On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:21:03 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:

>On 1/26/2024 4:18 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:56:04?AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> Another british family enjoying their holiday two rows down to the left
>>> https://imgbox.com/V9DuEW8k
>>
>> Hmmm.. that looks like a standard issue MI6 Casio watch to me.
>
>
>
>
>I assume you are talking about this picture.
>
>
>The two old british guys to my right in the picture were from Essex and
>North London respectively.
>https://imgbox.com/JScoVzE0
>
>
>
>Yesterday when I uploaded this picture to imgbox, I "thought" that I
>haven't seen a Casio watch like that in a long time, the one the british
>bloke was wearing.
>
>Sorry, Jack for saying this but the evil barbaric back stabbing CIA NSA
>FBI MI6 MI5 psychopaths "read my private thoughts" in India via
>Satellites, Cell Towers, Internet and other modes and then "remotely
>programmed" you to post that comment above.
>
On the subject of watches. I've been on the look out for a watch at
auctions and charity sales for years. It's one of the WW2 Dirty Dozen
watches, any one of them would do, even a broken or damaged one but
they're always way too expensive for me and I'm too miserable anyway
otherwise I'd have bought one already.

max.it

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 10:33:07 AM UTC-5, max.it wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:21:03 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> wrote:
>
> >On 1/26/2024 4:18 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:56:04?AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>> Another british family enjoying their holiday two rows down to the left
> >>> https://imgbox.com/V9DuEW8k
> >>
> >> Hmmm.. that looks like a standard issue MI6 Casio watch to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I assume you are talking about this picture.
> >
> >
> >The two old british guys to my right in the picture were from Essex and
> >North London respectively.
> >https://imgbox.com/JScoVzE0
> >
> >
> >
> >Yesterday when I uploaded this picture to imgbox, I "thought" that I
> >haven't seen a Casio watch like that in a long time, the one the british
> >bloke was wearing.
> >
> >Sorry, Jack for saying this but the evil barbaric back stabbing CIA NSA
> >FBI MI6 MI5 psychopaths "read my private thoughts" in India via
> >Satellites, Cell Towers, Internet and other modes and then "remotely
> >programmed" you to post that comment above.
> >
> On the subject of watches. I've been on the look out for a watch at
> auctions and charity sales for years. It's one of the WW2 Dirty Dozen
> watches, any one of them would do, even a broken or damaged one but
> they're always way too expensive for me and I'm too miserable anyway
> otherwise I'd have bought one already.
>
> max.it

3spinners

Funny if England beat India!

In message <b560b950eb264434e917cda9cdd5ae0a@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>John Hall wrote:
<snip>
>
>> The chances of Shoaib Bashir getting a game, possibly as soon as Test
>>2, must have greatly increased.
>
>yes hes our secret weapon, no wonder india delayed his visa, theyr running
>scared of out mystery spinner, its a mystery why he was picked.
>
>mike

The only rational explanation I can come up with for our spin selection
is that England privately felt that they had no chance of winning the
series whichever spinners they picked, so they might as well pick
promising youngsters who should learn a massive amount from the
experience and thus have their development expedited. But it's hard to
imagind McCullum and Stokes having such a defeatist mindset.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <l1imu7Fmuk1U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 26/01/2024 17:06, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <0b910509-49ff-4ffc-b5b2-c6ee4ddc8168@america.com>,
>>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
>>writes
>
>>> It would be "very difficult" for England to get back into the match
>>>after conceding 175 run lead to India with 3 wickets still in hand.
>> If they could do that, it would probably be the most remarkable
>>turn-around in a Test in India since India won against Australia after
>>following on.
>
>Apart from that match, no team has ever won a Test in India after
>conceding a first-innings lead of 100+. The next highest was also an
>India win over Australia, at Mumbai in 2004/05 after trailing by 99.
>
>The highest first-innings deficit by a touring side that went on to win
>in India was 65 by Australia at Madras in 1964/65. England have never
>won in India after being behind on first innings.
>

Well England's heroics today (Saturday) may have raised their chances of
winning from say 1% to 10%. I don't put it any higher than that because:

1. Pope and Rehan Ahmed have to start again in the morning, and there's
not much betting to come after they are separated.
2. India will have a new ball after only a few overs, which being harder
should enable the spinners to get a bit more "nip".
3. The Indian batsmen mostly play spin well, and the pitch has slowed
enough that playing off the back foot is easier because there's time to
adjust.
4. The limited nature of England's spin attack, the most i8mport factor
of all.

