Eng in Pak, Oct 7-28

[Durhamfootman]

England will console themselves that they won't have to tour Asia again until Bangladesh in 2027

[alfie]

That was a dreadfully disappointing display from England - not to take anything away from a spirited performance by a Pakistan team that has done brilliantly to come back after that almighty hammering they took in the first match. All credit to them : the pitch manipulation might have been a little extreme as well as highly unorthodox but both sides had to play on it so no complaints from me about that.

We knew England remained generally poor on spinning surfaces but I would have expected a better effort after winning the toss in this latest game. But most of the top order got out to pretty daft shots on day one , and they were indebted to Smith and Atkinson for turning a poor score into a just about par one. Still had a decent advantage when they had Pakistan 7 down still 90 behind - but then seemed to become strangely - and uncharacteristically - passive against the (admittedly quite useful) Pakistan tail. Not sure why Stokes chose to depart from his usual attacking - sometimes over attacking - philosophy ; but it was the turning point. Once Pakistan had turned a likely modest deficit into a moderate but handy lead it was always going to be a tricky hour of batting for England that evening : and the limp efforts of the top three (opting to go full reverse from their first innings frenzied sweeping to prodding and poking) basically ceded the game immediately. Am quite glad I was out all Saturday and didn't have to witness the final apparently feeble surrender !

As DFM says , no more Tests in Asia for years ; so maybe they don't need to panic over the fact that nobody apart from Root can be relied upon when the ball starts to turn. But there are certainly concerns looking forward. One being that if Pope is still seen as the next skipper , thereby locking him in the side at number three ... well I don't need to spell that out , do I ?

NZ next ; and after their success in India it would be foolish to underestimate them. I can understand why McCullum isn't going to pay out on his charges in public after this latest reverse ; but I reckon a few of them have some serious work to do to repair their reputations and it needs to start there.

One good point is that the pace bowling options in the post-Broad/Anderson era appear to be reasonably promising. The spinning rather less so but that is hardly new.

[Slipstream]

Would the result be different if Anderson, Robinson or Wood were playing or was it Stokes' captaincy?

Surely Atkinson should have been bowled more. He was going at 1.83 per over. Pakistan were 7/177 and went on to 344. Those 167 runs made the difference. Pakistan's bazball with Khan.

Where did Sajid Khan and Noman Ali come from? Had Abrar Ahmed not been in hospital would they still picked him? 35-0-174-0 and 3 runs.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Surely the batters have to answer for this one.

[sussexpob]

has 3 test hundreds to his name this year

After over 50 tests and a low 30s average, the question of how you play and how you score runs is more pertinent than how many you score, because given enough time, every single player scores runs eventually, but the question when they do is can it be repeated or does it represent some form of permanent improvement. Look at that innings at the Oval v SL.... yeah he scored 150 odd, but how many times did he chase a wide ball and spoon it in the air? How many times did he attempt to run the ball down to third man with that dab cut and the ball fly off the toe or outside edge, narrowly missing the fielder. All in all, he could have been out 20 times before he eventually was, so I don't look at that innings and think "yeah, he is a player proving hes at the top of his game". I cant remember the 100 v WI, but I think in Hyderabad as well he was wrapped on the pad for 0 and not given out/not reviewed when it was smashing the stump halfway up, so again, without luck he makes literally 0.

Pope's main problem is he is strongly bottom hand dominant. When he plays balls on their merits, that does not factor into being a problem, because his body and the point he intercepts the ball under his eyes mean that the bottom hand does not follow through at the point he hits it, so the ball stays down. Take for instance when the ball is short enough, he is a great puller, or his classic on drive to fuller balls.

When he chases balls that arent there to be hit and isnt moving his feet to get in positions, his bottom hand dominance kicks in. Watch for instance how often he goes at things that are way too wide, but as he pulls the bat down into the shot his bottom had/wrist turn the bat to face upwards. He tries to compensate for this with power, hitting over the ring fielder, but often he stretches so far he has no control. Pretty much every shot he manufactures goes in the air for this reason, often behind square.

Its a noticeable issue recently with his play. He just hits the ball hard, and hopes it lands in a gap... its pure lottery batting. Sometimes it works and you get lucky, sometimes you get bitten.... the First test in Multan was the opposite, its a ball on his legs that he should just tuck away, instead he whacks it as hard as he can and it flies up to mid on at head height. Just absolutely no reason to be hitting in the air to those balls.

Put short, everything he does is high risk...

