***Official England in India***

[Precambrian]

Interesting to see the number of straight down the ground. Shows how much pace on the wicket and the batsman's tendency to strike it square of the wicket. Runs through cover would have been less had Dhoni installed the deep cover immediately after lunch resumption.

 

[NUFAN]

That graph is interesting but I would imagine quite typical from most Strauss innings.

 

[Prince EWS]

That graph is interesting but I would imagine quite typical from most Strauss innings.

Most post-recall Strauss innings, yeah.

 

[Uppercut]

Facing the new ball can be the best time to bat in India because of the attacking fields and the SG ball, which is harder than others and doesn't swing much...
...There are three phases to batting in India: the new-ball period, when there are good opportunities to score; the spin period, often with two slow bowlers operating within the first hour, when you need to accumulate; and finally the reverse-swing period.

I'm not a big fan of Arthur, but there's a lot of truth in what he says here. England's openers are used to taking the shine off the ball to make things easier for the middle order, when the opposite attitude is often what's required in the subcontinent. It's a lot harder batting after 60 overs with the ball reversing than when it's brand new, and England failed to take advantage of this, scoring so slowly for the first session.

 

[Precambrian]

Harbhajan's statements echo what I stated above.

"Both Zaheer and Ishant have been working hard on reverse-swing and their fitness," Harbhajan said. "They are doing a great job for the side. It's hard to bowl in these conditions." Harbhajan insisted that there had been no dramatic change in strategy for the final session. "We were looking to bowl in the right areas and play to our plan. They helped us by blocking balls and not going for shots. They were not really looking to dominate."

Harbhajan pointed to the tempo at which England scored, especially the final session that saw just 65 runs in 33 overs. "If we had batted, we would have got 300-plus," he said. "They went in to defensive mode and got only 63 runs in the first session. We would have collected at least 100. We're really happy with the way we bowled today."

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/indveng/content/current/story/381718.html

 

[Woodster]

Thought, from what I saw, Zaheer gave an excellent demonstration of reverse swing bowling today. His pace, during one spell, was up around mid-very late 80's mph, and his control was outstanding. Gave all England's batsman a tough time. Anyone got any Jellybeans to try and disrupt his focus ?

Also, Strauss played a typical innings of what he does best. Seemed patient outside off-stump, didn't score a run through the off-side in the opening session! Played close to his body and milked a lot of balls into the leg-side. His sweep was particularly effective to rotate the strike and when struck cleanly enough they reached the boundary. He plays within his limitations, was not tempted into an expansive drive that has proved his downfall on so many occasions.

 

[whitedazzler]

india's zaheer khan and harbhajan singh showed against aussie that indias lower order can stick around, can the same be said about englands?

 

[wpdavid]

I'm not a big fan of Arthur, but there's a lot of truth in what he says here. England's openers are used to taking the shine off the ball to make things easier for the middle order, when the opposite attitude is often what's required in the subcontinent. It's a lot harder batting after 60 overs with the ball reversing than when it's brand new, and England failed to take advantage of this, scoring so slowly for the first session.

Fine in theory, but a bit harsh on a couple of guys playing their first FC innings in about three months. The real problem was the way that 3 of our batsmen gifted their wickets. If, as we should have done, finished on about 250 for 2, there would be no complaints about Strauss & Cook's scoring rate before lunch.

 

[Richard]

Interesting to see the number of straight down the ground. Shows how much pace on the wicket and the batsman's tendency to strike it square of the wicket. Runs through cover would have been less had Dhoni installed the deep cover immediately after lunch resumption.

Says a fair bit about the bowling as well. If they overpitched, it was generally on the wide side. And of course anything straight the likes of Strauss and Cook generally hit to mid-wicket or square-leg rather than mid-on.

 

[wpdavid]

Harbhajan's statements echo what I stated above.



http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/indveng/content/current/story/381718.html

Fairly pointless comment tbh. I think we all know that Sehwag will score more quickly than Cook or Strauss, especially considering the amount of cricket that that the Englishmen have played lately. Still, it's hardly news that Harby is a bit of an arse.

 

[Richard]

I'm not a big fan of Arthur, but there's a lot of truth in what he says here. England's openers are used to taking the shine off the ball to make things easier for the middle order, when the opposite attitude is often what's required in the subcontinent. It's a lot harder batting after 60 overs with the ball reversing than when it's brand new, and England failed to take advantage of this, scoring so slowly for the first session.

Strauss tried playing like that on the last tour of India and it backfired on him completely - and continued to do for the next 2 years, as well.

Although it might be ideal in an ideal World to see more strokes being played where England didn't play that many, I just don't think the batsmen have the ability to do that. So I'd rather see them play as they did and get 160-1 - only to be thrown away - than try to play a way they're not capable of and end-up 40-3.

I don't think the England batsmen had the wrong attitude, I just don't think they're good enough to play as it'd be most ideal of all for them to have played.

And of course, whenever bowling is economical the bowlers generally deserve a fair amount of credit. Zaheer and Ishant were of times unhittable.

 

[Richard]

india's zaheer khan and harbhajan singh showed against aussie that indias lower order can stick around, can the same be said about englands?

