I rate Pope even lower now than I did pre series tbh. I guess playing one all timer of an innings and nothing else is better than getting a bunch of 30s and 40s, but man he looked absolutely shocking after that first test. The level to which he pre-meditates his shots against spinners is laughable. They showed a side on angle of his batting against Kuldeep and Ashwin and he's winding up his saunter down the track when the ball isn't even close to being out of the bowler's hand. He doesn't need to be doing that at all because they bowl slow enough where you can use your feet against them effectively without showing your hand if you time it right. The shot he got out to Ashwin today was atrocious too. I have no idea how a test batsman can think it's a good idea to sweep that ball unless you've made your mind up after the previous ball that you're going to sweep it no matter what.
take the HS of each and every 1-7 for England and only Crawley comes out with more than 22 average..... (low to mid 30s for Crawley)
point is the batting was in the main poor, three centurions who showed no consistency and Pope scored something like 119 runs outside of his 196 which itself was thanks to a drop around 104 (?) which likely would have seen England 0-5 had it been taken
Crawley needed to convert some of his fifties (4/10) to hundreds, HS of 79 having got to fifty four times is pretty feeble and let the side down.
Bairstow was the lowest HS (39) of the 1-7 but point of taking away the HS is to highlight in the majority of their innings, 9-10, the majority (6) of 1-7 were scoring under 45 runs a Test and that is poor, can excuse Foakes to a degree but a keeper supposedly able to bat, and in these kind of conditions, you might expect a bit more
either way the keeper debate was, as ever, futile, when the batting can't post more than 250 or thereabouts an innings majority of the time, 1st innings not good enough and only once scoring 550+ runs in a Test and how many matches on reasonable batting tracks do you expect to win with that few runs in the bank?
BUT anyone knows much will know England don't fare too well in India, thinking "bazballs" would change all that was somewhere between naive and insane (or just plain stupid)...., is that two tour wins in the past 40 years?
For England probably Bashir and Hartley can come away with some credit, a few may cry "much credit", "much credit", but look at their averages (33-36) compared to Indian counterparts who bowled much (20-24) and you should be able to see they took wickets on pitches suited for spinners and fared ok
sure they aren't as experienced, but the point is you can't overdo credit for bowlers who didn't do better than probably par or below
Combined XI? probably might include 1-2 English players as a default that not all Indians could have a good series although I might simply go with all Indians because they merited it more