Net result.... 1 half century in 29 innings against India and Australia. Its no coincidence he's been abhorrently pathetic vs the best teams he's played, he just inst good enough, and dead rubber 100s vs Windies or SL wont change that.

[sussexpob]

Interestingly, if Social media is anything, all I ever see is Pope doing no foot movement drills while trying to smash the leather off the ball..... Why on God's Earth would you have someone practice to play technically incorrect?

[meninblue]

The deliveries which England batsmen got out to were at the length which VVS Laxman would drive through mid-wicket even against Shane Warne's turn. And England batsmen even had advantage of Sajid turining the ball into their pad, so it should have been much easier to play drives. Too much of sweep shot irrespective of understanding of line and length and turn is very very risky. Against spinners who are bowling well aided by spin friendly wicket, every shot played needs to be appropriate for line, length and turn. It is difficult to get exectuion right on sweep when all factors are against the batsmen.

Not saying that England players cannot play spin. I will never doubt Ollie Pope's capability against spin, after he scored a maginifient 196, which imo was one of the best innings played in India against Indian spinners. But he needs to maintain whatever qualities he used to play that innings to be consistent more often. Probably too much of Bazball is forcing him score boundaries on delveries against which he can easily pick a single to deep-mid wicket or a risky reverse sweep to third man against the off spinner. If he is failing, it has to be because his shot selection for various line and lengths bowled by spinners and exectuion of shots is not good. Same with Joe. He is the best player of spin in test match cricket at this point of time. The moment Joe struggles against spin, the England team just does not has a base for a good score on wicket favoring spinners. Ollie is also one who has shown atleast once that he has the capability to play an extraordinary innings against spinners. Just that he will never play it as consitently as Joe does. Ben Duckett, Zak Crawley, Harry Brook are yet to play even one innings of that quality.
I am unable to understand a specialist batsmen averaging 31.98 (Zak) and 33 (Ollie) are in the squad. Is there a benchmark at all? Shouldn't consistency be expected from a skilled batsman? Or is it because the players are forced to score quickly is the reason they end up getting out cheaply. Whatever the reason for their very poor average, England need to sort it as two spots are being wasted. Either make them bat slow the way traditional test cricket run rate and see if they can be upto a mark of specialsit batsman. Consistency is the key to maitain a healthy and acceptable batting average. One off good innings after many failures is a sure shot path which will lead to long term failure.

[alfie]

No doubt that Crawley and Pope have failed to get the level of consistency you want in a top three bat (though it is also fair to point out that both have had improved results over the first two years of the Stokes/McCullum reign) Both have played the odd truly outstanding knock , which has meant management have been prepared to indulge them through bad spells for the sake of the "high ceilings". You can argue that this approach isn't ideal ; but you can also see why the selectors have gone this way.

I have huge reservations about Pope , primarily because of his woeful record against Australia (fairly small sample ; but so bad you'd not be betting on a significant improvement) ; and India , despite the one epic. Crawley actually has much better figures in Ashes Tests : a fine home series and better than most in his few games in Australia. And he was also one of the better performers in India last time - low bar though that was !

The problem is : easy to say "not good enough , out you go". Not so easy to find someone better.

Since Strauss ,Trott and eventually Cook exited the scene , England have tried a host of players in the top three. Some rather briefly , some more extensively. Some of them managed a promising innings or two - others just didn't look up to it. But what they all have in common is averages ranging from 20 to 30. I haven't researched every batsman England have called up in the last ten years but suffice to say Burns Sibley Stoneman Compton Westley Vince Lees Lyth Lawrence Robson all fit that range. Assuming someone new can be plucked out of the CC or the Lions to produce better results than the incumbents is arguably a little optimistic.

This is not to say that underperforming players should have a job for life. Simply that I can understand why England have backed the two of them so far - and will likely continue to do so at least for the time being. I do think their positions are a little less secure after this latest bunch of matches so will be interested to see what transpires in NZ : with India and an Ashes tour up next year the importance of settling these key batting positions is moving up the scale of priorities...

[sussexpob]

The deliveries which England batsmen got out to were at the length which VVS Laxman would drive through mid-wicket even against Shane Warne's turn. And England batsmen even had advantage of Sajid turining the ball into their pad, so it should have been much easier to play drives. Too much of sweep shot irrespective of understanding of line and length and turn is very very risky. Against spinners who are bowling well aided by spin friendly wicket, every shot played needs to be appropriate for line, length and turn. It is difficult to get exectuion right on sweep when all factors are against the batsmen

English batsman going back into the 90s would bat against spin by getting their front pad and bat as far down the pitch as possible to meet the ball at the earliest possible contact point, the idea was to combat the spin by giving it less space to turn from the pitch, and you have to think back in those days if the ball hit the pad and you had a full stride in, the umpire would hardly ever give you out, so players were encouraged to use their pads to protect their stumps. Then a new crop of big turning spinners arrived and they were lame ducks, because people like Warne could turn the ball so much they would challenge the edges of the bat even over short distances after pitching, so hanging your bat out to dry was suicidal.

