*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[OverratedSanity]

It's not that he's got the wobble going on where it kind of lands on half the seam with it pointing one way or the other like Clark or Pollock though. There seems to be as much chance of the ball just landing entirely cross-seam accidentally as there does of it landing on it conventionally. I'm not even convinced he actually consciously puts his fingers on the same part of the ball when he balls -- he almost just seems to treat it like a tennis ball. It's the weirdest thing.

He's the anti Sreesanth imo

 

[Hicheal Michael]

From Dobell's recent article re Cook. The premise of the article has merit, though some of the talking points are disputable imo.

That's a pattern that extends a long way further back. If we reflect on Cook's most recent Test centuries, we find evidence that suggests he has become something approaching the ultimate flat-track bully. Before those two doubles, we have to go back to November 2016 for a Cook century.

14 tests if i am not mistaken, Root has not scored a 100 in 13 tests (currently playing his 14th).

That one, in Rajkot, was made on a surface so slow and flat that England passed 500 in their first innings - he was one of four England players to make a century in the drawn match

Fair.

while the previous one (in July 2016) came at Old Trafford on a surface upon which Joe Root made a career-best 235 and England declared just short of 600.

*254. Hardly outrageous for a team to score 580 odd if 2 players score 100's - one being 250+. England still took 20 wickets with relative ease.

Before that, he made another double against Pakistan in Abu Dhabi (in October 2015) on a surface on which England again declared just short of 600.

Again, hardly surprising a team can score 550+ if one players anchors with 260. England very nearly won that game btw. No other English player scored a 100 that series IIRC.

You have to go back a long, long way to find a century made in demanding batting conditions or even on a quick pitch.

Very subjective phrase imo. Do quick pitches even exist outside SA these days?

Since when are 100's the be all and end all?

 

[Prince EWS]

I still think people are underestimating the Indian pace attack. If Bhuvneshwar was not injured I would rate it at least equal to England's.

I wonder if any international teams are starting to realise the importance of acclimatising is, particularly for batsmen. Still think the lack of acclimatization may be the biggest issue with the home/away performances with most Test series being 2 or 3 matches. After India beat SA at Wanderers, it would have been interesting if there had been another 2 tests?

I don't think many people actually deny that this is true; it's just that giving their teams the maximum opportunity to win away Test series is not a huge priority for schedulers compared to getting in as much profitable cricket as possible, satisfying agreements with other boards, playing JAMODIs, avoiding clashes with big franchise tournaments and even avoiding player burnout/injury.

It's not that there are these huge empty windows before Test series that practice games could be scheduled in -- they'd have to cut other stuff, and they'd rather lose the away Tests than do that. This is supported by the fact that when a series really is deemed massively important by a touring board - like the Ashes - there often are a few more serious practice games.

 

[StephenZA]

I don't think many people actually deny that this is true; it's just that giving their teams the maximum opportunity to win away Test series is not a huge priority for schedulers compared to getting in as much profitable cricket as possible, satisfying agreements with other boards, playing JAMODIs, avoiding clashes with big franchise tournaments and even avoiding player burnout/injury.

It's not that there are these huge empty windows before Test series that practice games could be scheduled in -- they'd have to cut other stuff, and they'd rather lose the away Tests than do that. This is supported by the fact that when a series really is deemed massively important by a touring board - like the Ashes - there often are a few more serious practice games.

I don't think that this is an unknown but I think the consequences are being brushed under the rug.... India winning in England would be a huge boon for cricket, the fact that the associated boards think it's not important enough seems to either be because they don't actually think the team is good enough. Or else just don't care about the winning of the series.

I personally have noticed that interest has dropped off in cricket, but those that still watch care about the Tests going on around the world but not the LO's stuff. More likely to fill a stadium for LO's less likely to have a world audience actually watching outside the WC. Good test cricket gets people watching big series from all over the world even when their team is not playing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

From Dobell's recent article re Cook. The premise of the article has merit, though some of the talking points are disputable imo.




14 tests if i am not mistaken, Root has not scored a 100 in 13 tests (currently playing his 14th).



Fair.



*254. Hardly outrageous for a team to score 580 odd if 2 players score 100's - one being 250+. England still took 20 wickets with relative ease.



Again, hardly surprising a team can score 550+ if one players anchors with 260. England very nearly won that game btw. No other English player scored a 100 that series IIRC.



Very subjective phrase imo. Do quick pitches even exist outside SA these days?

Since when are 100's the be all and end all?

lol the horrendous assumptions in there. Implying that every time Cook made a big score it doesn't really count because England made a big score so it must have been a road . . . completely ignoring that England probably made a big score because Cook did.

 

[Gnske]

From Dobell's recent article re Cook. The premise of the article has merit, though some of the talking points are disputable imo.




14 tests if i am not mistaken, Root has not scored a 100 in 13 tests (currently playing his 14th).



Fair.



*254. Hardly outrageous for a team to score 580 odd if 2 players score 100's - one being 250+. England still took 20 wickets with relative ease.



Again, hardly surprising a team can score 550+ if one players anchors with 260. England very nearly won that game btw. No other English player scored a 100 that series IIRC.



Very subjective phrase imo. Do quick pitches even exist outside SA these days?

Since when are 100's the be all and end all?

Since Ben Stokes became a hero to George "Let me tell you about the ECB for the 528th time" Dobell

 

[vcs]

I do think there is some truth to that article in that Cook's cashed in big when things have been easier whereas as an opener, you'd rather have him gritting out 30s and 40s and having a lower SD but a similar average. I just checked that he averaged 50+ in the Ashes which flatters his contribution TBH.

ATM, it does seem like he'd be better suited as an opener in subcontinent conditions, weirdly. I'd take him above Vijay..

