-2 was perhaps a fair result

England do have some problems however, despite my bravado I can’t see us winning the ashes this winter. We still about 2 bowlers short & batting can be flaky

 

[honestbharani]

What a series, 2-2 was perhaps a fair result

England do have some problems however, despite my bravado I can’t see us winning the ashes this winter. We still about 2 bowlers short & batting can be flaky

I have bet to a Brit colleague that you guys will not lose more than 3 tests and win 1-2 tests.

 

[Molehill]

I truly think this idea that Jurel is and average keeper against pace is something you've made up in your head tbh. The overwhelming majority of byes he gave away were either of the "should be wides" or "bounced three feet in front of him" variety which is not a reflection on his keeping at all. To me he looks much more sound technically than Pant.

Yeah, it was absolutely this, Pant wasn't stopping those either.

The point the 'English' were making was not about the keeping, it was about having a batsman available who hadn't spent hours behind the stumps. I have no doubt that Smith's batting fell away towards the end of the series partly due to the amount of time he was out in the field for. Keeping is an energy sapping role and the ability for a keeper to bat in such circumstances is part of Test Cricket. India twice managed to dodge this despite having a spare keeper in the 11.

It seems a bit daft that a bloke with a dislocated shoulder doesn't get a sub, but one with a bruised finger does and he still gets to bat too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It seems a bit daft that a bloke with a dislocated shoulder doesn't get a sub, but one with a bruised finger does and he still gets to bat too.

for mine the issue there isn't that Woakes didn't get a sub, but that a sub shouldn't be able to keep. Don't know why they changed that rule but it really needs to be changed back

 

[Molehill]

for mine the issue there isn't that Woakes didn't get a sub, but that a sub shouldn't be able to keep. Don't know why they changed that rule but it really needs to be changed back

Yeah, I'd agree with that. You either go one way (all injuries get subs), or the other (none). But we've somehow finished in between where there is now a loophole to be exploited.

Mind you, a team like Australia would probably suffer most from this as they don't have a back up keeper in the team with recent experience.....compared to the Kiwis where half the team can keep.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mind you, a team like Australia would probably suffer most from this as they don't have a back up keeper in the team with recent experience.....compared to the Kiwis where half the team can keep.

I wouldn't look at it that way. It would be a reward for NZ having the versatility in their XI to cover an in-game injury. They deserve an advantage in that scenario for added skills and good team selection

 

[centurymaker]

The point the 'English' were making was not about the keeping, it was about having a batsman available who hadn't spent hours behind the stumps. Keeping is an energy sapping role and the ability for a keeper to bat in such circumstances is part of Test Cricket. India twice managed to dodge this despite having a spare keeper in the 11.

It seems a bit daft that a bloke with a dislocated shoulder doesn't get a sub, but one with a bruised finger does and he still gets to bat too.

I can't believe what I am reading. India had an injured batsman (who hadn't spent hours on the field). Pant was injured. He couldn't bat properly. India lost runs because of his injuries. First time injured finger, not allowing him to grip the bat properly. 2nd time a broken foot! India lost runs from their 2nd best batter. But according to you, somehow India benefited from his injuries?

Comparing Woakes to Pant makes no sense. Pant didn't get a replacement batter despite broken foot! Woakes likewise didn't get a replacement bowler despite dislocated shoulder. They were no special treatment for Pant or Woakes in batting or bowling. Bashir had a broken finger and he rested in the dressing room all day on day 4 & 5 and returned only to bowl right at the very end, dismissing Siraj, giving Eng a 22 run victory at Lords. Bashir was allowed to come back fresher, according to your line of thinking.

Woakes/Bashir were allowed a sub fielder only. Likewise Pant was allowed a sub fielder only (keeper also a fielder). No special treatment in batting or bowling. Nobody exploited any rules ffs.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is definitely not true. India benefited from when it happened in Aus the tour before last and the first time this series. The replacement keeper did a much better job than a fully fit Pant would have and Pant batted better than that other keeper would have. There were English supporters (not the most reliable source I'm afraid) who claimed it possibly decided a Test match having the replacement keeper replacr Pant

I won't say India didn't benefit from Jurel keeping over Pant, but given the margin of our first victory and the draw, and that Jurel played in the last one, it being a deciding factor is a bit of a head scratcher.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I have bet to a Brit colleague that you guys will not lose more than 3 tests and win 1-2 tests.

Grrr.... Wish I also kept my bet with Johan just that. It gets confusing finding my own posts with this abominable DP

 

[TheJediBrah]

I won't say India didn't benefit

Then you're better than some

 

[ma1978]

Of course India benefited but the rules are the rules, substitute fielders are allowed and that includes wicket keepers.

 

[centurymaker]

India benefited because Rahul would've done worse.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

I truly think this idea that Jurel is and average keeper against pace is something you've made up in your head tbh. The overwhelming majority of byes he gave away were either of the "should be wides" or "bounced three feet in front of him" variety which is not a reflection on his keeping at all. To me he looks much more sound technically than Pant.

Yeah it's absurd to think Pant would've saved those byes down leg. If anything, post-accident, that bum left knee prevents him from putting too much weight on it while moving sideways. He's probably better at anticipating the ball swerving past the stumps in English conditions due to past experience but I seriously doubt he can pull off Jurel's acrobatics anymore. Technique-wise there really is no comparison between them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@centurymaker almost had me convinced. Should be a salesman