So that was, erm, interesting. Seventeen wickets in about four hours’ play, more bowled and LBW dismissals than an hour of Phil Tufnell facing Waqar Younis in the nets, five wickets for Joe Root, and an England defeat by 10 wickets inside two days. My head is spinning and hurting in equal measure.
Let’s start with that pitch. Was it a shocker? Yes. Was it completely inappropriate for Test cricket? Yes. Was it ironic that the Indians spent the equivalent of a small nation’s GDP on the world’s biggest stadium only to forget about the importance of the actual strip? Yes.
But was the pitch the reason why England lost? Hell no.
No matter how much we complain about the surface – and rightly so – we shouldn’t forget that England won the toss and decided to bat first. In theory they should have enjoyed the better batting conditions in the game. But they weren’t good enough. Not even close.
England picked the wrong side – not the first time that Silverwood and Root have got things worryingly wrong – and they batted like hungover village tail-enders. It was actually quite captivating to watch their collective brains farting, or rather excreting, before hastily retreating to the pavilion in a state of utter confusion and blind panic.
In some ways you can’t blame our batsmen really. We don’t play first class cricket in conditions like that. And when Somerset produce surfaces half as dry they get fined to high heaven. What’s more, we don’t have any spinners anywhere near that good to practice against. It’s not exactly a recipe for success.
The other thing to remember, of course, is that the ECB don’t value first class cricket. They’ve pushed the county championship to the fringes of the season so we only have one solitary batsman who averages over 40 in Test cricket. It’s quite pathetic when you consider the resources at England’s disposal.
The truth is that England don’t have enough quality Test batsmen in ordinary circumstances let alone when they encounter a pitch that resembles something that might have been beamed back to Earth via the Mars Rover.
And this, my friends, is why England lost. This bit wasn’t the pitch’s fault. It was the same for both sides and we probably would’ve lost by more had India won the toss.
What’s more, the pitch spun from the word go and didn’t stop spinning. This wasn’t the equivalent of Trent Bridge in the 2015 Ashes when England won the toss, bowled the Aussies out on a complete green top with Broad taking 8-15, and then watched with glee as the surface dried out and enabled them to respond with 391-9. in very different conditions.
Nor was it, in fact, like the first Test in Chennai last week when England won an absolutely vital toss and then relished the rag on offer in the fourth innings.
So moan all you like about the surface. It was appalling. It was absolutely terrible for Test cricket. But at least it should, in theory, have produced an even contest. It wasn’t a win the toss, win the game type of surface that so many despise. England lost because India have better spinners and play spin better. It’s that simple.
Before I sign off, a quick word about the commentary and general gnashing of teeth re: how all the batsmen were either bowled or LBW to straight balls. It’s not rocket science people. If you play for extravagant turn – as is advisable when you’re playing on an ancient Martian lake – then you’re in deep shit if the ball skids through straight.
Maybe England would have been better advised to simply play the line of the ball? Then, if it spins appreciably, the ball should miss the edge by some distance. And at least you can keep the straight ones out.
However, it’s easy to say this in hindsight. When your mind is scrambled, the heart’s beating, the adrenaline’s pumping, and you quickly realise that you’re completely out of your depth, then it’s quite natural to fall to pieces.
And what’s more, if you’re part of England’s inner sanctum, then it doesn’t really matter if you underperform anyway. After all, if you lose your place then you’ll inevitable get it back at some point and for no reason.
Just ask Jonny Bairstow, this game’s obvious candidate for the “thanks for coming” award. I could’ve driven an oil tanker between his bat and pad today.
James Morgan
Channel 4 should ask for a rebate!
Is Bairstow one of the batsmen that Root was referring to who are capable of big scores? If he plays in the next one I wouldn’t be surprised at another pair.
Great to see you back on the tools James! Regardless of whether you play for spin or not, a better place to start is getting to the pitch of the ball.
The most disappointing aspect for me was that neither batting side picked up the danger of extra “skiddiness” of the pink ball after the first innings. How many analysts and coaches do they need to be able to make adjustments to how they play within a game?
Lastly, which coach would you have liked to watch during those collapses? Langer or Flower?
Thanks mate. I felt surprisingly motivated to write this. I’ll still pop up now and again if work commitments permit.
I took a couple of days leave to watch this match. Live cricket on FTA…at sociable hours too!. Shouldn’t grumble I suppose…I saw a couple of sessions> I agree on the ECB – they just don’t value first class cricket. Also agree on the pitch – an absolute disgrace. Even the best players of spin in the world only managed 145 against our attack! Not a good advert for test cricket.