The problem was, the answer that Fletcher came up with back in the late 90s was to double down on that idea of getting to the contact point as early as possible, and the way he got English batsman to do that was to get the big stride in, and then play paddle sweeps round the corner. I guess the idea was that playing forward with a straight, vertical bat gave you less extension down the pitch, but if you took a big stride and stretched out to paddle it round the corner, you are getting a bats extra length out to the pitch to negate the spin. I think it was the 2000 series in India where England lost one test with every single top 7 bat out in both innings sweeping. This legacy of trying to meet the ball early has continued, as has the idea that reaching out for sweep shots to combat the spin is a solid idea. And when the length makes it difficult to play cross bat shots or you try to play against the spin, you are in trouble.

Great players of spin go completely the opposite way, so its no surprise England crumple all the time. Rather than play from the crease and get forward, great Indian players of spin will use their feet to get out to the ball and complete smother it, never dangle their pad and bat out in hope. That, and this is where your Laxman example comes in, or playing the ball at the top of the bounce/movement by staying back and playing very late. Dravid was a genius at that too, using his wrists to compensate any time his feet or body position was wrong.

Sachin was also a perfect example of playing the sweep. If you put the ball too full, then say goodbye to it, he would get to the pitch and wouldn't be afraid to put it in the air.... but as you say, its that length thats important. The ball has to be too full, and has to be generally on a stump/towards leg stump line. English bats trying to sweep normal length balls or dragged them from offside to leg side... say goodnight, you aint lasting long.

Not saying that England players cannot play spin. I will never doubt Ollie Pope's capability against spin, after he scored a maginifient 196, which imo was one of the best innings played in India against Indian spinners.

As was at the Oval in 1998 when John Crawley knocked Murali around on a sharp turning track..... I can confidently say that sometime crap batsman just have a great day. Anyone who seen Crawley bat before or after that day against any spinner wouldn't suggest he was any good

[sussexpob]

No doubt that Crawley and Pope have failed to get the level of consistency you want in a top three bat (though it is also fair to point out that both have had improved results over the first two years of the Stokes/McCullum reign)

I think Zak is different to Pope, because I can see Crawley scoring runs consistently in situations that suit him, whereas with Pope I think his technical issues are more generally problematic. In a way I think you were right when you pointed out that maybe England's current approach will suit them in Australia.... and that applies more than anyone to Crawley. If there is no great seam or swing movemen and he gets a start, and no great amount of consistent turn to bring his problems reading the variation ball into play, then Crawley can score runs. If the ball moves in the air or off the pitch, that big issue he has snicking off behind on 4-5th stump lines becomes in play. But that won't always be present, so he can at least have impact across series if not consistently.

The problem is : easy to say "not good enough , out you go". Not so easy to find someone better.

Call it a difference in personality, but I never understand that line of thinking. Whether or not you have people who appear to be better is a secondary question.... the primary question is, if we continue on the current path can we be a great team that beats great teams? Well, we lost to Pakistan. We didn't win the last Ashes series, and we got humped 4-1 in India recently.... so unequivocally no, we cannot hope to win the WTC or claim to be a top 1-2 side at the moment, and the trend as shown in Pakistan is downwards since 2 years ago.

I rather be the 10th best team in the world striving to be the best, then accept to be a mid-rate side permanently. But that's just me...

I haven't researched every batsman England have called up in the last ten years but suffice to say Burns Sibley Stoneman Compton Westley Vince Lees Lyth Lawrence Robson all fit that range. Assuming someone new can be plucked out of the CC or the Lions to produce better results than the incumbents is arguably a little optimistic.

Of course its true that players havent stepped up, but some of that blame has to fall on the England setup. They continually bracketed players who were doing well as not ready or not having it, and then subsequently ended up back tracking. And the net effect was to watch key performers burn out in form, then pick them on downturns.

