England v India 1st Test

[Dayvo]

I can hear Brian Clough in the distance.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Did Cloughie have anything to say about games fizzling out?

 

[Dayvo]

Did Cloughie have anything to say about games fizzling out?

'If it'd been played at Trent Bridge we'd have trounced the buggers' is what he probably would have said.

 

[psmiffy]

A good draw in the end for both sides - India outplayed for 5 days go into the next one all square - England showed that notwithstanding what happened in Bangladesh and the 5-0 doom and gloomers that they can compete - there was a sniff of an England victory at the end but realistically without some sort of divine intervention from Cloughie it was never on - historically away series wins in India are by the odd match and are dominated by draws - definitely some pluses for England - Hameed - although they will probably come up with a plan against him - Rashid - still a long way to go before you could say he is world class but the more confident he gets the better he bowls - Moen - a great knock - Cook - still got it

One question is if Anderson is fit does he get a game - Visakhapatnam is likely to be a spinners pitch - I wouldnt leave out Woakes and you cannot leave out Broad - with Stokes 4 seamers would be too many? - Ansari? and Root as the third spinner ?

 

[Dayvo]

Good summary, PS!

I wouldn't pick Anderson for the next Test: there is no need to replace a seamer from this Test, and having four seamers if Ansari were to be dropped would be surplus to requirements.

I'd keep the team the same for the next Test, then take it from there. The balance seems to be good: two competent openers, a solid no. 3; good middle order, batting all-rounders and a short tail. I'm not a fan of Bairstow (Buttler would be my man - both for his keeping and his batting, plus he hasn't got ginger hair) but it would be harsh to drop him after a decent performance with both bat and gloves.

 

[psmiffy]

I'd keep the team the same for the next Test, then take it from there.

That would be my choice - for the three spinners there is still a lot of on the job training to be done - the more overs they bowl in match conditions the better - I would like to see Moeen improve in the same way Rashid seems to have and Ansari needs another chance to show that he has got what it takes

 

[Dayvo]

... Ansari needs another chance to show that he has got what it takes

Ansari admits to having problems bowling over the wicket to left-handers, surprisingly not able to get his (3-paced) run-up right! How did he get to Test level without the coaches sorting that out?

But he's rated as a good prospect, so let's hope he's given a fair chance to develop, mature and become confident.

 

[psmiffy]

India going well - 294 for 3 - just reviewed a lbw against Kohli - they were talking about changing the umpires call from 50% of the ball to 25% - have they done that?

 

[psmiffy]

they were talking about changing the umpires call from 50% of the ball to 25% - have they done that?

The answer seems to be no

The ICC has approved changes to the umpire's call with respect to not-out lbw decisions under the DRS. For on-field lbw decisions to be overturned from October 1, the ball-tracking technology will need to show half of the ball hitting a zone that includes the outside of off and leg stumps. Earlier, half of the ball had to hit a zone between the centre of off and leg stumps for not-out lbw decisions to be overturned.

An ICC release said: "The size of the zone inside which half the ball needs to hit for a Not Out decision to be reversed to Out will increase, changing to a zone bordered by the outside of off and leg stumps, and the bottom of the bails (formerly the centre of off and leg stumps, and the bottom of the bails)."

The amendment will come into effect from October 1 or from the start of any series using DRS that commences just prior to this date. The change will benefit bowlers, and more batsmen are likely to be given out because the area the ball needs to hit for the decision to be overturned has increased.

Former Sri Lanka captain Mahela Jayawardene, who sits on the ICC cricket committee, had recently said a recommendation had been made to reduce the margin of umpire's call on the DRS. Jayawardene had said the proposal was to reduce the margin from 50% of the ball hitting the stumps to 25%. However, the ICC release stated that "half the ball" would still need to hit the stumps.

 

[nickyboy]

In these series the winning of the toss has a disproportionate influence over who wins. Getting first bat on tracks that significantly deteriorate is a massive advantage. You can see after 80 odd overs that it is starting to wear quite dramatically

I'd prefer a situation where there was a toss for the first test, then sides alternate which one decides to bat/bowl in subsequent tests

Excellent batting from Kohli and Pujara. Nothing much wrong with the bowling (although the spinners could have been tighter on line & length), just really good batting

 

[nickyboy]

India going well - 294 for 3 - just reviewed a lbw against Kohli - they were talking about changing the umpires call from 50% of the ball to 25% - have they done that?

I wouldn't change the "out" decision to 25%. Really since the introduction of DRS there has been a much better balance between bat and ball. It's easy to forget how rubbish it used to be to watch batsmen pad away spinners with the bat hidden behind the pad. I don't think there are more drawn tests these days, it feels to me that there are more 3 or 4 day tests than ever

What I would change is the rule about the loss of reviews if it is umpire's call. I'd have a system where you maybe have fewer DRS review "lives" but you keep the life if it is an Umpire's call

 

[User482]

I wouldn't change the "out" decision to 25%. Really since the introduction of DRS there has been a much better balance between bat and ball. It's easy to forget how rubbish it used to be to watch batsmen pad away spinners with the bat hidden behind the pad. I don't think there are more drawn tests these days, it feels to me that there are more 3 or 4 day tests than ever

What I would change is the rule about the loss of reviews if it is umpire's call. I'd have a system where you maybe have fewer DRS review "lives" but you keep the life if it is an Umpire's call

Andrew on TMS presented some stats confirming that there are substantially fewer draws these days. The previous test felt like a bit of an anachronism from that point of view.

I agree with you about DRS and the loss of reviews, but it remains the case that two identical deliveries can be "out" or "not out" depending on the on-field decision. It seems pretty odd to refer to technology but then defer to the original human decision, though I can't think how you would easily change it.

 

[nickyboy]

Andrew on TMS presented some stats confirming that there are substantially fewer draws these days. The previous test felt like a bit of an anachronism from that point of view.

I agree with you about DRS and the loss of reviews, but it remains the case that two identical deliveries can be "out" or "not out" depending on the on-field decision. It seems pretty odd to refer to technology but then defer to the original human decision, though I can't think how you would easily change it.

I agree and it feels like this situation is just a sop to the umpires, otherwise there would be even more successful reviews. I'd have a DRS review system where it didn't matter what the umpire had decided or "soft signalled". You'd need to tweak the number of reviews and what % of hitting constitutes out (so as to have a proper balance between bat and ball) but, to me, this is a more equitable solution

 

[psmiffy]

The new regs seem to have moved the metaphorical goalposts slightly more towards the bowler and taken a bit more away from the umpire - DRS to my mind is pretty accurate - I thought that when it was first implemented that the stumps in DRS were 10% smaller than reality to account for the perceived error in ball tracking - is that still the case? - to my mind the number of referrals is about right - the umpire call thing will only be resolved when ball tracking is finally accepted as being totally reliable - 25% is not unreasonable - out lbw should be out - not a matter of bat versus ball but just a matter of fact

 

[swee'pea99]

I agree and it feels like this situation is just a sop to the umpires, otherwise there would be even more successful reviews. I'd have a DRS review system where it didn't matter what the umpire had decided or "soft signalled". You'd need to tweak the number of reviews and what % of hitting constitutes out (so as to have a proper balance between bat and ball) but, to me, this is a more equitable solution

I'm not sure. I worry that this kind of assumes that the technology is 'right', and that any concession to the umpires is simply an exercise in face-saving, which stands in the way of getting 'the right decision', whereas I suspect the technology can be misleading/borderline sometimes, and an umpire's 'take' on it is rightly treated as a significant factor aiding a correct decision.

I do like the idea of alternating starters (or, more accurately, choosers) after one coin-toss for Test #1.