Anyway…roll on the summer…or rather the spring and autumn!
It was not a test match pitch, but England lost for the simple reason that other than Root they possess no one who can play top quality spin. Axar Patel achieved a magnificent bowling double.
Joe Root, at best a part-time bowler, takes 5-7? Need anyone say anything more? At the very least, India deserves the lost TV revenue.
Bear in mind that most of those wickets were from the bowlers. Jasprit Bumrah (currently averaging 2.52) may end up with an even worse batting average than Chris Martin, so one can hardly say that that is a prize wicket in the same league as say Kohli a Rohit or even a Rahane.
I know, in England the only difference between batsmen and bowlers is that the bowlers have to average 30 with the bat, and preferably less with the ball, while the batsmen can stay in the team, almost indefinitely, if they average 30 with the bat, but other teams do not operate on the same selectorial whims.
Roston Chase, taking 8/60 against the world renowned experts of playing spin in Bridgetown. After the opposition were shot out in the first innings for an earth shattering 77 (both England innings in the Third Test at least saw better scores than that), with all ten wickets going to the pacers. Chase’s performance incidentally is still the best bowling innings analysis by a part-time bowler this century. Somehow I doubt that the ECB provided refunds to WICB for the incompetence on display.
England have had too many brain fades. Starting tours with 77s all out (West Indies), getting shot out by Ireland for less than 100 at Lord’s in the next series, etc. And an utter and complete refusal to actually take responsibility (captain shrugging the shoulders is not taking responsibility). Sure the pitch was not great, but England have great form in subsiding for below 100 totals on pitches where the opposition often scores 200+ in the same match.
But I guess West Indies needed to be punished for England’s unwillingness or inability to play a part time offspinner even with a hint of competence.
Think I prefer watching this rather than the other extreme eg the 2009 Ahmedabad test where Sri Lanka made 760/7d and even Muralitharan couldn’t bowl India out twice. (0/124 in second inns). At 74/2 in 1st innings, England might have got around 250 which could have made an exciting game but they fluffed their lines.
KP The answer to your coach question is Mickey Arthur.
James
One thing you don’t mention is rotation. Whilst I understand the difficulties of squad management in these circumstances, England have got it wrong. Successful sides have a settled batting order. Players get know one another. Learn how to build partnerships together. At the moment England lack that completely. Further, any player or coach will tell you that for batsmen, sorry, batspersons, nothing beats time in the middle.
Instead of picking their best sides, England have messed around with their batting order. They have, effectively, picked a Test side weeks, if not months in advance and apart from 4 (hurrah), the batting order is fluid.
The reasons England lost this Test are many, but I don’t think the management has played a blinder.
It’s all been said about the pitch, bowling, lack of ability to play top class spin, virtually no 4 day cricket in the peak summer months, and this idiotic rotation policy. But you know apart from Crawley who looks a fine prospect, who is going to be 1,2 & 3 come the 1st Ashes Test in November? Well I don’t think Burns and Sibley are good enough, and Bairstow should disappear back to T20, why on earth have they dragged him back? I don’t know, But I do know they won’t find out by constant rotation and silly resting.
The reasons why England lost was that they picked Jonny Bairstow and then batted him 3 places too high, Ben Stokes is hopelessly out of form and doesn’t have a clue against Ashwin and Olly Pope didn’t have the technique to play spin on a Martian type wicket. Quite how Jofra Archer gets to bat ahead of Broad and Leach is quite beyond me.
The sad thing is that England got themselves back in the game by bowling out India for 145 but then didn’t have the technique or ability to play a gentle off spinner like Axar Patel and keep out straight balls. I fear another thrashing in the 4th Test.
Axar Patel is not a gentle off-spinner. He is a left armer who fires it into the pitch at 60mph with a lot of revs, and at a wide angle that makes it a lottery whether it lands on the seam and straightens, or not on the seam and skids straight on. It is the Jadeja recipe, possibly done even better. The only way batsmen have survived against this style of bowling on a turning wicket is to get to the pitch and play the line, rather than follow the turn. But it is genuinely difficult, unlike the very forgettable slow left armer who played for India without success in the First Test.
Squad rotation is but one reason we lost this game- but the reasons for it are the biggest thing under the ECB’s control. The number of internationals (in all formats) the ECB are trying to pack into this year is insane – without that, there would be no need to be rotating players in the middle of a Test series which is a far tougher ask than the Ashes in Australia.
