2nd Test: India v England at Visakhapatnam on Nov 17-21,

[sussexpob]

The spinners took nearly all the wickets in the first game. And this is the first innings, and the first day of this one.

That's why their performance today has been so disappointing. On a slow low pitch they should have been far more economical than they managed. Good spin bowlers when they aren't taking wickets do at least restrict the run rate. England must be unique in world cricket when they put on a pace bowler in order to slow the batsmen's rate of scoring.

I posted the following before the first test

It seems a given that spinners do better in India, but I have looked at the stats in my lifetime and wrote articles (you might find them in the archive here or 606, if the latter still exist) about how poorly each given teams headline spinner has in comparison to their headline seamer. I think there is a tendancy still for people to pick inferior spinners over better seamers and expect them to do well. But at times teams would do better to pick the most restrictive, defensive spinners possible, as unless they buck a trend, the only real use they have is to rest your pace attack.

Ansari is a part time partnership breaker who never bowls long spells. Moeen Ali goes at 4 an over, and Rashid is an expensive bowler too....

England didnt take one spinner who was there to tie up an end. Their spin attack is all the type that gives too many runs away.

Today you noticed that. That period just after tea with Anderson starting to cause some issues, if you had a good spinner backing him up, you can break the back of an innings.

[meninblue]

I think this is perfectly ideal setup. Win toss, score 500+, gain lead and then win with 2 spinners on day 4 and 5.

England could not make use of the 500+ they score, however i doubt if we score 500 we will allow a draw.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The spinners took nearly all the wickets in the first game. And this is the first innings, and the first day of this one.

For an Englishman, you really do seem to hate seam bowling!

I'd never go into a Test without quick bowlers.

You seem desperate to always overplay the importance of spinners no matter how poor they are and downplay the seamers in Asia, no matter how good they are! It made sense when you had Swann and Monty but with this lot? Come On!

I think it's the other way round. Some make a case against spin and want at most one in the side, but four pace bowlers. I remember Mike Selvey arguing for five seamers and no spinner in UAE, despite the nearest England getting to a win being when Rashid took wickets.

I don't downplay the usefulness of quick bowlers. I'm not sure I do that. But others downplay the need for spin. I have always wanted a balanced attack. I didn't make a case for the uselessness of fast bowlers in Rajkot, when it took 3/16 wickets, and neither do I think there's not a case for spin after today.

When England had Swann and Panesar last time, the same people were arguing only Swann should play. Here, I think only Adi and myself argued for both at Ahmedabad. The prejudice against spin wasn't touched by the quality of the available players.

[meninblue]

I think this is perfectly ideal setup. Win toss, score 500+, gain lead and then win with 2 spinners on day 4 and 5.

England could not make use of the 500+ they score, however i doubt if we score 500 we will allow a draw.

Just checked scorecard. Jayant is also playing. 3 spinners on day 4 and 5

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm not enamoured with the spinners selected that much, or the disinclination to look at anyone other than Moeen over the past two years. Or the negativity that diffuses down from the top. If the spinners underachieved today, well their performances with be judged including how many runs they score. That's how they've been chosen.

[sussexpob]

Its not a case of arguing against spin, more a case of picking a spinner that can work. A bad player is a bad player at the end of the day, and I rather see a test match paceman over a mediocre spin player in any conditions.

The key for me is, if you dont have a great spin option, then you go for the spin option that gets through overs and is able to pin down batsman. A good example is someone like James Tredwell for England, not likely to smash through a line up, but equally not really going to be taken apart at one end. You can leave him on one end on a dead pitch and he can create little pockets of pressure, which brings the rest of your attack in.

Today, it was more a case of Cook not wanting to turn to either. If both spinners were on, one was giving away boundaries.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The key for me is, if you dont have a great spin option, then you go for the spin option that gets through overs and is able to pin down batsman. A good example is someone like James Tredwell for England, not likely to smash through a line up, but equally not really going to be taken apart at one end. You can leave him on one end on a dead pitch and he can create little pockets of pressure, which brings the rest of your attack in.

One of the bowlers should have been picked with that in mind. Having said that, the spinners were ok in the first match, and today probably isn't the best day too judge them. See how they go over five days.

[meninblue]

The spinners took nearly all the wickets in the first game. And this is the first innings, and the first day of this one.

For an Englishman, you really do seem to hate seam bowling!

I'd never go into a Test without quick bowlers.

You seem desperate to always overplay the importance of spinners no matter how poor they are and downplay the seamers in Asia, no matter how good they are! It made sense when you had Swann and Monty but with this lot? Come On!

I think it's the other way round. Some make a case against spin and want at most one in the side, but four pace bowlers. I remember Mike Selvey arguing for five seamers and no spinner in UAE, despite the nearest England getting to a win being when Rashid took wickets.

