Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14th October 2015, 16:59   #161
Notts Exile
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
I do worry how jock would cope after rashid's record breaking start.
I'm sure that the England management areas concerned about the poor performances from their first choice spinner as they are about the man on debut. Rashid was expected, by most, to go for a few. Moeen would be expected to give Cook some control yet didn't really perform much better than the rookie, that's worrying.

Yet again, England's seam attack showed that they have the skill and perseverance to do a job even in the most challenging of situations. In 2012 we lost because the batsmen couldn't back up the excellent work of the entire attack. Hopefully this time the batsmen will ensure that the toil of Anderson, Broad, Wood and Stokes wasn't for nothing.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 17:14   #162
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
... Yet again, England's seam attack showed that they have the skill and perseverance to do a job even in the most challenging of situations. In 2012 we lost because the batsmen couldn't back up the excellent work of the entire attack. Hopefully this time the batsmen will ensure that the toil of Anderson, Broad, Wood and Stokes wasn't for nothing.
I wouldn't be congratulating any aspect of the bowling attack when the oppo put on 500+ and declare. To compare that bowling performance with the performances on the last tour to the UAE is a bit steep, I think. In that 2012 series we bowled Pakistan out for 338 in the first test, 257 and 214 in the second test, and 99 and 365 in the third. England have thus conceded more runs in the first innings of this first test than they did in in the first and second innings combined of any of the three tests in 2012. It's a dismal start to the series by our bowling unit.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 17:36   #163
Notts Exile
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Berkshire
Team(s): Notts and Forest
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
It's a dismal start to the series by our bowling unit.
You're entitled to your opinion.

I think the seam bowlers stuck to their task in conditions both above and below then were entirely against them. They weren't backed up by the spin attack as they were in 2012, nor were they assisted by their own slip fielders.
Notts Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 17:47   #164
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,899
I have mocked adil a little bit but it was more to make the point how stupid it is to judge a spin bowler on first three days of the match (as people seemed happy to do re Moeen in ashes).

Boycott laid into Moeen all summer but now says Rashid should not be criticised. Hmmm
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 17:47   #165
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think it's important to differentiate between being subject to some scoreboard pressure, which generally happens if you lose the toss on a decent pitch, and being a spineless bunch of inept morons, which generally happens if you are England.
Why haven't we got a special pleading smiley?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 18:03   #166
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
I think the seam bowlers stuck to their task in conditions both above and below then were entirely against them. They weren't backed up by the spin attack as they were in 2012, nor were they assisted by their own slip fielders.
I'm inclined to agree although Stuart Broad needs to join Ian Bell in the stocks for a mistake that ultimately cost England in excess of 200 runs.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 18:59   #167
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notts Exile View Post
... I think the seam bowlers stuck to their task in conditions both above and below then were entirely against them. They weren't backed up by the spin attack as they were in 2012, nor were they assisted by their own slip fielders.
I agree with you on all those points, but it just doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Pakistan have us just where they want us; for whatever reason, our bowlers were unable to stop the oppo from getting themselves into a truly commanding position.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 19:46   #168
square leg umpire
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 8,804
Seen the highlights. What on earth were England doing opening with Rashid and Wood with a new ball? what have Broad and Anderson done wrong?
square leg umpire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 20:11   #169
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,899
Career high score for the number 4, another ton for a middle order player and spinners getting smashed. This is just this test all over again. http://m.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/...ch/249223.html
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 20:23   #170
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,777
I don't believe any spinners have been that successful in the first innings at Abu Dhabi .... the problem is they've been very successful in the 4th innings. The exception is Ajmal, but he was pretty handy.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 20:58   #171
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I agree with you on all those points, but it just doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Pakistan have us just where they want us; for whatever reason, our bowlers were unable to stop the oppo from getting themselves into a truly commanding position.
Yet one set of bowlers is clearly more culpable than the others.

spinners: 69-3-297-0. Oh and I won't include the over of what masqueraded as spin from Stokes.

seamers: 82.1-23-226-8. I know that these splits have been done at various stages of the game. Now granted that some of Stokes wickets were as a result of Pakistan attempting to slog and get the declaration and thus allow a bit more of a gloss on his own figures than their overall worth indicates (i.e. Pakistan have over 500 rus being far more relevant) . I will also admit that I've far from seen all of the play, but at various times that I've watched live and the highlights, certainly Anderson and Broad have bowled with high class discipline (Broad no balls aside) despite not really looking likely to run through batting for that low a score.