The shoehorning of the County Championship into the start and end of the season is also firmly on their watch. Playing on green tops where mediocre medium pace dobbers pick up easy wickets and giving no opportunity to either bowl or bat against spin makes us lambs to the slaughter on turning Asian pitches.
Sorry, don’t rate this article, too much knee jerk. It just doesn’t fit the facts.
India play spin better? It’s as simple as that. Little evidence of that on show today.
Let’s dissect the ‘merits’ of each team.
Of course India are the better team under their own conditions, but not because they’re better cricketers, they’re just used to those specialised conditions.
Yes, the 1st test was the Root road show, but the last 2 tests have merely produced a couple of individual batting displays from Indian batsmen we were unable to match.
The fact remains that without Rohit Sharma’s efforts both matches would have been a close run thing.
The rest of the Indian batsmen failed to reach 200 between them in either innings during the last test if you take out Rohit and Ashwin’s hundreds and Ashwin certainly rode his luck. This test the Indian collapse was on a par with ours and that against a second string bowler.
How is any player unfamiliar with sub continent conditions and without meaningful practice supposed to adapt to poor pitches and the pink ball, which is incidentally why England went for quality seam over ordinary spin, their only alternative as there are no young reliable spinners and the pink ball swings and seams more.
Bairstow was a good shout given his performance in Galle. Don’t understand picking Pope ahead of Lawrence, a spin specialist, but he’s a Mr. Ed favourite. It’s the obsession with rotation that could cost us dear in the long run. To me you pick your best against the top teams as long as they’re fit. Expecting players to produce any sort of consistency by chopping and changing when in form is ludicrous. Once you’ve selected you keep faith and give players a run in the side. Playing for your place every innings is no way forward.
Both sides realised trying to defend in these conditions was a lottery, with even Sibley having a go, realising that a quick 20 or 30 could be significant, hardly the stuff of test cricket. Extravagant turn and bounce, mixed with straight top spin and trying to read the ball from the hand under floodlights is hardly a combination designed to produce an innings. Shame players were being diplomatic, describing the conditions as challenging. They should have gone for the jugular. How is this sort of lottery cricket going to get people to understand the drama that makes test matches special.
Maybe we’d should operate different management and coaching for red and white ball, so selection doesn’t get blurred, but overall I don’t see anyone better sitting on the sidelines.
Just heard Pietersons rant blaming the batsmen. A lottery is how he would have fared?
Oh, grow up with your infantile Mr Ed fetish, please, Marc.
And maybe show some understanding of WHY the players were being rotated. It wasn’t being done just so that the management could get to see some different players.
If you can’t see his influence you’re blind. I never said he was solely responsible for anything, but his bits and pieces influence is there for all to see. Buttler and Bairstow ahead of Foakes in tests has always been clearly his baby and totally wrong headed.
Well, actually you’ve often suggested that he’s solely responsible–including in the post above. “…but he’s a Mr. Ed favourite…” suggests that if he wasn’t he wouldn’t be picked–which ascribes total power to Smith.
And of course Smith has power–the clue is in the job title “selector”!! I should bloody well hope that a selector has considerable power over…selection–and I would argue that he (rightly) has considerably more than “bits and pieces” influence, although on tour he has less or none (selection on tour is generally the remit of the coach and captain).
I wasn’t suggesting that he doesn’t have power. But “favouritism” means that you’re unfairly favouring people for reasons that are beyond your professional remit–which you have absolutely no evidence of. You can say that selections are wrong, dunderheaded, incompetent or fail to spot the obvious–but none of that shows that he has favourites, any more than the mysterious white-ball career of Ravi Bopara showed that he was the teacher’s pet of Geoff Miller, James Whittaker or both.
In this case, you’ve also picked the wrong example. There are lots of cricketing reasons for picking Pope over Lawrence–from his much better test average to his much better f-c average, to his better average on this tour, to his generally better recent red-ball form (Lawrence hasn’t been in consistently good form in county cricket since 2017), to his 50% higher rate of scoring f-c centuries, to not wanting to drop someone who’s shown a lot of promise too precipitously, to his being a specialist in a key fielding position.
And despite what you say, Lawrence isn’t a red-ball spin specialist: he hadn’t played a match in Asia until January, and probably the only spinner of any real quality he’s faced in a county game is Leach–who has got him out four times in ten innings for a county against whom Lawrence averages 12.7! (Nor for that matter is Bairstow, who averages 22 in the UAE, 31 in Bangladesh and 33 in India without a century in 12 games).
That comment about Geoff Miller is unfair and untrue. Under him, selection was very much a consultative process with selectors – including him – having to argue the case for their selections. Bopara, like everyone else, went through that process so, rightly or wrongly, the majority of the selectors were in favour of his selection.