I don't downplay the usefulness of quick bowlers. I'm not sure I do that. But others downplay the need for spin. I have always wanted a balanced attack. I didn't make a case for the uselessness of fast bowlers in Rajkot, when it took 3/16 wickets, and neither do I think there's not a case for spin after today.

When England had Swann and Panesar last time, the same people were arguing only Swann should play. Here, I think only Adi and myself argued for both at Ahmedabad. The prejudice against spin wasn't touched by the quality of the available players.

Being someone who have never seen any club cricket match with just one specialist spin bowler in any format whatsoever, or any Ranji match, or any test match in India it was shocking England played only Swann as spinner in first test and i along with my clubmates was thinking what cunning plan England have come up with. It was but obvious England made mistake in first test, however, when they realized ground realities that exist in this part of cricketing world, they changed team combo and that why they won series even after losing first test. I know Monty was called pathetic, ludicrous etc when his inclusion was suggested. We know how series turned when two five fer spinners started bowling in tandem. Cook has learnt a lot due to that tour and now we see 3 spinners in England squad. Now he is actually respecting conditions and picking teams as per the tournament requirement.

When the task is of making a balance sheet, a fresher accountant is better than hiring a 20 year experienced scientist who has sent satellites in space.

Here teams have to bowl 150+ overs in an innings. Only if teams have two spin bowlers or three this workload can be managed effectively for a 5 match test series as well as 35 overs per bowler for at least 2 bowlers in that innings.

Woakes was outstanding in first test. Very few bowlers will get that kind of bounce here on that wicket. for shoulder and back efforts .

[sussexpob]

When the task is of making a balance sheet, a fresher accountant is better than hiring a 20 year experienced scientist who has sent satellites in space

I'd hire the space scientist. Within 2 weeks he would design some mind blowing software to automate the accountants job completely, increasing productivity and saving costs...... then I would lay off all the other accountants..... and then Id sell that software to other accountancy firms and finally get my nuclear bunker in Costa Rica, sleeping on beds made of Benjamin's ...... accountants would become defunct

(this has no relevance to cricket, I know).....

Back on task, you anology overlooks one critical thing.... Ali and Ansari arent spin bowlers. They are just the tea boy who once were forced to do the accounts because a week before the deadline of the year ends, the old women that used to file all of them got hit by a car, and they couldnt find someone quick enough. And Rashid seems to have the accountancy skills of Nick Leeson

[meninblue]

When the task is of making a balance sheet, a fresher accountant is better than hiring a 20 year experienced scientist who has sent satellites in space

I'd hire the space scientist. Within 2 weeks he would design some mind blowing software to automate the accountants job completely, increasing productivity and saving costs...... then I would lay off all the other accountants..... and then Id sell that software to other accountancy firms and finally get my nuclear bunker in Costa Rica, sleeping on beds made of Benjamin's ...... accountants would become defunct

(this has no relevance to cricket, I know).....

Back on task, you anology overlooks one critical thing.... Ali and Ansari arent spin bowlers. They are just the tea boy who once were forced to do the accounts because a week before the deadline of the year ends, the old women that used to file all of them got hit by a car, and they couldnt find someone quick enough. And Rashid seems to have the accountancy skills of Nick Leeson

If you are trying to convince me one spinner is enough in team in Indian conditions then i am not going to agree. I have never played even one cricket match across 20, 40 or 50 overs with just one spinner. Neither i have seen Ranji teams over decades with one spinner only, neither Team India with just one spinner. Its unseen and unthinkable. Its a ver poor strategy to use one spinner in India. Sorry totally disagree.

[sussexpob]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indvrsa/eng ... 32912.html

[meninblue]

Hopefully we will make them field for two sessions tomorrow.

[rich1uk]

If you are trying to convince me one spinner is enough in team in Indian conditions then i am not going to agree. I have never played even one cricket match across 20, 40 or 50 overs with just one spinner. Neither i have seen Ranji teams over decades with one spinner only, neither Team India with just one spinner. Its unseen and unthinkable. Its a ver poor strategy to use one spinner in India. Sorry totally disagree.

playing a spinner who isn't good enough just for the sake of having a 2nd or 3rd spinner is just a waste of a spot

[Arthur Crabtree]

England go in with one spinner, like an eighteenth century ships captain wandering around a beach in Tahiti in a woollen longcoat and, knickerbockers and a big hat, planting roses and going mad.

While we're doing analogies.

[rich1uk]

England go in with one spinner, like an eighteenth century ships captain wandering around a beach in Tahiti in a woollen longcoat and, knickerbockers and a big hat, planting roses and going mad.

While we're doing analogies.

if all he has to wear is a woollen longcoat, knickerbockers and a big hat then its better than getting sunburnt