To be honest I still think we've played a seamer too many. Yet there must be serious concerns over Joe Root's ability to bowl more than a handful of overs a day because of his back when he might otherwise bowl say 10-12 overs to take a bit of stress off both the 'main' spinners and not allow Broad and Anderson to bowl too many overs. That said, I will admit that I had little faith in either of our full-time spinners to provide much in the way of control in any case as their efforts either in previous test matches or their general performances in first class cricket/ODIs suggested that they would not provide this control (Rashid). Don't get me wrong I felt that they had to play Rashid given the circumstances but I didn't think it would end well.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More

Last edited by Chin Music : 14th October 2015 at 21:35.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 21:35   #172
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Yet one set of bowlers is clearly more culpable than the others.

spinners: 69-3-297-0.

seamers: 82.1-23-226-8. I know that these splits have been done at various stages of the game. Now granted that some of Stokes wickets were as a result of Pakistan attempting to slog and get the declaration and thus allow a bit more of a gloss on his own figures than their overall worth indicates (i.e. Pakistan have over 500 rus being far more relevant) . I will also admit that I've far from seen all of the play, but at various times that I've watched live and the highlights, certainly Anderson and Broad have bowled with high class discipline (Broad no balls aside) despite not really looking likely to run through batting for that low a score.

To be honest I still think we've played a seamer too many. Yet there must be serious concerns over Joe Root's ability to bowl more than a handful of overs a day because of his back when he might otherwise bowl say 10-12 overs to take a bit of stress off both the 'main' spinners and not allow Broad and Anderson to bowl too many overs. That said, I will admit that I had little faith in either of our full-time spinners to provide much in the way of control in any case as their efforts either in previous test matches or their general performances in first class cricket/ODIs suggested that they would not provide this control (Rashid). Don't get me wrong I felt that they had to play Rashid given the circumstances but I didn't think it would end well.
I'm not sure how your analysis of the seam vs spin competition squares with the idea that we're playing a seamer too many, Chin. Why did Cook give both of the spinners more overs than any of the seamers? Maybe he thought they were a greater threat but in the end they were unlucky; or maybe he wanted to make sure he didn't overwork any of the seamers in that heat. If the latter, then we could probably do with more seamers in the side, couldn't we?
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 21:53   #173
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Career high score for the number 4, another ton for a middle order player and spinners getting smashed. This is just this test all over again. http://m.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/...ch/249223.html
What are you wibbling about this time?

Pakistan's no.4 scored 38, a mere 275 less than his career high score.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 21:57   #174
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I'm not sure how your analysis of the seam vs spin competition squares with the idea that we're playing a seamer too many, Chin. Why did Cook give both of the spinners more overs than any of the seamers? Maybe he thought they were a greater threat but in the end they were unlucky; or maybe he wanted to make sure he didn't overwork any of the seamers in that heat. If the latter, then we could probably do with more seamers in the side, couldn't we?
Your last part is simply where it is. In very hot conditions they wouldn't reckon on the seamers lasting too long in bowling that many overs. Broad and Anderson bowled 22 or so each in not far short of 2 days and that you give them shorter spells than you will do at home, 3/4 over spells. Going into the game, it would be reasonable to suspect that Cook would have backed the spinners to be a bigger threat than they actually were but they were perhaps guided by the performances of superior spinners from both sides in the 2012 series, rather than the performances of Australian and New Zealand spinners last year at Abu Dhabi, in their respective test matches. They got battered by the Pakistani batsman including Nathan Lyon.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 21:58   #175
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
To be honest I still think we've played a seamer too many.
I can't see Stokes working batting up the order, whilst he does average well at #6 a lot of that was against the kiwis and windies, the aussie series perhaps is a better reflection of what good sides will do to him.

Did England need six bowling options? They were banking on the spin twins who managed a blob between them. While some are praising the efforts of the seamers how is that different to any other time they try hard and the opposition makes a big score..........?!?!?

When England bat on tomorrow they need a big total, with Stokes, Bell, Ali, Buttler and Bairstow big question marks it could become embarrassing. I can't recall a side bowling their opponents out with six bowlers and cheaply, quite why we 'needed' four seamers I don't know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Yet there must be serious concerns over Joe Root's ability to bowl more than a handful of overs a day because of his back when he might otherwise bowl say 10-12 overs to take a bit of stress off both the 'main' spinners and not allow Broad and Anderson to bowl too many overs.
Sorry but it comes to something when we need to bowl overs to take stress of spinners and not have main seamers bowl too many overs when the team bowled 151 overs across two days and none of the four seamers bowled more than 22 overs which might be a bit many for ONE day's play but not two.

One spinner should be able to hold up one end allowing three seamers to bowl at the other, two spinners making that even easier, but let's not wrap them up in cotton wool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
That said, I will admit that I had little faith in either of our full-time spinners to provide much in the way of control in any case as their efforts either in previous test matches or their general performances in first class cricket/ODIs suggested that they would not provide this control (Rashid). Don't get me wrong I felt that they had to play Rashid given the circumstances but I didn't think it would end well.
Rashid should have been blooded in Tests before this Test, England made a mess of that. Had they done so we could fairly judge him, but what happened was always possible and in my book giving debuts to players overseas is crazy (unless against an absolute minnow) regardless their role - batsman, seamer, spinner, keeper.