It was after he resigned that our selection problems started, not least as a result of Clarke’s increasing influence. I preferred Miller’s fair and transparent system to the one we have now, which is neither of those.
Well I’m happy to accept that you don’t think he’s solely responsible–but in that case the phrase that Lawrence would have been picked because Pope is a “Mr Ed favourite” is nonsensical. If Smith doesn’t have sole power, then he can’t stop Lawrence being selected unless the other selectors agree with him–in which case Pope is the favourite of “Mr Ed, Mr Joe and Mr Chris”.
You’re simply wrong about Roy–he wasn’t picked time and time again despite lack of improvement, he was picked for six squads within less than two months and then never picked again.
You have no idea if Sibley, Crawley and Lawrence are due to the influence of Silverwood and Root at all. (Unlikely I would say, since Root’s been captain since before Smith was selector and Silverwood wasn’t in post when Sibley and Crawley–who, ironically, has often been used as an example of Smith’s supposed bias towards Kent–were picked). A selector is simply the sum total of his selections, although he may reflect the desires of his coach–so Sibley and Lawrence is every bit as much a Smith selection as Roy or Buttler.
In any case, some of what you describe as “Smith selections” are nothing of the sort. You seem faintly obsessed with the idea of white-ball bits-and-pieces players in the test team as a Smith hallmark, but that hardly started in 2018. Try Ian Blackwell, Scott Borthwick, Ronnie Irani, Gavin Hamilton or Zafar Ansari for starters from the previous three selection regimes!
As for the widely held views, that’s the “a thousand lemmings can’t be wrong” argument!
Sorry John–this was a reply to Marc’s comment below: hard to interpret the sub-thread lines!
You’ve misread my comment John–I was saying precisely that it WASN’T because Bopara was anyone’s pet!
I’ve only suggested Smith’s solely responsible in your head. If I meant he was solely responsible I would have said so. It’s quite clear that policies that are not working have been persevered with since Smith’s appointment, especially on the repeatedly failed bits and pieces front where white ball specialists like Roy are given opportunity after opportunity in test cricket, even when it is clear there’s no improvement. Smith has often been quoted as taking credit for these ‘new’ and ‘forward thinking’ trends, phrases he has used in interviews, that are mere rehashes of failed former policies. He is a marketing man, adept at self publicity, with limited experience of international cricket, especially in the coaching front where his ideas have to be put into practice and nothing obviously new to offer. He’s an image maker, a bit like a rock band manager, a middle aged trendy. I just hope that now Root and Silverwood seem to have got their feet under the table with unsmith selections like Sibley, Crawley and Lawrence his influence will be less obvious. However, in interviews he doesn’t come across as someone too open to alternative ideas.
I should mention in passing these views on him are widely held and often expressed on this blog. If I have an obsession with him it’s hardly unique and it’s there for a reason.
James Morgan at his best with his usual reasons for an England collapse. Blame the management team and ECB. I was amazed Ed Smith did not get a mention as well as the usual targets of the County Championship timing and T20.
I agree it was a teriible pitch but the reason we lost was India are a lot better at batting against spin and have better spin bowlers than us. This is normally the case but not always, let’s remeber we won in India in 12/13.
I am interested in who the selections would have been that were better than the team put out? I agree maybe Bairstow is never going to get above current level in Tests but who are these stars we are missing that could have been selcted and won us the match?
As for the County Championship as a grounding for Test players who can play spin; forget it, the championship is never going to be the sole area for England to develop players. Many will come from the white ball squads in the future as well as the County Championship. I would prefer that it was the 1970’s and England and world stars played in the Championship in mid summer but those days are gone and even if the ECB changed course the world game has changed. I also have to admit that the white ball games has helped develop players like Joe Root and his wonderful array of shots and Jofra Archer who has the genuine pace to help us have a decent bowling attack on all but Asia’s spinning tracks.
The only thing I can think of is that we send 4 or 5 of our best young players to play in the Ranji Trophy every year and attend the spin schools of Asia like we sometimes do with Australian grade cricket.
In the end I agree with James we lost becasue India were better than us in this match and generally will be on such pitches. We should note that most of their batsemn failed too. Things are not as bad as James likes to make out. This team won 6 away from home and have in my view been improving. We have potentially a world calss quick bowling squad for Australia and can give everyone a game in most conditions. Crawley has real potential as does Pope and Lawrence. We have Root, Stokes and Foakes who are world class at what they do not forgetting two of the world’s finest in Anderson and Broad.
