I love it when social media is split down the middle. It means there’s a row brewing and some healthy debate to be had. This is precisely why test cricket is the best game in the world. There’s so much to talk about and disagree over.
Depending on which corner you’re in today, Alastair Cook is either a bloody hero who should be congratulated for securing a draw, or he’s an uber cautious coward who didn’t have the cojones to press for a win.
Personally, and I’ll briefly explain why, I’m in the latter camp. Although I wouldn’t go as far as calling Cook a coward, as I can understand why he didn’t want to risk defeat after the debacle at Dhaka, I thought he was far too conservative today. England batted too slowly this morning and his declaration came too late.
Yesterday evening, England scored 114 runs in the final session under the severest pressure. Hameed and Cook himself played beautifully. They withstood the trial by spin and batted England into a secure overnight position from which they basically couldn’t lose: 163 runs ahead with all ten wickets in hand. At this point Cook was a hero.
If I was the England skipper in this situation I would’ve batted normally for the first 45 minutes or so this morning, just to avoid the possibility of an unlikely collapse, but then stepped things up dramatically thereafter. Unfortunately however, Cook showed no urgency until it was far too late. And for that reason he became a villain, not a hero, in my book.
I argued yesterday that England should’ve looked to score approximately 130 runs in the first session on day 5 to declare with a lead of about 300 at lunch. Instead, despite their almost impregnable position, England actually scored more slowly this morning than they did last night. They only mustered 97 runs despite having all their wickets in hand. They scored 114 runs the evening beforehand.
Cook seemed to forget that England have a very long batting order and plenty of ultra positive players in the middle-order. When England needed quick runs, the likes of Moeen, Duckett and Bairstow didn’t even get a knock. The fact that Stokes came in at the end, and managed to score at a run a ball, just added to my frustration.
The timing of the declaration was also poor. Again it was far too conservative. This was not a one-day match. India were never going to chase anything close to 300 on a 5th day pitch with no fielding restrictions. This kind of thing simply doesn’t happen in test cricket. It’s almost like England were playing for a draw from the start.
Having scored far too slowly in the morning, Cook should have set India something like 280 in 60 overs. That might sound very gettable in the context of modern one-day cricket, but believe me it’s a completely different kettle of fish in test cricket, or even first class cricket.
People made the same mistake in the county championship finale between Middlesex and Yorkshire. The truth is, it’s incredibly hard to score at nearly 5 an over on the last day, on a wearing pitch, when the opposition can put fielders wherever they want.
The other thing that irks me – and I mentioned this in my day 4 report – is that England probably won’t have too many opportunities to win on this tour. The surfaces in the remaining games are expected to turn a lot more and offer less for the seamers. This could have been England’s big chance. Unfortunately however, Cook never grasped this.
No doubt many people will read the above and think I’m being incredibly unfair. That’s fine. It’s just my opinion. However, test cricket needs excitement to survive. It needs captains to be aggressive and seize the day.
Test cricket also needs captains to ‘get on with the game’ (to use one of David Lloyd’s favourite expressions). England’s overrate in this test was lamentable. Had we bowled our full allocation of overs earlier in the match, instead of slowing the game down and cheating spectators, we would’ve had more time to take the wickets needed on day 5. I’m afraid this one is squarely on Cook (even if you don’t agree with my other points).
As I said above I can understand where Cook’s conservatism comes from. After all, he learned from Strauss who was also very conservative. What’s more, it’s fair to point out that most test captains are generally cautious these days. Cook isn’t alone in this regard. However, I think he let a lot of England supporters down today. I certainly feel let down. England should be 1-0 up in the series.
James Morgan
Spot on James…I’ll repost the comment I posted an hour ago on your Day 4 entry because I was about to explode with frustration!…Not that it adds or differs much from what you’ve written above…
What a wasted opportunity that was. We’ll regret being so cautious later in the series. This was probably the best chance to win we’ll get. 310 off 50, on a 5th day pitch? Jeez, that was all England managed on Day 1, off 93! I agree we couldn’t afford to risk losing, but even with all else being equal 275 off 55, or even a handful of overs earlier than that, would have been fine. Also, it was frustrating England didn’t make more of their wickets in hand. Fast-scoring batsmen like Duckett, Bairstow, Ali and Woakes didn’t even get a knock. They really should have been using up these wickets in pursuit of 40 or 50 more before lunch. There’s also no reason why just because it’s a Test match, the next batsman can’t be running down the steps and into the middle the moment another is out, to really inject urgency into proceedings. I think India would have struggled to survive 70 overs today, and England should have made sure they had to face them.