As an example, look at Compton. The whole thing with him was Somerset was a featherbed, he wasn't that good for Middlesex, and that he wasnt that good. So, you end up getting him having a standout season in 2011, then in summer of 2012 he was a rained out session away from scoring 1000 runs in the quickest time recorded in 40 odd years averaging over 100..... England picked 3 other batsman that summer and ignored him. Then when his sensational wonder form started to dive, they picked him. Same with Vince. He had to watch two T20 specialists who didn't turn out for CC games get picked over him when he was smashing the ball around for fun. Form dived, got picked. With Vince we were told he had trouble outside off stump, blah blah. The planning and strategy was completely wrong. That was Flower... the man who would tell you someone averaging 100 in a season wasn't good enough and form didnt matter, then when Westley had 5 good CC in a barren career, he found himself in the team because form was important.

We ended up consistently treating people differently. Sam Robson was apparently a car crash outside his off stump and got what... 7 games by memory? He was miles more technically sound than Burns, Stoneman, Jennings and Sibley.... all who got more opportunities. A lot of those names, Burns and Sibley especially, but Lyth also.... anyone who ever watched them bat would burn the stats book up. They were all atrocious technical players, I have no idea how they scored CC runs so much. I look at players like Lees and think there is something workable there at least, but England wanted an opener who blocked and did nothing else from Lees, so he was afraid to play shots.

[Arthur Crabtree]

England tend to think in Ashes cycles. Maybe they will break up the batting after the next Ashes. The bowling seems to be in better shape, including the spin options.

[alfie]

Thanks for the response , Sussex . We probably are "different in personality But not sure that is why we have rather different views on the advisability of what , change for change's sake when you aren't at the top of the Test Rankings ? Thought I'd made it clear I do not think the two players under discussion should be guaranteed permanent spots ? The point is that as they've done better than all their recent predecessors it is reasonable to persevere with them for the time being , rather than taking a punt on a hopeful replacement. If you are going to bring someone else in , you want to have some sort of reason to believe they are likely to improve the situation. Just making a change without any real evidence it will work better because you are not satisfied (even with good reason) with the current players' recent efforts is basically pure gambling...and picking horses at long odds. May come off very occasionally. Usually doesn't. I think we don't really disagree much here anyway : would probably both elect to keep Crawley and replace Pope before the next Ashes ?

You mention Lees. He wasn't rubbish ; but in ten Tests he averaged 23.8. Wasn't playing Australia either. Think it is a bit much to suggest that he was ditched purely because his style didn't suit the management. He actually did play a quite decent innings , in which he played a fair number of shots and scored at a good rate...but he was rather found out by SA in the matches that followed. Which brought Duckett into the team - with moderately useful consequences so probably not a bad selection choice. I find it very hard to believe Lees would ever do a better job for England than Crawley.

I have a bit more time for your mention of Robson , who indeed only had 7 matches and was arguably ditched a bit abruptly. Guess the one century against Sri Lanka didn't outweigh a pretty lean series against India - and he did look very dodgy outside off. Though I suppose that is true of others who had more extended trials...

But anyway neither of us are England selectors

[meninblue]

The deliveries which England batsmen got out to were at the length which VVS Laxman would drive through mid-wicket even against Shane Warne's turn. And England batsmen even had advantage of Sajid turining the ball into their pad, so it should have been much easier to play drives. Too much of sweep shot irrespective of understanding of line and length and turn is very very risky. Against spinners who are bowling well aided by spin friendly wicket, every shot played needs to be appropriate for line, length and turn. It is difficult to get exectuion right on sweep when all factors are against the batsmen

English batsman going back into the 90s would bat against spin by getting their front pad and bat as far down the pitch as possible to meet the ball at the earliest possible contact point, the idea was to combat the spin by giving it less space to turn from the pitch, and you have to think back in those days if the ball hit the pad and you had a full stride in, the umpire would hardly ever give you out, so players were encouraged to use their pads to protect their stumps. Then a new crop of big turning spinners arrived and they were lame ducks, because people like Warne could turn the ball so much they would challenge the edges of the bat even over short distances after pitching, so hanging your bat out to dry was suicidal.

The problem was, the answer that Fletcher came up with back in the late 90s was to double down on that idea of getting to the contact point as early as possible, and the way he got English batsman to do that was to get the big stride in, and then play paddle sweeps round the corner. I guess the idea was that playing forward with a straight, vertical bat gave you less extension down the pitch, but if you took a big stride and stretched out to paddle it round the corner, you are getting a bats extra length out to the pitch to negate the spin. I think it was the 2000 series in India where England lost one test with every single top 7 bat out in both innings sweeping. This legacy of trying to meet the ball early has continued, as has the idea that reaching out for sweep shots to combat the spin is a solid idea. And when the length makes it difficult to play cross bat shots or you try to play against the spin, you are in trouble.

