• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** England in India

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
2 days is not enough to tell IMO.

I guess this is another example of slow scoring bringing pressure on the batsmen here - 12 runs since lunch in just short of an hour's play!
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Barney Rubble said:
I got up just after lunch, and I have only one thing to say:

Hoooooooogggggggggggggggyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D

What a guy. :)
Ditto. Crawled out of bed at around 6.15 and switched on expecting to see 220 for 2, or somesuch. YEEEESSS!!!!! In answer to the earlier question, yup I was one of those who didn't fancy Hoggy at all out here, and how wrong I was. Is it my imagination, or has he learnt how to use reverse swing? He's definitely made more use of the slower balls than I can remember previously.

Unfortunately, the pressure seems to have been lifted now that Harmison is back in the attack. Surely he should have the new ball if he's going to do anything at all.
 

PY

International Coach
That's what, three catches been shelled on this partnership alone? Can't have that at international cricket.

My hand is in the air too (any ideas how long we have to keep it there), I thought Hoggy'd struggle to take wickets but do his job well as he always does of chipping in here and there and bowling tight.

I'm chuffed for him that he's done better. :)
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
IndianByHeart said:
Unlike Bothom who was a failure as captain, Flintoff seems to be a real leader.
Maybe, but I think there's been some iffy decisions in the last hour. Once Hoggard had been seen off, what would Kumble have least fancied? Has to be Harmi & Fred bowling fast with a new ball, but we've kept the old ball too long.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
wpdavid said:
Maybe, but I think there's been some iffy decisions in the last hour. Once Hoggard had been seen off, what would Kumble have least fancied? Has to be Harmi & Fred bowling fast with a new ball, but we've kept the old ball too long.
i dont see how the new ball would help, its glaringly obvious that both sides have achieved far more out of the old ball than the new ball(and lets not forget that the England tail really wagged only after India took the new ball).
i just wonder what blackwell is doing in the side if he isnt going to be bowling? as bad as he is he must be a better option than bell. harmison has bowled poorly, and theres no way he should have bowled as many overs as he bowled both yesterday and today.
as far as panesar is concerned, im hardly impressed, hes going to have to improve a heck of a lot if he is to even be as good as giles. no variety whatsoever, no arm ball, barely any variations of pace, hes just completely one dimensional.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
india are lucky england aren't full strenght, then i'd be seriously backing england to win this series.
 

adharcric

International Coach
aussie said:
india are lucky england aren't full strenght, then i'd be seriously backing england to win this series.
ok maybe simon jones is missed here. but cook and collingwood did far more than trescothick and vaughan would've done for england, in fact without those two england had nothing going. so you should be glad your two best batsman didn't show up on this occasion.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
aussie said:
india are lucky england aren't full strenght, then i'd be seriously backing england to win this series.
Actually if it was 15 vs 11 then I would say you are right. There are so many variables you cannot say whether England would do better or worse despite team strength/weakness.
 

pskov

International 12th Man
adharcric said:
seriously, why is blackwell even in india. he's done absolutely NOTHING.
I seriously have no idea. We might as well play Shah in the second test and go with just four bowlers if this is how he's going to be used. I mean today even Bell has been prefered to him with the ball.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
i dont see how the new ball would help, its glaringly obvious that both sides have achieved far more out of the old ball than the new ball(and lets not forget that the England tail really wagged only after India took the new ball). .
Partially that's down to poor bowling, of course. Now expecting better this time around may be optimistic given what we've seen from Harmison so far, but sometimes you just need to recognise that the state of the game has shifted and not keep doing what was working an hour previously. Just because an old ball was working nicely after 70 overs doesn't mean it will still do that after 90. Eventually it just gets knackered. And, as I said before, part of my thinking is what would Kumble least fancy?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
wpdavid said:
Partially that's down to poor bowling, of course. Now expecting better this time around may be optimistic given what we've seen from Harmison so far, but sometimes you just need to recognise that the state of the game has shifted and not keep doing what was working an hour previously. Just because an old ball was working nicely after 70 overs doesn't mean it will still do that after 90. Eventually it just gets knackered. And, as I said before, part of my thinking is what would Kumble least fancy?
the new ball has taken about 2 wickets this game, one of which came with a slower ball. certainly the old ball has swung more than the new ball and shree santh and to an extent pathan both looked more effective with old rather than new ball. i dont know whether the ball at 90 overs old was still doing what it was at 70 overs, but with harmison and panesar bowling, there is no way of knowing anyways.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
adharcric said:
ok maybe simon jones is missed here. but cook and collingwood did far more than trescothick and vaughan would've done for england, in fact without those two england had nothing going. so you should be glad your two best batsman didn't show up on this occasion.
Trescothick has been england's best batsman on the sub-continent for a long time, so i reckon he could have done better than Cook while Vaughan has been out of sorts of late so maybe if he had played over Collingwood he wont have scored all those runs. But add Jones & Gilo to the bowling attack making it full strenght, to me judging on this 1st innings may have been enough to cause India's batsmen enough problems.
 

Top