I am really looking forward to the rest of the year. The white ball team will hopefully get revenge in the T20’s and ODI’s and the Test team can win in the summer. Things are not as bad as we like to make out.
How can you say that after Root’s efforts. They have a few class players of spin, due to familiarity with conditions, the rest give hope to Leach. In the last test all their batsmen put together, if you take out Ashwin’s adventurous knock and Rohit, failed to amass 200 in either innings. This test their 1st innings collapse was on a par with ours. This is not the mark of a great batting line up.
Give me some names of those left on the sidelines that could do better. There’s no one obvious.
Marc,
What I said was ” India are a lot better at batting against spin”. In the last two Tests, Indian batsmen who scored over 50 are Sharma, Rahane, Pant, Kohli, and Ashwin. We have Crawley who scored most of his runs against the few overs of pace. I agree we have Root who would normally do better but they have Pujara who would I give the same credit.
Was there anyone better on the sidelines for England? (I think this is what you are asking). I am not sure and certainly am not criticising the England Management.
The main point of my comments was to slightly make fun of James who loves to write about England failures as all the fault of the ECB, no free TV, and timing of the County Championship. I love it when he does write though as he starts a debate and he deserves all the credit for this one of the best comment sites on Cricket.
I happen to think we have a very promising team and several players among the best in the world and I hope they will win more Tests than they lose this year despite it including away series in both India and Australia.
Well sorry but I agree with James. It’s got everything to do with how the ECB has managed cricket. With their whole emphasis on one day cricket, particularly T20 the test side has been chasing its tail as an afterthought. Owen Morgan gets everyone he wants, half of Roots players are on some ridiculous play 1 get 2 off nonsense. We can’t play spin, but that isn’t the players fault. If you don’t play 4 day cricket between June-August, you don’t learn to play spin because you don’t develop any half decent spinners. English pitches are not generally bunsens like India, but to schedule just two 4 Day games this year between June-August says it all. How do expect batters to learn especially when you never have a settled side. The ECB and cricket needs massive restructuring and run by people who like cricket and don’t manage supermarkets.
I disagree that the T20 team is preferred over the Test team. There is no real evidence of this. The resting of players from the “bubbles” during the Covid period is just sensible and affects both forms.
I too would like to see more 4-day cricket in July and August but even when this did happen where were the spin bowlers it was supposed to develop? We have struggled with spin most of my cricket supporting life (45 years). Our quicks are just better bowlers so we are always more likely to use them.
It’s quite clear where the direction of the domestic game is going in this country. The marketeers cannot get their teeth into test cricket so the ECB follow the money and promote ever more white ball competitions. It’s only really the Ashes that receive blanket coverage. Does anyone really believe the hype over the 100, a competition without a fan base and full of mercenary players no ‘supporter’ can identify with. What will Yorkshire fans make of Bairstow in a Welsh jersey? How is it different from 20-20? It’s just a tinkering job without coherent direction. How is it going to attract more mums and tots than any other format? It’s just Pie in the Sky. We’ve heard the arguments and they’re not convincing. Short term cash cow is not the direction cricket fans want. All you’re producing is a dumbed down game for ‘the lads’ to enjoy for a few hours before they go out on the town. We’ve seen the same direction across the board in entertainment for years. Loud rock music, fireworks and hysterical tannoy announcements just portray a lack of ideas. Let’s make cricket matches a party, like everything else. It’s depressing inditement of the state of play in society as a whole.
If the pitch for the next test is similar to this one (why wouldn’t it be?) it’s tempting to suggest that England will only need 1 seamer, plus Stokes, and both remaining spinners, plus Root. This would allow them to play an extra batsman. The problem is the batsman that *did* play in this match weren’t good enough, and those who missed out are no better!
A pitch requires a fair match between bat and ball otherwise it is prepared with bias in mind whatever that may be, either a spinning dustbowl or a green top. When India lost the first match Kohli ordered one to suit his spinners. He had already assessed that Bess was not good enough and we were light on spinners. He probably got one worse than he intended. It’s not a good advertisement for Test cricket – or the new stadium – for an international Test match to be over in two days. I’m sure India’s board is as disinterested in Test cricket as much as the ECB. After all India’s Test side have similar problems according to the commentary. Their players don’t get enough time to build up their Test batting in their league cricket.
What we were seeing were two teams playing a shortened version of Test cricket. It was all about survival. Batsmanship had no chance because an innings was hard to establish. No point referring to 2012 because conditions were not the same and I remember when a spinning pitch was ordered by Dhoni the groundsman refused point blank.