Zaheer and Harbhajan's batting > Harmison and Panesar's.

Swann can play though and there's some hope for him. Anderson of course should already have been out - wonder how long he'll last tomorrow. Shouldn't be that long, but he's not the worst you'll ever see and certainly better than either of the above.

 

[Richard]

Well two years with the burden of captaincy Freddie conquered these demonds. Don't think we should be that worried about his ability againts spin these days.

Optimistic. Flintoff good days against spin have been significantly outnumbered by his bad ones all career.

He has some good merits for his play of spin - he's got a long reach, and he strikes the ball well down the ground (not just with a big swing but with the nudge as well). However, he's diabolical at picking alternative deliveries, no disputing that, and he's also still hard-handed.

The fact that he plays with his bat and not his pad can go either way. It can be an advantage; it can be a disadvantage. It depends on the bowler. The best players of spin can use either method adjusting for different bowlers. Flintoff can't.

 

[wpdavid]

Strauss tried playing like that on the last tour of India and it backfired on him completely - and continued to do for the next 2 years, as well.

Although it might be ideal in an ideal World to see more strokes being played where England didn't play that many, I just don't think the batsmen have the ability to do that. So I'd rather see them play as they did and get 160-1 - only to be thrown away - than try to play a way they're not capable of and end-up 40-3.

I don't think the England batsmen had the wrong attitude, I just don't think they're good enough to play as it'd be most ideal of all for them to have played.

And of course, whenever bowling is economical the bowlers generally deserve a fair amount of credit. Zaheer and Ishant were of times unhittable.

All true.

And if you think back at Englishmen who have made runs in Asia, they've nearly always been steady accumulators. Or guys who have adapted their usual game because they realised they couldn't blaze away and get away with it.

 

[Richard]

The pitch was being prepared for the Champions League T20 games... There has been a cyclone a week ago and another one threatening since then... I will be extremely surprised if this pitch held together beyond the 4th afternoon.

Underprepared and\or rushed pitches are funny things. They can go either way - can just be completely lifeless for seam and spin, as well as slow and low, and descend into run-fests. Or they can play OK for a while then fall to pieces after three or three-and-a-bit days.

I imagine you'd know more than me about how such things tend to go at Chepauk though.

Either way, having to prepare a pitch at a week or so's notice is hardly ideal and it's a shame it had to happen here.

 

[analyst]

Shock horror, Ian Bell and Collingwood were absolutely dismal in their respective positions. Ian Bell should have been playing at 5 and Collingwood the other way around if they are keen to accomodate Collingwood, it is obvious to anyone outside the setup, that Bell is not a capable no 3 at any level at this particular stage in his career. Collingwood's form/bad luck is all indicative that a spell out of the team or England moving on might be the best thing from this series onwards.Ian Bell has a brilliant record at 5 and its a shame he is not being played there.

 

[Richard]

And if you think back at Englishmen who have made runs in Asia, they've nearly always been steady accumulators. Or guys who have adapted their usual game because they realised they couldn't blaze away and get away with it.

TBH, tracks in Asia (at least, India - Pakistan is still generally flat on most grounds unless someone realises that seam or spin would be to their home team's advantage, which has happened surprisingly rarely of late given Pakistan's bowlers have been - when available - as good as ever; and Sri Lanka doesn't seem to have changed enormously) haven't been the same in the last 8-9-10 years as they tended to be before that.

Take the example of Sri Lanka in 2000/01. Thorpe's superlative play there wouldn't be ideal at all for the pitches we've seen in India quite a bit recently. Thorpe is one batsmen capable of adjusting his game - I'd have little hesitation placing him way above anyone currently available bar Pietersen - so he might well be able to do well, but I'd ideally want someone who played differently for a typical Indian track of late.

However, for something like Kanpur 2007/08 vs SA, or the one at Chepauk against Australia in 2004/05 - what I'd call a proper Indian track - this "classical England way in the subcon" would be perfect.

 

[Richard]

Shock horror, Ian Bell and Collingwood were absolutely dismal in their respective positions. Ian Bell should have been playing at 5 and Collingwood the other way around if they are keen to accomodate Collingwood, it is obvious to anyone outside the setup, that Bell is not a capable no 3 at any level at this particular stage in his career. Collingwood's form/bad luck is all indicative that a spell out of the team or England moving on might be the best thing from this series onwards.Ian Bell has a brilliant record at 5 and its a shame he is not being played there.

While I've always been in favour of Bell at five or six and am simply appalled that he's now been promoted to four or three on 5 separate occasions... there is absolutely no way Collingwood at three is going to work.

That's why Shah in the team - if Vaughan is to be dropped - would be ideal to my mind. Shah is a natural three.

 

[analyst]

Well Collingwood has played at 3 for Durham and if he is going to carry on failing for England at test level he might as well bow out trying. I think Shah should get his chance though, he has more than earnt it. I think if Collingwood fails in this series, I personally would not consider him for test cricket any longer.

 

[Langeveldt]

Hard to express how much I dislike Ian Bell as a cricketer.

haha me too.. I'm sure he is a nice guy, and he is a reasonable batsman, but I just dread how feeble and dire he looks at the crease..