 

[Borges]

I don't think that this is an unknown but I think the consequences are being brushed under the rug.... India winning in England would be a huge boon for cricket, the fact that the associated boards think it's not important enough seems to either be because they don't actually think the team is good enough. Or else just don't care about the winning of the series.

If the players considered acclimatisation/winning overseas to be of overriding importance, they would have demanded, and got adequate opportunities for that. All they had to, at least for England, was to split the limited overs stuff and the test matches into two tours in two different years. As I see it, the onus is on the players (primarily on Kohli, the organ grinder, and not on Shastri, the monkey).

 

[Moonsorrow999]

There aren’t too many excuses for Cook anymore. The only one I see is that Jennings is really really bad. But he will get the chop and Cook will continue. Stoneman has a much more successful Ashes series if you actually break down game by game instead of looking at averages because the context of Cook’s double hundred was way too late. Yet Stoneman got the punt. England need a change with both openers I think and they have 4 players in the middle order who are number 7s, possible 6 at best.

 

[harsh.ag]

Stoneman was better than Jennings no doubt

 

[StephenZA]

I just don't get the continuous discussion over Cook; Yes he has declined, but no other options are available that are obviously better even at the declined level and with his experience it makes sense to stick with him until a younger better obvious substitute becomes available.

.....it's almost identical to the discussion regarding Amla.

 

[StephenZA]

If the players considered acclimatisation/winning overseas to be of overriding importance, they would have demanded, and got adequate opportunities for that. All they had to, at least for England, was to split the limited overs stuff and the test matches into two tours in two different years. As I see it, the onus is on the players (primarily on Kohli, the organ grinder, and not on Shastri, the monkey).

Tours get planned by the boards well before players get involved.... captains may get a say, but not much of one except to complain after the fact.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

I just don't get the continuous discussion over Cook; Yes he has declined, but no other options are available that are obviously better even at the declined level and with his experience it makes sense to stick with him until a younger better obvious substitute becomes available.

.....it's almost identical to the discussion regarding Amla.

I think the ‘oh there nobody better’ is a negative outlook on things and probably why it’s not working out for England. No harm in trying 2 new openers or even stick with the one that just gets tossed aside for Cook. Things can’t exactly get any worse. Time to move on from home. It’s obvious that Root has zero confidence in his batting despite him being one of them.

 

[Top_Cat]

Whilst I do agree that senior "legend" deserve to go out when they want to there are times they carry on too long.

Considering some of his contempories are retiring at a similar age to him it shouldn't be out the question test retirement.

It all depends on the value they feel Cook is bringing to the squad and whilst they winning at home all is fine.

But I didn't think of it like this before but what if Cook is so absorbed by wanting to end his struggles his new opening partners may not be in the right frame of mind ? Sometimes a freshness and a brashness is needed to get out of a hole.

Individually I think Cook is finished at this level but maybe as a senior player is what determines his future. How selectors look at that.

I'm not saying he deserves anything, a nice ending or whatever. It's professional sport, he deserves to go out when the selectors decide he's not good enough and stop picking him.

But the question remains, who to pick instead? Noone's scoring enough to displace him. Picking some young punk in the forlorn hope they do better risks destabilising the team and puts enormous pressure on whoever that poor young punk is. And why risk it when the same team is 2-0 up in the series? Tear it down and start again when the team is still winning, I just don't see the point.

And I know armchair types like to pretend that the weight of a player's rep doesn't matter but it really does. Sure the 'Hyenas are circling' and noone from the oppo is going to contradict someone saying that, of course. So the Indian team also have to real careful about not pushing his buttons because they know from quite recent history what he's still capable of when he has a day out. Someone in CC better be scoring a lot of runs to offset even the threat of a big score from Cook and it's simple, noone is.

 

[harsh.ag]

I just don't get the continuous discussion over Cook; Yes he has declined, but no other options are available that are obviously better even at the declined level and with his experience it makes sense to stick with him until a younger better obvious substitute becomes available.

.....it's almost identical to the discussion regarding Amla.

There is an argument to be made that Stoneman should have been kept instead of Cook. In his 8 Ashes innings without the 244*, Cook scored 132. In 9, Stoneman scored 232.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think the ‘oh there nobody better’ is a negative outlook on things and probably why it’s not working out for England. No harm in trying 2 new openers or even stick with the one that just gets tossed aside for Cook. Things can’t exactly get any worse. Time to move on from home. It’s obvious that Root has zero confidence in his batting despite him being one of them.

Yeah, they really can.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Stoneman was better than Jennings no doubt

He was the better of the two by some distance when they both opened at Durham if you factor out this freakishly amazing season Keats had in 2016.

 

[StephenZA]

I think the ‘oh there nobody better’ is a negative outlook on things and probably why it’s not working out for England. No harm in trying 2 new openers or even stick with the one that just gets tossed aside for Cook. Things can’t exactly get any worse. Time to move on from home. It’s obvious that Root has zero confidence in his batting despite him being one of them.

You really think that things can't get worse than having Cook score 20-30 runs (with the occasional 100 thrown in!) and seeing off 10-15 overs, more often than not? It took SA 5 years to replace Smith, going through a number of unfortunate batsmen. I mean how many settled opening pairs are even true in world cricket at the moment. Just throwing guys into open at test level, "because" is poor.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

Yeah, they really can.

Well I suppose they could bring Hameed in. Which would be bad in case anyone misreads

 

[StephenZA]

There is an argument to be made that Stoneman should have been kept instead of Cook. In his 8 Ashes innings without the 244*, Cook scored 132. In 9, Stoneman scored 232.

Keeping Stoneman and not bringing in Jennings makes sense, discarding Cook until the opening partner is settled makes no sense.