India has long gone down a different road with so much emphasis on the IPL and 50 over cricket.
In England batsmen were exhorted for years to play “fearless cricket” and entertain, and not worry about staying in or losing a game. Alongside the bleakness of the introduction of The Hundred this is the other side of the coin. Farce.
Well said Jackie. Protests need to be heard. There’s more to cricket than boundaries and wickets. If test cricket takes the lowest common denominator route the game is so much worse as an entertainment. Drama is much more effective when it gradually unfolds, otherwise it’s just more crash, bang, wallop. Cheap wickets for bowlers, cheap runs for batsmen.
The problem with Archer is when did he last bowl flat out for 4 overs? I can’t remember. He was troubling down at 135k in this, far short of 150k that he used to bowl. Stokes doesn’t look as though he can bowl more than two overs to me, which he didn’t in either of the last two games. We effectively had 4 no. 11s in this match, Archer at 8! Please. 6 down it was match over anyway despite the pitch.
Anderson, Woakes, Bess, Leach, + Stokes (maybe) would have given two front line spinners and two bowlers who are very good lower order bats; on these pitches you need to bat down to no. 10 at least.
Bess is not a front line spinner in tests and never has been. I’d sooner have Root, at least he’s accurate.
Very good lower order batsmen score 50’s, not just 20’s and 30’s. Now Root’s clearly lost confidence in him I can’t see any way back this series.
If you’ve got class seamers and ordinary spinners, pick the seamers, at least they have some control. Leach has come to the spinners party but there’s no other obvious choice on the horizon.
Agree we need a shorter tail, Leach, Broad, Archer and Anderson put too much pressure on our top 6, especially when half of them are so inexperienced. Archer’s no use unless he can bowl 140+ consistently and with Stokes under a fitness cloud Woakes would seem a better choice, however the rotation system is always going to come under scrutiny when you start losing.
On a pitch like this I’m not sure it makes any difference. To me, Jack Leach’s defence actually looked better than Pope’s, Bairstow’s and Sibley’s!
Archer is a problem. At 135k-ish he’s a waste of space. I think Root wrecked him last year by bizarrely using him as a stock bowler. He became disillusioned, something that was compounded by being first change last summer and only getting the ball when it was 12 overs old. I imagine he doesn’t have the confidence in his elbow to bowl consistently above 145k. His batting throughout his Test career has been a massive disappointment. His FC record suggested he’d be able to average close to 20 and periodically provide useful cameos, but he’s been absolutely hopeless.
As you say, Stokes looks finished as a bowler. My concern is whether he’s actually good enough to bat 5 if he doesn’t bowl. He only averages 37, and falling, and like many all-rounders, his batting has been better when his bowling’s been on-song. It’s a very different game being only in the team for your batting and not having the prospect of another bite of the cherry with the ball.
My team for the final Test would be Sibley, Burns, Crawley, Root, Stokes, Lawrence or Pope, Foakes, Bess, Leach, Stone, Anderson. I can’t see the point in playing Woakes because his bowling will be cannon-fodder, and can’t decide which lamb out of Lawrence or Pope to slaughter! I might also bat Foakes at 6 because his defence looks better than anyone’s except Root’s.
Some interesting thoughts and varied comments. I’m not a technical expert but to me first and foremost, the pitch was not suitable for a Test match because it did not give a fair balance between bat an ball. Having spent billions on this new stadium, it looks like they spent twopence halfpenny on the pitch. It’s right near the sea, so really it should not look like it had just be transported from Mars.
Having said that we did not, as often, help ourselves by picking the wrong team for the conditions. Root said afterwards “we made a slight miscalculation in selection”. No, it was a monumental cock up and we would have probably lost this even with a better wicket. You don’t play 4 seamers and one spinner in India. End of. Almost as bad is this rotation/resting nonsense. The best Test sides are those that keep together, know each other’s strengths and weaknesses and gell. Ok they are doing this largely because of quarantine and Covid. Sorry but if you want to play for England, it’s something you put up with. These guys earn a fortune to do something most of us would give our right arm for. And they are staying in first class facilities, not a hostel in shanty town. If you want to play do so, if you want to keep poping back home don’t put yourself up for selection.
And lastly the County Championship does matter. It’s the only format in which you can select the best for Tests. BUT when it’s played at the bookends of the season you can’t develop spinners, or indeed batsman who know how to play them. Ok the pitches aren’t like those in India, but it’s the best we have. Playing on greentops does not cut it.