No it’s a different world now, there was nothing wrong with that pitch 280 off 60 is very gettable and Cook scored freely it was Hameed that slowed down so wrong and wrong again
If Cook had told Hameed to get runs or get out he would have done so. It’s happened before to many batsmen. Surprised the coach didn’t set them a declaration target. But Cook seems to rule the roost. If so then he must be accountable for the slow batting.
“280 off 60 is very gettable”.
It was gotten here by a less good batting line-up for fast scoring than India’s and against a better spinner than England have:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/657651.html
A seriously good batting line up for Pakistan….
Spot in James. England might not have forced the win but to not give themselves the best chance with only marginal risk is cautious in the extreme.
Agree with James. England had a chance to win and should have taken it. Cook should have led from the front and showed his intent. Does he think he can’t put pressure on India in front of a home crowd? England should have gone for the kill. That creates its own chances. if you are diffident then you will have a draw.
I fail to see any basis on which to disagree with James’ analysis. Cook is skipper and from halfway through session 1 it was clear that there was no chance of losing – so it was worth then losing all the wickets in an hour (if needed)to add 100 and give the bowlers a chance. I have seen suggestions elsewhere that what happened and what should have happened shows the need for T20 batting capabilities in a test team. No it doesn’t. It shows the need for a skipper prepared to take the necessary decisions to win the game. Cook played like the Boycott of old – too concerned about his wicket and too little concerned for the team (although – unlike Boycott – I suspect it was not conscious with Cook).
Thanks mate. I’m getting some flack on Twitter so appreciate the support here.
What irritated me is that we didn’t even try to put our foot down this morning. At least try to score at 5 an over and then, if it goes wrong and a few wickets go down, shut up shop or moderate expectations and the prospective target. Instead we seemed to sleep walk through the first session.
I wrote yesterday that the big risk was that Cook/Hameed might bat for too long today. Had we lost them after 45 mins today it probably would’ve increased our chances of winning. I doubt Stokes, Bairstow and Duckett would’ve been content with milking the bowling when the lead is 220+ and plenty of batting in the hunch.
The early session took me back to a league game I played last season. I had been banging away (we batted second) to secure additional batting points (which we needed) as winning was out of sight. I got out (having scored 29 out of 32 with 3 lbs) and my partner then batted out the last 5 overs without scoring. When he came in we asked him what he thought he was doing – at which point it became apparent he thought we were playing a timed game (with a draw option) rather than a 45 over game (we play half and half in Surrey League).
Perhaps Cook had a similar mental aberration? :)
Maybe! Good story.
Cook was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. Given India’s recent record at home I think most of us would have settled for a draw at the start of the game. The pitch was still very good on day 5 – if Cook had declared too early and India had raced to victory he’d have been slaughtered.
Let’s just take the positives from the game – strong first innings batting, our spinners bowled way better than we all expected and Hameed looks made for Test cricket even at 19. And your Indian guest blogger won’t get his 5-0!
Yes overall a draw was a decent result, and there were definitely more positives than negatives over the course of the match, but the above is merely a review of day 5. We were in a great position to press for a win overnight imho but we didn’t even try. That’s the frustrating thing for me.
I’m not advocating a generous declaration. I think 300 in 2 sessions (60 overs) would’ve given India no chance but given England a better one than 310 in 50. We could’ve easily achieved 130 runs in the morning given that we had a big lead and plenty of wickets in hand, but Cook wasn’t interested. I don’t get it. It wouldn’t have been particularly risky to score at 4s and 5s rather than 3s before lunch given the power in our middle order.
Which is a reasonable argument – but doesn’t at all address the lack of positive batting intent on the final morning.
England actually scored more slowly this morning than they did last night…
Call me cynical, but the (conscious or unconscious) priority seems to have been the captain’s batting average.
Of course there are positives – but one of those is the unexpected effectiveness of our spinners, who could easily have been given more time to roll up India, without excessive risk.
Full agreement – a win thrown away by a proven poor captain. Now stand by for a Bunsen in the next test with England going 1-0 down, which will serve Cook right.
Time to give Northeast a go as captain.
I wonder how well Jack Leach would have bowled?
A win thrown away what are you on it is obviously good stuff another 10 overs and the Indians would just have had more batting practice the chances of winning might have increased from about 4% to 5% he is an accomplished professional, you are an ignorant lout why do you think your views have any merit?
Facepalm. Try debating without resorting to pointless insults Ed, they just detract from your points – after all it’s you who then comes across as the troll.
Frankly if you’re going to spew bile why should your views have any merit?