May as well have taken and tried Tredwell, not trying to use hindsight but they threw Rashid in at the deep end. Still unconvinced Ali is more than a very very useful back-up or part-time spinner, regardless if he takes 3-4 wickets in any given game as it is consistency maketh the man/spinner not grabbing wickets every now and then. Despite his 19 wickets against India @ 23.00 he is now averaging 38.73 and his other 26 wickets reflect better what we might expect from him at this stage

vs India : 123.4 overs, 19 wickets @ 23.00 (BB 6/67)
vs rest : 327 overs, 26 wickets @ 50.23 (BB 3/51)

Since his 4/39 vs India at which stage his 22 wickets were costing 28.05 he's taken another 23 wickets but costing 48.96 apiece and at only two wickets per Test. Whether people like it or not, the breakdown reveals more than face value.

But since Rashid hasn't exactly done anything either I should perhaps just say that. Be interesting to see how the Pakistan spin fares.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 22:30   #176
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,777
The strength of Ali and Rashid is they do spin the ball, both lack control at the moment. The evidence from recent tests is the ball doesn't really turn on this wicket until day 3/4, far better spinners than these 2 have taken a battering on day one and two on this wicket. Take turn out of the equation and they are slow bowlers who struggle to put 5 balls out of 6 in roughly the right spot. The problem here is you need 2 spinners, because a seamer will struggle to bowl more than 15 overs a day. The English spin options are currently one day spinners who don't even try and give the ball a tweak, so don't spin it on a turning wicket, or these 2 who might run through a team if they get a bit of assistance from the pitch. From the little bit at the close of play the Pakistan spinners didn't get a lot out of it either and bringing in Treadwell might have prolonged the time in the field as he would have gone for fewer runs an over, but I think he would have been even less likely than this pair to take a wicket, if that's possible. Ali (and Rashid's) weaknesses are quite obvious, but its I don't think its an error of selection its a grass roots and development problem that we are forced to try and develop a pretty decent batsman in to a frontline spinner at test level.

In English conditions a 4 man seam attack it a viable option, the problem in most of the world either the heat or the pitches mean the only way a 4 man attack will work is with a decent quality spinner. Until we unearth one we are probably stuck with a 4th seamer who is a decent bat and picking the best bat from a batch of distinctly average spinners, I think that's just the reality of where English cricket is. The hope has to be that Ali's bowling can develop to at least Ashley Giles level or Stokes can become more consistent as a batsman and push his batting average up to around 40 to be considered more of a recognised test batsman.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 22:51   #177
stonesfan
County Pro
 
stonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 525
Its early days but that was shocking from Rashid. Not quite as bad as that bloke who chanced his arm against the Aussies in 2013. Can't even remember his name and have no desire to either. True he should have been blooded earlier and had a couple of tests under his belt by now. However so many 'four balls' and a total lack of control.

Could go either way from here. He may turn out to be another Devon Malcolm or he may be another Martin McCague.

Either way, he (and Moen) need to pull their fingers out. Bare cupboard or not.
stonesfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2015, 23:28   #178
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
What are you wibbling about this time?

Pakistan's no.4 scored 38, a mere 275 less than his career high score.
Oops. Oh yeah. Ignore batting order. A double hundred plus another centurion then declare and lose. Simple.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2015, 00:23   #179
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonesfan View Post
Its early days but that was shocking from Rashid. Not quite as bad as that bloke who chanced his arm against the Aussies in 2013. Can't even remember his name and have no desire to either. True he should have been blooded earlier and had a couple of tests under his belt by now. However so many 'four balls' and a total lack of control.

Could go either way from here. He may turn out to be another Devon Malcolm or he may be another Martin McCague.

Either way, he (and Moen) need to pull their fingers out. Bare cupboard or not.
Whenever either of them got any turn, it was so slow that the batsmen could easily adjust. I think that's why the seamers had more success, just because they were bowling the ball quicker. It will be interesting to see how the game progresses, whether England bowl again and if the pitch wears at all.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2015, 07:58   #180
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 7,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
Still unconvinced Ali is more than a very very useful back-up or part-time spinner, regardless if he takes 3-4 wickets in any given game as it is consistency maketh the man/spinner not grabbing wickets every now and then. Despite his 19 wickets against India @ 23.00 he is now averaging 38.73 and his other 26 wickets reflect better what we might expect from him at this stage

vs India : 123.4 overs, 19 wickets @ 23.00 (BB 6/67)
vs rest : 327 overs, 26 wickets @ 50.23 (BB 3/51)

Since his 4/39 vs India at which stage his 22 wickets were costing 28.05 he's taken another 23 wickets but costing 48.96 apiece and at only two wickets per Test. Whether people like it or not, the breakdown reveals more than face value.
.
He's been dining out on 2 India tests for 15 months. I should imagine Nick Compton and Adam Lyth wish the odd good score could have kept them in the team longer.

Rashid didn't get a wicket - if he still doesn't have many by the end of the Saffer tour then maybe its time to look elsewhere outside the current squad.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:57.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org