Taking points 3 and 4 into account, I think England will need a lead of
over 200 to give them a realistic chance, and even that might not be
enough.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about England's innings reaching 316-6
is that arguably their best three batsmen, and certainly their most
experienced in Indian conditions, only contributed 18 runs between them.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <661c16ef-d335-4c1c-814c-ad2a8846b888@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>On 1/26/2024 9:06 AM, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <0b910509-49ff-4ffc-b5b2-c6ee4ddc8168@america.com>,
>>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
>>writes
>>> Yeah it was a great experience watching test cricket live after a
>>>very long time in India because I have been living in USA for quite
>>>a while.
>>>
>>>
>>> The two old british guys to my right in the picture were from Essex
>>>and North London respectively.
>>> https://imgbox.com/JScoVzE0
>> Is that you wearing the shirt with "SURYA" on the back?
>>
>
>
>No, it wasn't me.
>
>I sat right next to this bloke from Essex.
>
>
>The two old british guys to my right in the picture were from Essex and
>North London respectively.
>https://imgbox.com/JScoVzE0
>
Ah, of course if you were taking the picture then you wouldn't be in
it..

>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another british family enjoying their holiday two rows down to the left
>>> https://imgbox.com/V9DuEW8k
>>>
>>>
>>> In the afternoon session, I moved close to the sight screen and
>>>another young lad from Oxford but currently living in Berlin Germany,
>>>sat next to me.
>> It's been good to see crowds of 20,000+ on both the first two days.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Wood about to start at his run up and bowl to Axar Patel in
>>>late post tea session.
>>> https://imgbox.com/sKqRkyRA
>>>
>>>
>>> There were quite a few barmy army britsh fans in the crowd in
>>>different sections of the ground.
>>>
>>>
>>> All in all, it was quite enjoyable especially India doing quite well
>>>after losing Yashasvi in the first over of the day.
>>>
>>> I was surprised Stokes didn't bowl Root for a couple of overs in
>>>late Day one.
>> Me too.
>>
>>>
>>> Stokes was also over enthusiastic in asking for DRS reviews on Day
>>>one during Indian innings.
>>>
>>> I noticed Stokes employed a 6-3 offside and onside field OR vice
>>>versa for Jadeja, Axar, Bharat, Rahul for Spinners.
>>>
>>> It would be "very difficult" for England to get back into the match
>>>after conceding 175 run lead to India with 3 wickets still in hand.
>> If they could do that, it would probably be the most remarkable
>>turn-around in a Test in India since India won against Australia after
>>following on.
>>
>
>
>
>I sincerely hope England scores another 75 odd runs tomorrow morning
>and set India a 4th innings target of about 200+ so fans can enjoy a
>riveting day tomorrow.
>
>Even commentator Kevin Pietersen was hoping for it.

Yep. Anyone who bought tickets in advance for tomorrow will be delighted
that they should get a substantial amount of play, when that didn't look
likely when Day 3 started.

>
>It will be even more enjoyable if India is about 100/3 or 4 wickets
>chasing tomorrow, making it a very tense contest.
>

Yep. I think at the moment India remain strong favourites, though, for
reasons I've set out in another post - if not as strong favourites as
they were.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think England will go back to two pace bowlers in Vizag, most
>>>likely James Anderson.
>> I think Anderson will have to play, whether with or without Wood.
>>England really needed a bowler who could bowl a longish spell and keep
>>it tight.
>
>
>Anderson can probably get England 25 overs for 50 odd runs while taking
>a wicket or two or even more in Vizag which is NOT as SPIN friendly as
>some of the other Indian grounds.

He will also get reverse swing if there's any to be had.
>
>
>
>> Thanks for the photos.
>
>
>You are welcome.
>
>

--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <9ef71e81-e068-4677-b30d-18b0d236b4fen@googlegroups.com>,
"drye...@gmail.com" <dryes1617@gmail.com> writes
>3spinners
>
>Funny if England beat India!

Four spinners if you include Root, which you definitely should as he's
been the best English bowler. (Admittedly there has been less
competition for that title than one would like.)
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 27/01/2024 19:27, John Hall wrote:
> In message <9ef71e81-e068-4677-b30d-18b0d236b4fen@googlegroups.com>,
> "drye...@gmail.com" <dryes1617@gmail.com> writes
>> 3spinners
>>
>> Funny if England beat India!
>
> Four spinners if you include Root, which you definitely should as he's
> been the best English bowler. (Admittedly there has been less
> competition for that title than one would like.)