Great players of spin go completely the opposite way, so its no surprise England crumple all the time. Rather than play from the crease and get forward, great Indian players of spin will use their feet to get out to the ball and complete smother it, never dangle their pad and bat out in hope. That, and this is where your Laxman example comes in, or playing the ball at the top of the bounce/movement by staying back and playing very late. Dravid was a genius at that too, using his wrists to compensate any time his feet or body position was wrong.

Sachin was also a perfect example of playing the sweep. If you put the ball too full, then say goodbye to it, he would get to the pitch and wouldn't be afraid to put it in the air.... but as you say, its that length thats important. The ball has to be too full, and has to be generally on a stump/towards leg stump line. English bats trying to sweep normal length balls or dragged them from offside to leg side... say goodnight, you aint lasting long.

Not saying that England players cannot play spin. I will never doubt Ollie Pope's capability against spin, after he scored a maginifient 196, which imo was one of the best innings played in India against Indian spinners.

As was at the Oval in 1998 when John Crawley knocked Murali around on a sharp turning track..... I can confidently say that sometime crap batsman just have a great day. Anyone who seen Crawley bat before or after that day against any spinner wouldn't suggest he was any good

Very true Sussex, the importance of playing the ball late is a key aspect. VVS, Azhar, Siddhu, Sachin, Chet, Rahul were so good at it. So were Aravinda D'Silva and Mahela. Andy Flower was very good at it too. So was Javed Maindad and Inzy. Brian Lara.Joe and Alaistair from England. KP was more in Sehwag and Siddhu mould of approach. Sehwag who once said he does not considers off-spinner a bowler. Actually that describes how Siddhu played spinners and stepped out at will but never in interview discarded off-spinners as Sehwag did. Sehwag, Siddhu, KP, Lara stepped out to hit the spinners. Sachin, like Aravinda and Lara, was very good at both aspects" stepping out and hitting six as well as playing cuts. Some of the shots England players got out to were more of hope or lack of temperament to keep playing the ball where it deserves to go. How is the batting coach even accepting this, or is it his sermon to play like this. Surely, a coach with experience and certifications needs to guide the batsmen to play in a way which increases their chance of scoring a big ton or a double in tests. Not sure who is responsible for these poor shot selection which obviosuly will lead to poor execution of shot as its high percentile failure approach.

The second point about England batsmen trying to play ball pitching outside off-stump to mid-wicket with flat bat or slog hit is a very poor basic or fundamental approach. Why cannot they just not play the cover drive. Is it written anywhere that they cannot play 6 cover drives in an over. Instead they go for wrong shot selection and look like hacks when they get out. Iirc once Lara played all 5 balls to mid-off at same fielder, against some pace bowler, (perhaps Doda Ganesh and i think the fielder was Noel David at mid-off) because the ball was pitched to play that type of sht which is technically correct and is a proper shot selection for that delivery. So what if he could not get runs. At least he did not play it on leg side and avoided probability of a poor shot. It is not shopping that just because someone bought one blue shirt, he will look for variety and get a different colored 2nd shirt, then a third of different color and 4th and so on. What is the need of trying to be fashionable and fancy in test match.

Sussex, there are many crap batsmen from every country who have toured here, but i don't think anyone of them managed to play an innings of 196 like Ollie did on that wicket. One can say Ollie may be the first one to do so if his batting average remains at 33. Those who have played such blinders are greats. Not that Ollie is going to be another great but certainly crap batsmen nver played inning slike he did. I still think if he is told to play proper test cricket rather than Bazball he has it in him to play another quality innings against spin. That innings is a great confidence booster. Who knows he will play another such blinder in 2025 which gets into hall of fame innings. One cannot play 5 hall of fame innings in an year. But i think he may with proper approach play another hall of fame innings against spinner in an year or two. Having said that, i agree that he , rather any specialist batsmen, should not be in team because he played one great innings against spin in spinning conditions. He needs to do that consistenly against spinners and also he needs to play innings with acceptable average against pacers. He clearly has to show consistency like i mentioned in previous post.

[Slipstream]

England will console themselves that they won't have to tour Asia again until Bangladesh in 2027

But they are taking 3 spinners to NZ.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/jaco ... ur-1457517

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bethell hasn't made a fc ton. So looks like either a gamble or going for experience.

Losing Smith is a blow.