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 19th February 2021, 17:48   #741
Jock McTuffnel v3
Posting God
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 10,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
Moeen played in 6 of those matches (5 wins 1 defeat) and took 34 wickets at 24.

In those same 6 Rashid took 15 wickets at 38.

I mean you can call Rashid a lucky mascot if you like!!
Some people believe in coincidences.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2021, 19:12   #742
Rebelstar
International Cricketer
 
Rebelstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,933
[quote=Prince of Denmark;886373]There were only two partnerships of more than 25 in the India first innings. It would be reasonable to argue that Anderson (or Bess) might have broken one of those partnerships before it got rolling, then again would Kohli have been out for a duck without Moeen playing? It's all the more debatable because we're not really sure what the selectors regard as their best XI. Different selections and winning the toss might have made the result closer but I'm struggling to see how we could have avoided defeat there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of Denmark View Post
I still think the whole issue of scheduling players to miss parts of the series in advance was a mistake that sends out all the wrong messages.
Ill conceived with best intentions but rather impractical. For starters it ties your hands, like with Ali who ended up playing one Test and then went home having taken most wickets and scored most runs for England in the match - although the game was dead and buried when England were 52/5 in the 1st innings and most of Ali's wickets (7) and all his runs came after India were 248/4 which was most of the damage done already.



England scored 578 1st innings of 1st Test thanks mainly to Root (218) and a 200 run partnership with Sibley, India scored 329 with Rohit Sharma scoring half of them, and a partnership of 162, with England only just scraping past that 161 in their 2nd innings having failed to match it in the 1st innings

The main problem for England 1st innings of this Test was poor shot selection, poor shot execution and SEVEN batsmen facing 25+ balls yet for all that those same seven scored 16, 9, 18, 22, 42no, 6 and 5. In contrast only FOUR Indian batsmen faced 25+ balls, they scored 161, 21, 67 and 58 ie made the most of a start



England now run a risk of a downward spiral, from 578 first up in the series they've since scored 178, 134 and 164. I'm now beginning to think that Root non-declaration nonsense may have backfired more bigtime than initially realised, to be in a position of batting strength with the game grasped in both hands to be reduced to eking out every run and time wasting, to be bowled out not declare, and have now gone on to lose their last 29 wickets for 413 runs, handing every possible psychological advantage to India and put no end of doubt in England's batsmen's minds every time they walk out expecting to be facing minefields......


Maybe Ali left a parting gift, whilst it was a very risky Pants like innings he did use his feet and put the pitch into some context. A lot of England's woes are caused by their approach, sweep and play from the crease far too much. I often consider the world of difference in being bowled at and being bowled to, and how batsmen play often defines which.....

Was kind of what I was getting at when I said perhaps without enough context it is the worst thing you can do to get stuck and not have an out shot, not score any runs. Sure in theory just hanging around is not always bad, but if you aren't scoring then the fielding side just stick fielders all around you and increase the chances of getting you out.

And you can't hit a bowler out of the attack if you aren't hitting the bowler at all! Ashwin et al must love bowling at batsmen who play so much bat pad, from the crease, don't use their feet much, hope to survive.

I love Tests where the pitch means you aren't ever sure of being "in", and where lower order batsmen sometimes have a go and game changing 40+ run partnerships put the bowlers on the back foot. I am talking of more English conditions, but principle isn't that different. You can prop forward waiting for the ball that nails you, or change the way the game is going, spread the field, make the bowlers and captain think about runs and not just how they're going to nail you.....


Maybe the main difference between the 1st Test and 2nd Test, besides who batted 1st and got best use of the pitch, is Root and Stokes made 218, 82, 40 and 7 in the 1st Test (347 runs) but only 6, 18, 33 and 8 in the 2nd Test (65 runs)............
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2021, 10:32   #743
ConfusedMale
Established International
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bangalore
Team(s): India
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedMale View Post
In the past, the pitch at Ahmedabad has aided reverse swing and spin because of its abrasive surface. Javagal Srinath once had taken 6 wickets against South Africa, mostly through reverse swing. With this new stadium coming into picture, I wonder if the basic nature of the pitch would have changed, though I doubt it.
So, it seems the facelift to the stadium hasn't really extended to the pitch. Of course, none of the quicks got much of a chance to bowl.
__________________
A quote is quotable depending on who you are and not what you say
ConfusedMale 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 04:30.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org