Sadly with the emphasis on one day cricket, this probably won’t change or improve, unless the whole mindset changes. You won’t achieve this with the policies of the ECB, or ICC.
The conundrum is that other countries seem to find a better way to manage it than we do don’t they.
And of course Ed Smith has his favourites. That’s blindingly obvious.
‘Sorry but if you want to play for England, it’s something you put up with. These guys earn a fortune to do something most of us would give our right arm for.’
I quite agree with you. This attitude sickens me. These conditions go with the (well paid) job and many people are having to cope with worse.
By the way, if you had given your right arm to play Test cricket, that would make you the first unibrachium ever to win an England cap !
Actually, considering these guys are representing their country in a national sport they don’t earn a fortune. They earn less than many championship footballers. IPL is a fortune, but most of our test cricketers will never get there. Buttler, Stokes and Archer are the only test regulars from this country. None of the other national 20-20’s are in the same league financially to attract the top players.
It’s not obvious, blindingly or otherwise, that Smith has favourites–other than in his professional capacity as selector. If that’s all you meant, then the comment is totally meaningless: by definition, if your job is to select a team and you don’t change it every single match, then you have favourites in your professional capacity as selector. That’s your job!
I also don’t get how the system is less transparent or less fair than under previous regimes. Less transparent than what happened to Jack Leach on the last India tour? Less fair than Chris Read being constantly dropped for someone to whom he was on a different planet as a keeper, even when the selectors clearly wanted him as keeper? Less transparent and fair than Geoff Miller selecting a player that some pundits had literally not heard of based on evidence which was undiscernible by almost everyone, expert or otherwise?
It is obvious, he keeps picking Butler over Foakes and has even brought Bairstow back! Who in their right mind would do that?
That’s precisely my point–that’s only your opinion, not evidence of favouritism. It’s not even evidence of incompetence, it’s simply a selector having different priorities from the ones you’d have. Other people may have different opinions–such as the one of England’s 100-cap players who derided that opinion this week as being the thinking of “idiots who’ve never played test cricket”.
I’m sorry but no one in this planet can rate Buttler, who until recently was not even a regular county keeper, on the same planet as Foakes. Who’s being ridiculous now! Also Buttler, whatever his exploits in the 1-day game, which are many and much admired, has never made a consistent fist of batting in test cricket, like Bairstow, whereas Foakes has done pretty well when he’s been given the chance. The evidence is there for all to see, and has been for years, yet you choose to class it as opinion. Makes no sense to me.
If you’re reading my comment as saying that Buttler is a better KEEPER than Foakes, then you’re not reading it properly. The point I (and Boycott) was making is that choosing someone who’s perceived to be a better batsman but a worse keeper over a better keeper but a worse batsman–and yes, there is a question about whether Buttler IS a better test batsman–is a question of strategy. Some people will prefer one and some the other. That’s been the case since Tolchard over Taylor for the 1976 tour of india and since well before that according to people who were watching at the time.
What you’re saying is that your opinion is absolutely, objectively right. That’s just stupid–it’s to misunderstand the difference between a fact and an opinion. And the point originally was that a selector who disagrees with you is not only stupid but biased and nepotistic–which you have no evidence for.
The evidence is in the continued selection of mediocrity when more imaginative alternatives are there. Smith is publically on record as saying he wants to make our white ball specialists into format all rounders, an old and failed policy for years and clearly still not working. I’m saying my opinion is based on observational fact not prejudice. From his tests so far Foakes looks at least as good a test batsman as Buttler or Bairstow, as he has no glaring technical or temperamental weakness. I would love to see Buttler and Bairstow and Roy make it at test level, as they all have an X factor as attacking batsmen, but how many chances are you going to give them at the expense of others better suited to make a fist of those chances in the long run. You cannot go into test matches with substandard keepers who keep dropping catches and missing stumpings. How many runs has Buttler’s and Bairstow’s keeping cost us in the past? This is all provable fact, not opinion.
Will Sibley, Crawley and Lawrence be given the same multitude of opportunity under the Smith regime, only time will tell, but I fear not.
Incidentallly with the Tolchard v Taylor argument Tolchard, aside of being an exceptional player of spin bowling, at a time when there were a number of exceptional spinners playing in the county championship from all over the world, Tolchard was Leicestershire’s long time 1st choice county keeper, unlike Buttler or Bairstow are for their counties along with neither being an exceptional player of spin. To me and many others it’s a no brainier and Smith has nothing new to offer the red ball game. The ECB have been seduced by an eloquent salesman, all style and no substance. He’s come from nothing to chairman of selectors because he’s a marketing man and they’re chasing the cash cow, not the future cricket fans want.
