The International Cricket Thread

[aev]

It's not even that the pitches absurdly favour India. They'll win this match but they might have lost it, their batsmen had no chance either.

Absolutely, I don't think it's any disrespect to Root to suggest that him getting 5-8 points to the pitch being a minefield.

With the pitches clearly being prepared to take spin early, I do think they favour India as they have better spinners.

Of course, we often do the same at home too. I guess the differences is even at home it maybe a tricky first session or so but then improves, before deteriorating.

The last pitch just simply got worse from the first ball being bowled, with the pitch disintegrating.

It's fine having pitches which favour the home team, that's going to happen naturally. People grow up in different climates, climate affects the kind of cricket they'll learn, later on they find themselves better at home conditions than away. But this is preposterous - yeah it favours India, but if a batsman gets 0 it doesn't matter what your bowlers do.

Of course not, but I am not sure we have been playing very good spin bowling well.

The damage was done in the first innings, and I am not sure it was a 112 all out pitch.

[aev]

It's not even that the pitches absurdly favour India. They'll win this match but they might have lost it, their batsmen had no chance either.

Absolutely, I don't think it's any disrespect to Root to suggest that him getting 5-8 points to the pitch being a minefield.

With the pitches clearly being prepared to take spin early, I do think they favour India as they have better spinners.

Of course, we often do the same at home too. I guess the differences is even at home it maybe a tricky first session or so but then improves, before deteriorating.

The last pitch just simply got worse from the first ball being bowled, with the pitch disintegrating.

I'm fine with pitches favouring the home team but there has to be some balance to it, you have to think that if a batsman plays well he'll get the rewards and be able to post a big score, that's not the case here, it's just a case of scoring as many as possible before you get one with your name on it. Today has been even worse than I thought when I was moaning about it yesterday.

What really bothers me is I hate watching a game where the bat or ball completely dominates, it's just not interesting to watch.

I get that, and agree with you. What I would say is I am not sure we batted very well, certainly in the first innings.

[PaulWinch again]

England do have an issue against spin. At least 3, probably 4 of the top 6 don’t appear to have a clue.

[paul_e]

I completely agree we were under par in the first innings but even if we'd played well I doubt we'd have been looking at much more than 170-180. As it happens I think another 70 on the board (as we should've made) would make us favourites right now.

All along I was never trying to make an excuse for a poor batting performance (which included some bewildering shot selection) just pointing out that even exceptional batting wouldn't have been enough for a big score here. At best you could get a bit lucky and flash to the sort of scores Crawley and Rohit managed.

[aev]

I completely agree we were under par in the first innings but even if we'd played well I doubt we'd have been looking at much more than 170-180. As it happens I think another 70 on the board (as we should've made) would make us favourites right now.

All along I was never trying to make an excuse for a poor batting performance (which included some bewildering shot selection) just pointing out that even exceptional batting wouldn't have been enough for a big score here. At best you could get a bit lucky and flash to the sort of scores Crawley and Rohit managed.

We were 74-2 in the first innings, getting to 200 at least should have been doable from there.

[Monty]

The reason it's a two day Test is that the both the pitch and the batting are not good enough. From both sides, but equally both sides have been imprisoned by a terror of a surface.

[paul_e]

I completely agree we were under par in the first innings but even if we'd played well I doubt we'd have been looking at much more than 170-180. As it happens I think another 70 on the board (as we should've made) would make us favourites right now.

All along I was never trying to make an excuse for a poor batting performance (which included some bewildering shot selection) just pointing out that even exceptional batting wouldn't have been enough for a big score here. At best you could get a bit lucky and flash to the sort of scores Crawley and Rohit managed.

We were 74-2 in the first innings, getting to 200 at least should have been doable from there.

True, but India were in a similar position and didn't make it either despite being much more accustomed to the conditions. Also in both cases it was largely down to 1 player, as soon as they were out there were no decent partnerships.

That said England came out for this current session looking like they knew the match was gone and now we're not bowling with the same intensity it suddenly it looks a lot easier to score. That's been the bigger difference for me, their bowling has been more disciplined in just hitting the right line and letting the pitch do the work for England there's been too many loose deliveries that have let them score cheap runs. In such a tight game even 5-6 cheap boundaries is game changing.

[aev]

I completely agree we were under par in the first innings but even if we'd played well I doubt we'd have been looking at much more than 170-180. As it happens I think another 70 on the board (as we should've made) would make us favourites right now.

All along I was never trying to make an excuse for a poor batting performance (which included some bewildering shot selection) just pointing out that even exceptional batting wouldn't have been enough for a big score here. At best you could get a bit lucky and flash to the sort of scores Crawley and Rohit managed.

We were 74-2 in the first innings, getting to 200 at least should have been doable from there.

True, but India were in a similar position and didn't make it either despite being much more accustomed to the conditions. Also in both cases it was largely down to 1 player, as soon as they were out there were no decent partnerships.

That said England came out for this current session looking like they knew the match was gone and now we're not bowling with the same intensity it suddenly it looks a lot easier to score. That's been the bigger difference for me, their bowling has been more disciplined in just hitting the right line and letting the pitch do the work for England there's been too many loose deliveries that have let them score cheap runs. In such a tight game even 5-6 cheap boundaries is game changing.

