India in England Aug-Sep 2021 (& July 2022)

[alfie]

I see the start of the short-form Internationals hasn't attracted much interest on here... Anti-climax after the Tests ?

Storm noise woke me up early morning so I actually watched much of the first t20 : fair to call that a pretty comprehensive victory for India ! Rohit a handy return for them , Pandya getting runs and wickets. They might have felt they left a few runs out there from where they were mid-innings ; but their new ball bowling killed the match dead in a few overs...England top order could hardly lay a bat on the ball - which was hooping around alarmingly. At least young Brook got a chance to whack a few boundaries.

One t20 means very little ; but it did point up England's problems with bowling in this format. Missing Rashid - and the long term fast bowling casualties - the attack looked dub-standard , apart from Jordan. Could have done with Willey , I think : but for some reason he doesn't seem to be high in their estimation.

Two more of these to follow a little earlier in the starting times , I believe...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Didn't know it was on!

I think one of these is on BBC, so I'll probably watch that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It's on again! Low profile or what?

[Arthur Crabtree]

I presume this is Gleeson's debut. Should get another game.

Only Jordan and Curran otherwise going at under 10 an over.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think one of these is on BBC, so I'll probably watch that.

Today! I'll watch the chase.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Poor start...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not a great game for occasional watchers of international cricket on non subscription services.

[Durhamfootman]

I watched a little bit. Gleeson had an exceptional debut with the ball

Poor couple of results by the looks of things. India were on the rack a little at 89-5 in the 12th, yet managed to nearly double their score, helped in part by some sloppy fielding and some odd captaincy decisions. With India struggling to cope with Gleeson and Jordan, Jos turned to a bit of part time spin from Livingstone.... don't know why, but his two overs cost 23 and helped Jadeja get his eye in. I always remember a conversation I had with DD years ago when Hants were at their T20 peak and Durham were a mess. He said that Hants had a plan and selected 5 bowlers to bowl to that plan, rarely used a 6th bowler, and had a team full of players who knew exactly what their roles in the side were. Whereas Durham routinely had 8 people who could bowl, they used all of them in bits, none of the fielders quite knew what to expect next and so they just got carted. It felt a bit like that today with England..... no real plan so just pick as many players who can bowl a couple of overs as you can and see what sticks.

I'm being unfair really, England do have a plan and it's kind of 'we aren't bothered how many we concede because we can clobber our way to any target we get set' except at the moment they aren't. Roy and Buttler can't get going atm (has Buttler played any cricket since the IPL?) and the plan really hinges on one of them getting a big score and piling loads of pressure on the opposition bowlers. Atm though they are just alternating scores of 0 and 4 and after that everything unravels. After watching Durham bumbling their way from one thrashing to the next, it's a bit of a ssiper to then watch England doing the same things and making the same mistakes

hey ho.... better to get this transition stuff out of the way now ahead of the T20WC

[Slipstream]

Sometimes England go into series with lots of questions to answer and come out of them with more questions to answer. This isn't one of them. It has been a stellar first half of the test summer.

There is still work to do on establishing a reliable top order, but there are tentative signs of improvement since the end of the revolving door policy

All of a sudden the questions over YJB have been put to bed and the middle order looks as strong as any in world cricket.

There ought to be a bit of stability with the gloves now. No-one in their right mind would muck about with YJB atm, the Buttlerfingers situation has been resolved, presumably to everyone's satisfaction, and so with Billings making a few mistakes behind the stumps, there is a decent chance that England's best gloveman will get an extended run in the side once he's fit again

The advent of Matty Potts looks set to end the perennial question over whether both A & B have to play, and once other bowling alternatives like Robinson become fit again, the core of seam bowling ought to take care of itself. England need a bigger pool of speed merchants to draw from, because Wood and Archer, plus all the others being mooted, just can't stay healthy enough for long enough, but then that is what the flat pitches around the counties are meant to address. Ditto spin, although Leach has shown glimpses of what he can be capable of

The captaincy has improved immeasurably under Stokes. Even if the short ball tactic is a bit wearing and irritating and frustrating, there is a much more proactive approach to bowling changes and field placings. Everything else is more positive, players seem to be better supported and with results like these, morale will surely not have been this high in years, so there is something there to build upon. I imagine that players around the counties who have perhaps already been part of a period of declining fortunes for England will suddenly be champing at the bit to try and become a part of this side

and there is an end to covid protocols and bubbles and all of the other associated rubbish that has indisputably had a massively negative impact on the group and on performances over the last couple of years.