There are a number of charges that could be directed at Cook, which may or may not be fair, depending on, you know, stuff:
• Conservative declaration;
• Slow scoring rate when they could have pushed on;
• Slow bowling rate throughout;
• Game management and better use, for example, of Rashid as an attacking bowler.
Each point can be argued this way or that, but Cook has form across the charge sheet, and is grimly rigid when he goes into a match determined to avoid defeat. He simply does not have the ability to adjust or adapt to a changing game situation.
Similar themes emerged, inter alia, in the first Test between Pakistan and England in Abu Dhabi in October 2015 – https://dropinpitch.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/cooks-epic-performance-an-alternative-view/
The funky stuff at the end with aggressive field placings and every England tour member patrolling the boundary to get the ball back to the bowler in double-quick time look slightly ridiculous in the context of the match up till the last hour.
Cook had control of the narrative from the time he won the toss, but chose not to drive the story. His caution and single-gear thinking is both a strength and a weakness. It has defined his batting record, which will cement his place in the pantheon of English batsmen, but it has also highlighted his inability to read a game, adapt and seek the prize, and that is a professional flaw that will condemn him as a poor captain.
Hi mate. I tend to agree. Today he should have realised, especially after the first 45 mins, that India were never going to bowl us out. He also should’ve realised that Stokes, Bairstow, Ali and Duckett were better placed to raise the tempo than him. Rather than using his noggin, he was content to pick off the easy singles and slowly move towards another personal milestone, an approach that cost the team both time and runs. He was either oblivious to the match situation or was playing for a draw from the start of play. Cook is often an easy target, so I don’t like to put the boot in unnecessarily, but I was very frustrated with him today.
My personal view is I wouldn’t have declared at all.
This was a friendly pitch where you needed 100+ overs to bowl a team out.
I get all the arguments about trying to win it, but it wasn’t really on. Come on did Kohli ever miss a ball.
Modern cricket with the advent of social media is full of the bore that is decleration speculation, go back 10 years and have a look at scorecards. Tests are never won in this situation.
On to the match itself. We were fearful at the beginning, however we’ve scored runs and the spinners have been decent. We are in thus series.
Neil, I agree. There was no point in the declaration at all. Bat out the final day, and (hopefully) face a tired Indian side in the next test (which starts on Thursday). If you must declare, then you don’t leave a target the opposition can get, especially in the first test of a 5 test series. How much criticism would Cook have got if he’d left India (say) 280 in 60 overs, and they’d got them? Getting 6 Indian wickets was a moral victory, and will put England in good heart for the next test (in a series they were supposed to lose 5-0). Yes, England could have batted a bit quicker in the morning (against some fairly negative bowling), but that’s it.
I’m really surprised you wouldn’t have declared at all. What message would that have sent? England could easily have scored a little faster in the morning and set India a total of 300 off 60 overs. There would have been no chance of losing and a greater chance of winning.
I’ve heard a lot of people defend Cook’s slow scoring by saying ‘well, it was very difficult to score out there’. If that’s the case, why did he need a lead of 310? Surely if it’s difficult to score then he could have declared earlier. Cook can’t have it both ways.
Having just watched Sky’s Verdict, Trott, Butcher and Willis all agreed that England could have kicked on faster in the morning and declared earlier. Like them I can understand why Cook is so cautious, but that doesn’t make it right imho. Being cautious shows India that we’re scared of them.
I really think that Cook could have declared a few overs earlier despite the not so quick morning session and he still wouldn’t have been risking a defeat. Admittedly India scored a fair few runs in the last few overs, but by that time they were reasonably secure and the spinners were showing signs of tiring a bit.
I’ll admit that I didn’t see the morning session but at the close of day 4, I was telling all and sundry on another forum that circa 280 or so from a minimum 55 left at least a reasonable amount of time for a go at victory so that was 6 overs more. Therefore I was slightly disappointed that it was left a bit late. I don’t buy that the pitch was still a road, there was a fair amount of quite variable bounce and turn that was exploited quite well by the England tweakers.
I do think the idea of batting all day was daft. Can’t we be positive at a good showing from the spinners after all? They have shown a distinct improvement from Bangladesh and I would hope that this can only be furthered as the series goes on having gained a decent amount of confidence from this? Just a thought.
Message: your bowlers hold no terrors. But the point (that I’ve already made) would have been to start the second test (hopefully winning the toss and batting) against tired opponents who had been in the field a long time.
I understand the logic James but why stay fresh for the next test (in order to establish a winning position) when you already have one in the game in front of you?