Well batting is so often about partnerships. I don't think there were too many concerns about the pitch when Crawley was moving his feet and driving nicely to various parts of the ground.

I wonder if the pink ball is actually part of the issue - they were talking about the lacquer and how it can be very skiddy.

[Meanwood Villa]

Few ups and downs in that match. Mainly downs and it ended in humiliation. The pitch must be partially to blame but can't be used as an excuse. We've batted well once all series.

[aev]

Not sure we need all of Archer, Broad and Anderson for the next game.

[paul_e]

I completely agree we were under par in the first innings but even if we'd played well I doubt we'd have been looking at much more than 170-180. As it happens I think another 70 on the board (as we should've made) would make us favourites right now.

All along I was never trying to make an excuse for a poor batting performance (which included some bewildering shot selection) just pointing out that even exceptional batting wouldn't have been enough for a big score here. At best you could get a bit lucky and flash to the sort of scores Crawley and Rohit managed.

We were 74-2 in the first innings, getting to 200 at least should have been doable from there.

True, but India were in a similar position and didn't make it either despite being much more accustomed to the conditions. Also in both cases it was largely down to 1 player, as soon as they were out there were no decent partnerships.

That said England came out for this current session looking like they knew the match was gone and now we're not bowling with the same intensity it suddenly it looks a lot easier to score. That's been the bigger difference for me, their bowling has been more disciplined in just hitting the right line and letting the pitch do the work for England there's been too many loose deliveries that have let them score cheap runs. In such a tight game even 5-6 cheap boundaries is game changing.

Well batting is so often about partnerships. I don't think there were too many concerns about the pitch when Crawley was moving his feet and driving nicely to various parts of the ground.

I wonder if the pink ball is actually part of the issue - they were talking about the lacquer and how it can be very skiddy.

I agree the pink ball played a part and the extra lacquer on it probably added to the problems. I think what was happening is some were gripping heavily the dust and getting big turn and losing pace and others were skidding on and coming off the pitch faster than expected. With his flat action that was particularly important for Axar. I'd like to see some side-by-sides of how quickly the straight ones got from the pitch to the stumps compared to the ones that spun, I reckon it'll be a significant change.

All in I think it was a bit of a perfect storm of everything working to make it a bowlers dream.

[Rory]

I don't think I've ever seen so few runs scored across all innings of a completed test.

[paul_e]

I don't think I've ever seen so few runs scored across all innings of a completed test.

it's the lowest scoring completed test since 1935 apparently.

[aev]

I completely agree we were under par in the first innings but even if we'd played well I doubt we'd have been looking at much more than 170-180. As it happens I think another 70 on the board (as we should've made) would make us favourites right now.

All along I was never trying to make an excuse for a poor batting performance (which included some bewildering shot selection) just pointing out that even exceptional batting wouldn't have been enough for a big score here. At best you could get a bit lucky and flash to the sort of scores Crawley and Rohit managed.

We were 74-2 in the first innings, getting to 200 at least should have been doable from there.

True, but India were in a similar position and didn't make it either despite being much more accustomed to the conditions. Also in both cases it was largely down to 1 player, as soon as they were out there were no decent partnerships.

That said England came out for this current session looking like they knew the match was gone and now we're not bowling with the same intensity it suddenly it looks a lot easier to score. That's been the bigger difference for me, their bowling has been more disciplined in just hitting the right line and letting the pitch do the work for England there's been too many loose deliveries that have let them score cheap runs. In such a tight game even 5-6 cheap boundaries is game changing.

Well batting is so often about partnerships. I don't think there were too many concerns about the pitch when Crawley was moving his feet and driving nicely to various parts of the ground.

I wonder if the pink ball is actually part of the issue - they were talking about the lacquer and how it can be very skiddy.

I agree the pink ball played a part and the extra lacquer on it probably added to the problems. I think what was happening is some were gripping heavily the dust and getting big turn and losing pace and others were skidding on and coming off the pitch faster than expected. With his flat action that was particularly important for Axar. I'd like to see some side-by-sides of how quickly the straight ones got from the pitch to the stumps compared to the ones that spun, I reckon it'll be a significant change.

All in I think it was a bit of a perfect storm of everything working to make it a bowlers dream.

I don't have an issue with 2 deliveries landing in the same place with one turning and the other going straight on - I think this is (hopefully) bowler skill, and possibly aided by the pink ball.

I do have a problem with variable bounce, and the pitch falling apart. I didn't see much of the former, but a little of the latter (there was certainly more today).

What does really irk me is the marginalisation of the 4 day game here. It is generally the same when we go to the sub continent, and any victories won are in spite of, and not because of a first class system that seems to treat first class cricket so shabbily. I am firmly in the George Dobell / Vic Marks camp. There are 2 rounds of Championship cricket scheduled for July and August. And we wonder why we struggle against spin?

[olaftab]

The reason it's a two day Test is that the both the pitch and the batting are not good enough. From both sides, but equally both sides have been imprisoned by a terror of a surface.

The showcasing of world's newest and biggest capacity  cricket stadium was not complemented by the most important element of any such venue, the pitch itself. Having spent enormous millions on the stadium they  produced a pith more akin to any neglected maidan in Delhi or Lahore where young lads are found honing their skills in dusty potholes. Not good enough I am afraid.