I was surprised how successful we were because the balls had to be changed so often.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/e...e-show-1323523

[alfie]

I watched a little bit. Gleeson had an exceptional debut with the ball

Poor couple of results by the looks of things. India were on the rack a little at 89-5 in the 12th, yet managed to nearly double their score, helped in part by some sloppy fielding and some odd captaincy decisions. With India struggling to cope with Gleeson and Jordan, Jos turned to a bit of part time spin from Livingstone.... don't know why, but his two overs cost 23 and helped Jadeja get his eye in. I always remember a conversation I had with DD years ago when Hants were at their T20 peak and Durham were a mess. He said that Hants had a plan and selected 5 bowlers to bowl to that plan, rarely used a 6th bowler, and had a team full of players who knew exactly what their roles in the side were. Whereas Durham routinely had 8 people who could bowl, they used all of them in bits, none of the fielders quite knew what to expect next and so they just got carted. It felt a bit like that today with England..... no real plan so just pick as many players who can bowl a couple of overs as you can and see what sticks.

I'm being unfair really, England do have a plan and it's kind of 'we aren't bothered how many we concede because we can clobber our way to any target we get set' except at the moment they aren't. Roy and Buttler can't get going atm (has Buttler played any cricket since the IPL?) and the plan really hinges on one of them getting a big score and piling loads of pressure on the opposition bowlers. Atm though they are just alternating scores of 0 and 4 and after that everything unravels. After watching Durham bumbling their way from one thrashing to the next, it's a bit of a ssiper to then watch England doing the same things and making the same mistakes

hey ho.... better to get this transition stuff out of the way now ahead of the T20WC

Agree with pretty much all that , DFM. Suppose we should really view these games as a bit of an experiment anyway , with multi-format players rested (or missing , like Rashid) - and the results don't really matter. I do think they've gone in bowler heavy : I was initially pleased when Buttler elected to follow up Jordan's two wicket over with the return of Gleeson and Willey - but then back to Livingstone looked like "he's in the side , I have to use him"...

Still think 170 was gettable but they never looked like recovering from the bad start. Happens : though I do not see Livingstone as a four. Maybe against Netherlands - but not India.

Fielding was indeed a bit sloppy , I thought. Hopefully just a bad hair day. At least they look to have unearthed a somewhat unexpected gem in Gleeson - he really did bowl superbly

[Durhamfootman]

I was surprised how successful we were because the balls had to be changed so often.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/e...e-show-1323523

interesting article. I suppose if England bowled nothing but short balls throughout the entirety of every match, then every wicket would eventually have fallen to the short ball. They were certainly helped by the frequent ball changes and they were certainly indebted to both NZ and India, who somehow allowed themselves to get sucked into playing England's game by taking the short ball on, rather than by being a lot more circumspect. NZ at TB and India could have batted England right out of the game had they chosen to, but for some reason decided to let adrenaline rather than cold logic get the better of them. I imagine that SA will have already decided on two things...... win the toss and bowl first and refuse to get sucked into going after the short ball.

I have nothing against the short ball.... I like the short ball.... but over after over after over of the stuff gets a bit predictable and terribly boring and I refuse to believe that taking the new ball and banging it in short immediately is the best use of such a precious commodity. They won't always get a replacement ball every hour

[Durhamfootman]

and actually.... on the subject of these duke balls going out of shape......

If the umpire has to pass a ball through a ring several times to check if it has gone out of shape, then it probably hasn't gone out of shape very much. Maybe both sides should be told to get on with it until such time that both umpires agree it is misshapen enough to be seen by eye.

[Slipstream]

I was surprised how successful we were because the balls had to be changed so often.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/e...e-show-1323523

interesting article. I suppose if England bowled nothing but short balls throughout the entirety of every match, then every wicket would eventually have fallen to the short ball. They were certainly helped by the frequent ball changes and they were certainly indebted to both NZ and India, who somehow allowed themselves to get sucked into playing England's game by taking the short ball on, rather than by being a lot more circumspect. NZ at TB and India could have batted England right out of the game had they chosen to, but for some reason decided to let adrenaline rather than cold logic get the better of them. I imagine that SA will have already decided on two things...... win the toss and bowl first and refuse to get sucked into going after the short ball.

I have nothing against the short ball.... I like the short ball.... but over after over after over of the stuff gets a bit predictable and terribly boring and I refuse to believe that taking the new ball and banging it in short immediately is the best use of such a precious commodity. They won't always get a replacement ball every hour

I agree with this. It is a precious commodity.

It didn't really work with Mitchell and Blundell who were excellent at playing the short ball. Batting together 724 runs average 120.66

Hopefully by the time the SA series starts we will have the ball sorted out once and for all.

For England it was the perfect storm. Flat pitches that don't break up, ball going soft quickly, Bairstow in the form of his life with the support of Root. India probably thought 'our bowlers are better and faster than NZ's' but it made no difference.

[Durhamfootman]

not sure the balls will be sorted out. As i understand it, the leather for the next batch of Dukes balls is still bent over cropping grass

[Arthur Crabtree]

Malan dominating the innings. Needed this innings given recent form.