We can all speculate as to what might happen in the next game (who knows, India might win the toss and bat for 3 days) but England had worked hard in Rajkot to establish a winning position but then decided they weren’t going to go for a win. I find it a strange approach. We might not get into another potential winning position all series – especially if what we’ve heard about the upcoming pitches is true. I think we’ve missed a golden opportunity through conservatism.
Just my view.
This is all well and good but don’t forget there were two teams playing this match, one of whom were the no.1 ranked test team playing at home. I’m sure England would have liked to have scored 200 in a session but from what I saw India bowled (and fielded) much tighter on the final morning, it was of course vital for Ind to slow Eng down and force the draw.
If anything England were the only team trying to force a result. I’d perhaps reserve your stinging criticism of Cook to the inevitable collapse just around the corner.
! Perhaps that’s good advice POP. However, I wasn’t advocating that England should’ve scored 200 in the morning session. 130 would have been relatively simple to achieve given the batsmen available, and it wouldn’t have involved undue risk either. Instead we looked like we were sleepwalking towards a draw. I don’t understand why. We weren’t going to lose with a lead of 200+ and ten wickets in the hutch so why not raise the tempo?
Interesting article.
I don’t hold issue with the declaration in terms of the amount of overs / runs to get on the basis that at that point in time once we remove hindight bias, batting had been fairly straightforward in all three innings and giving India with their ODI prowess a chance to chase down something in my view was asking for trouble. In my view it wasn’t worth the very real risk.
I do agree however that there was opportunity to turn the screw and bat in 20-20 mode earlier with all the wickets in hand that in itself would have allowed more time. This was my frustration.
Lots of positives to take away though which means I don’t think this will be our only chance to win a test. We’re suddenly in a position where (by my count) nine players pick themselves and the two biggest problem issues (top order batting and spin) are both in a better place than they were at the start of the match. It is a draw, but it’s also a statement that England are competitive.
Roll on Thursday!
The English sealers were a potent threat, weren’t they? For England, 3 spinners looks OK. But maybe the 3 steamers need consideration. Stokes is undroppable because of his batting. Woakes is undroppable because of his batting, he plays spin as well as anyone on the English team… So drop Broad
The Guardian is engaging in some tasty schadenfreude over the Aussie’s humiliation this morning…
In his current gig as Australia’s batting coach, Hick’s job title is a kind of pre-fabricated punchline, like being Bernie Madoff’s financial advisor or the script-writer for Sharknado. He turned 50 in May – a rare instance of reaching a half-century while on Australian shores – but even at that age you wouldn’t bet against him doing better than the Australian batsmen who crumpled to scores of 85 and 161 in this latest disaster….
I am immediately against any article that takes the piss out of my childhood hero, Graeme Hick (I was a junior member at Worcs for years) :-)
We’ve got an article about Australia in the pipeline by the way. A guest post.
James,
I agree with your sentiments. I would have batted until lunch and set them 280-290. I didn’t ever think chasing that was doable, despite the tendency of some to frame any chase as an ODI scenario. As you say, the circumstances of a fifth day pitch and no field restrictions make chasing a lot harder in Test cricket.
All of that said, I was only very slightly disappointed with Cook. And that was because of a point made by Nasser (I think) on commentary.
His point was that you see things very differently when you’re actually playing the game. When you’ve worked so hard in that heat for 5 days, your natural instinct is to put the game out of reach. When it’s your head on the block, you think very differently from a spectator with nothing to lose. It’s a half hour of being grumpy for us if we lose – but for the players it’s 5 days of blood, sweat and tears down the drain.
I thought that was an unarguable point from an ex-captain, and it explains why there’s sometimes a disconnect between what we might do as fans, and what actually happens. Also I can’t think of many captains who would have done much differently – maybe Michael Clarke, who did like a kamikaze declaration or two (see The Oval, 2014) But on the whole, I find it hard to criticise Cook too strongly for doing exactly what any other captain would have done.
Just be thankful Shane Warne wasn’t on comms – he would have combusted with his usual “have to be prepared to lose to win” rubbish. Wonder what he makes of this current Aussie team who seem to be quite happy to lose with no chance of winning whatsoever!
Cook being ousted as captain cannot come soon enough. Sorry if that upset anyone. His time as captain passed moons ago. He’s still there making massive mistakes. Sometimes I think I live in a parallel universe. To have to be bombarded with sycophantic commentators such as Simon Hughes & Mark Nicholas makes me want to puke. If I do watch highlights I usually turn the sound off. I rather suspect until this generation of commentators is gone we will not see Cook being lambasted for his awful captaincy. Need a captain willing to have a go, an attacking captain who understands how to set a good field and make good use of his bowlers. Sadly Cook has neither of these necessary tools in his box.