*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[Adders]

Not this year though.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Seamers bowled well around the wicket. Ishant got beautiful shape tailing away from the lefties but once he had both playing for the away swing, the odd one going straight on with the angle would almost certainly have got him an LB/bowled.

 

[Borges]

My fervent wish for today is for Cook to stand tall; to score one of his daddy hundreds.
Yeah, agreed, Smith and Kohli etc., ATG (or is it ATVG?) etc.. Cook deserves more respect than either of those two for the way he has played the game.

 

[trundler]

My fervent wish for today is for Cook to stand tall; to score one of his daddy hundreds.
Yeah, agreed, Smith and Kohli etc., ATG (or is it ATVG?) etc.. Cook deserves more respect than either of those two for the way he has played the game.

A triple would be nice.

 

[S.Kennedy]

This was the fixture (India at T. Bridge) in 2014 where Alastair Cook got his one and only wicket, Ishant Sharma. I remember him doing a Bob Willis impression.

 

[S.Kennedy]

My problem with England is not that they get beaten per se but when they do get beaten they get absolutely slaughtered. They seem incapable of getting slightly beaten, by say 40 runs or 4 wickets. All their defeats are incredibly one-sided,

- Lord's v Pakistan, by 9 wickets
- Eden Park v Kiwis, an Innings and 49 runs
- The four Ashes defeats included two by an innings and one by 10 wickets. Only Adelaide was not a bloodbath, but even that was still by 120 runs.

 

[Borges]

My problem with England is not that they get beaten per se but when they do get beaten they get absolutely slaughtered. They seem incapable of getting slightly beaten, by say 40 runs or 4 wickets. All their defeats are incredibly one-sided,

I presume that you would have been happier if England had lost the first test by one wicket instead of winning by 31 runs.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I presume that you would have been happier if England had lost the first test by one wicket instead of winning by 31 runs.

No.

 

[S.Kennedy]

England's last sub-100 run defeat was Lord's v Pakistan 2016 (by 75 runs).

 

[Starfighter]

I presume that you would have been happier if England had lost the first test by one wicket instead of winning by 31 runs.

Non-sequitur. All he's saying is that England have trouble fighting and making a game of it even from a losing situation, preferring to to just roll over.

 

[Starfighter]

I can see a few Indian fans in places smug that Anderson hasn't gotten Kohl's wicket yet. Well it's not for want of trying.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England's last sub-100 run defeat was Lord's v Pakistan 2016 (by 75 runs).

You're definitely accurate in your assessment, however it's worth noting that Test matches don't actually have close finishes that often, especially when compared to Limited-overs games.

Wins by 40 runs or less, or 4 wickets or less aren't particularly common. More often that not the team that wins, wins by a large margin

 

[Borges]

Non-sequitur. All he's saying is that England have trouble fighting and making a game of it even from a losing situation, preferring to to just roll over.

They did fight and make a game of it in the first test when they were well behind in the game at 87/7 in their second innings.
However, they went on to win the game instead of fighting and losing.

 

[vcs]

England are also very hard to stop once they get on top early as India found out at Lords. Their wins against Pakistan and SA last year also had a similar pattern. Very important to stay in the game on day 1 if you're touring England, otherwise you'll probably get thrashed.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

My problem with England is not that they get beaten per se but when they do get beaten they get absolutely slaughtered. They seem incapable of getting slightly beaten, by say 40 runs or 4 wickets. All their defeats are incredibly one-sided,

- Lord's v Pakistan, by 9 wickets
- Eden Park v Kiwis, an Innings and 49 runs
- The four Ashes defeats included two by an innings and one by 10 wickets. Only Adelaide was not a bloodbath, but even that was still by 120 runs.

'That's the way we play'

 

[CasMcG24]

England are also very hard to stop once they get on top early as India found out at Lords. Their wins against Pakistan and SA last year also had a similar pattern. Very important to stay in the game on day 1 if you're touring England, otherwise you'll probably get thrashed.

They'll be thrashed by lunch... Not being funny but they'll collapse like a straw hut in an earthquake. I would love them to bat out the day but not going to happen... Cook first ball will walk.

 

[S.Kennedy]

You're definitely accurate in your assessment, however it's worth noting that Test matches don't actually have close finishes that often, especially when compared to Limited-overs games.

Wins by 40 runs or less, or 4 wickets or less aren't particularly common. More often that not the team that wins, wins by a large margin

It wasn't even as if I was that restrictive in my qualification (''sub-100''). Heck, since the commencement of the Ashes England have had three ''by an innings'' and two ''by 9/10 wicket'' thrashings. That is 5/11 test matches that were thrashings for England (overall: 3 wins 6 losses 2 draws). The evidence is clear: once England are down they plummet, showing little resilience/rear-guard fight.

 

[vcs]

Fighting back from adversity in Test matches is very difficult. How many teams do show resilience these days? SA were the last team who could do that (when De Villiers-Amla-Du Plessis help them grind out a few blockathon draws).

 

[wpdavid]

You get the impression that if the first few wickets go cheaply, the middle order are told not to hang around and make everyone have to come back on Day 5.


Obviously I woke up today confident we'll knock off the runs by tea-time tomorrow. Then I pondered our batting line-up and realised that we'll be lucky to still be batting at tea-time today. I think The Oval will see the more interesting cricket today.

 

[Borges]

Cook to ton up today, big time. When that happens, I'm going to be the last man standing. Triumphantly.