I agree with some of this…but it doesn’t address what I’ve been saying. Again, it suggests that you don’t know the difference between biased and nepotistic (which is what “having favourites” is) and making decisions which you don’t agree with.
It also suggests that you don’t know what “provable fact” means. “Looks at least as good” is absolutely not provable fact. I’ve already pointed out that Roy having had a long run is in fact a disprovable non-fact–it really does exist only in your imagination.
Bairstow is most defintely Yorkshire’s first-choice keeper, and has been for years–when he’s available. (Last season for example he kept even though Tattersall was playing).
Where, by the way, did Smith say that he wanted to turn white-ball specialists into all-rounders? I can’t remember him saying anything like that–and he seems to have done it remarkably little if that really is his aim: he dropped Malan almost immediately, and has been completely uninterested in the likes of Tom Curran, Jordan, Willey or Dawson (three of whom made their debuts under Whittaker) as red-ball players.
It also seems rather perverse to be hammering away about dropping Bairstow when you’ve made several posts in the last couple of weeks arguing that he should be kept, and about dropping Buttler when he’s averaged 50 since the start of last summer at a time when only two other specialist batsmen average more than 28…one of whom would be averaging 21 in that period and 23 overall if you take out his one highest innings in seven tests.
Bairstow played the spin well in Galle and that should count for something in the short term, as there are no alternatives beating the door down. My criticism of him has always related more to his keeping than his batting, as it does with Buttler, though I still believe we should be actively looking elsewhere rather than giving continued chances to technical and temperamental unsuitability.
How is ‘looks at least as good’ not a provable fact. It’s there right in front of you! Can’t you believe your eyes?
Roy’s run was long for repeated failure and didn’t do the player any good as his confidence just ebbed away by the innings and this was very publically a Smith mix-n-match selection policy. He only gave in when it became obvious to everyone and his dog it wasn’t going to work. By that time Roy’s white ball form had deserted him as well. What a surprise.
By all rounders I have always meant format all rounders and never implied anything else and Smith has releatedly emphasised this aspect of his policy in interviews. Bits and pieces cricketers are not all rounders in the cricketing sense and England is littered with their wreckage since the advent of limited over cricket brought them to the fore. How have the likes of Sam Curran got a central contract. What has he ever done or ever looked like doing at test level, despite repeated opportunities.
As to Malan, as you say he seems to have become another casualty of the red ball cricketer made into a white ball one. Jordan has become a white ball specialist as he has fitness issues in the 4 day game. Tom Curran is in the pipeline when Broad and Anderson go. I’ve never been sure about Willey, is he too old and does his face fit? I would certainly rather him than Sam Curran as our test lefty. As to Dawson he’s only a fringe player. This all reflects Smith’s preferences for introducing his own rather than carrying on with predecessors selections If there are any doubts about them.
As a Warwickshire man I’m hoping, fitness permitting, that the next few seasons will see the rise of Brooks and Stone as the England opening pair. Archer needs to develop more consistent hostility. His frail looking frame worries me, though he’s still a test shoe in.
Hi All
My first time posting here. Interesting analysis all around, nice reader comments too (as always, some opinions are a tad too opinionated)!!
I feel pronouncements on pitch are all too frantic. This is only the second pink ball test in India.
The only established pink ball venue globally is Adelaide and they have experimented over years to tune the grass height etc. Until now, there has been no pink ball test that has favored spinners. I feel there will be a lot more of such results that will be lop sided before curators work out the best way to lay out a track.
Consider these stats – these are the lowest innings scores in Pink Ball Tests:
Feb ’21 (Motera): 81 all out
Dec ’20 (Adelaide): 36 All out
Dec ’19 (Perth): 166 all out
Nov ’19 (Gabba): 240 all out
Nov ’19 (Kolkata): 106 all out
Jan ’19 (Adelaide): 139 all out
June ’18 (Bridgetown): 93 all out
March ’18 (Auckland): 58 all out
Dec ’17 (Port Elizabeth): 68 all out
Dec ’17 (Adelaide): 138 all out
Oct ’17 (Dubai): 96 all out
Aug ’17 (Edgbaston): 137 all out
Dec ’16 (Adelaide): 142 all out
Nov ’16 (Adelaide): 250 all out
Oct ’16 (Dubai): 123 all out
Nov ’15 (Adelaide): 202 all out
Home curators will look to prepare pitches that reflect home realities and suit home teams. This is only fair. However, they will get it wrong from time to time. Its the price of change.