That reminds me of the 1992/93 series, when Graeme Hick was the only
England bowler to return decent figures. They never used 4 spinners in
the same Test on that tour though.

--
David North

John Hall wrote:

> In message <l1imu7Fmuk1U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>On 26/01/2024 17:06, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <0b910509-49ff-4ffc-b5b2-c6ee4ddc8168@america.com>,
>>>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
>>>writes
>>
>>>> It would be "very difficult" for England to get back into the match
>>>>after conceding 175 run lead to India with 3 wickets still in hand.
>>> If they could do that, it would probably be the most remarkable
>>>turn-around in a Test in India since India won against Australia after
>>>following on.
>>
>>Apart from that match, no team has ever won a Test in India after
>>conceding a first-innings lead of 100+. The next highest was also an
>>India win over Australia, at Mumbai in 2004/05 after trailing by 99.
>>
>>The highest first-innings deficit by a touring side that went on to win
>>in India was 65 by Australia at Madras in 1964/65. England have never
>>won in India after being behind on first innings.
>>

> Well England's heroics today (Saturday) may have raised their chances of
> winning from say 1% to 10%. I don't put it any higher than that because:

> 1. Pope and Rehan Ahmed have to start again in the morning, and there's
> not much betting to come after they are separated.
> 2. India will have a new ball after only a few overs, which being harder
> should enable the spinners to get a bit more "nip".
> 3. The Indian batsmen mostly play spin well, and the pitch has slowed
> enough that playing off the back foot is easier because there's time to
> adjust.
> 4. The limited nature of England's spin attack, the most i8mport factor
> of all.

> Taking points 3 and 4 into account, I think England will need a lead of
> over 200 to give them a realistic chance, and even that might not be
> enough.

> Perhaps the most remarkable thing about England's innings reaching 316-6
> is that arguably their best three batsmen, and certainly their most
> experienced in Indian conditions, only contributed 18 runs between them.

I think 200 might be difficult with Bumrah getting the new ball, he was
excellent yesterday, bit tired by the end luckily for england. even quicks
can take advantage of a pitch with variable bounce so if only england
had chosen anderson and robbo instead of wood and PJ, i doubt india would
have got much over 300 and then it really would be interesting. i saw an
interview hartley had given b4 the match where he said he was working
on his carrom ball. i actually misread it momentarily as cannon ball,
which might explain all those half trackers he dropped while bowling.

whatever happens i wouldnt be surprised if england replace wood
with bashir for the next test, theyr so determined to outsmart the media,
rather than actually select a team that might win. its all rather odd
when you think back to pakistan, they had 3 seamers with Leach, Root
and Jacks/ahmed and did pretty well. sometimes when i listen to them, i feel
the england cricket teams become a cult with stokes and baz as high
priests.

mike

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 5:25:24 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Well England's heroics today (Saturday) may have raised their chances of
> winning from say 1% to 10%. I don't put it any higher than that because:

10% feels too low.
Currently (effectively) 126/6. Another 80 runs, whilst still a long way off, and England will be feeling quietly confident. It's a turning pitch, with a bit of variable bounce.
4 English spinners (inc Root) might turn out to be a good decision.

I'd say 20% chance to win, right now.

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 9:57:36 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> I'd say 20% chance to win, right now.

BTW, I've come to this number assuming Pope doesn't bring out the reverse sweep in the first 10 overs.

jack fredricks wrote:

> On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 5:25:24 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> Well England's heroics today (Saturday) may have raised their chances of
>> winning from say 1% to 10%. I don't put it any higher than that because:

> 10% feels too low.
> Currently (effectively) 126/6. Another 80 runs, whilst still a long way off, and England will be feeling quietly confident. It's a turning pitch, with a bit of variable bounce.
> 4 English spinners (inc Root) might turn out to be a good decision.

I wish we had anderson rather than wood right now. bout time wood
contributed something in this match, i thought the idea of 90mph
bowlers was to blow away the tail, too often ours just give away
runs. i think wood would be far more effective if he aimed at
the stumps more often.

mike

On 1/27/2024 11:24 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <661c16ef-d335-4c1c-814c-ad2a8846b888@america.com>,
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> writes
>> On 1/26/2024 9:06 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <0b910509-49ff-4ffc-b5b2-c6ee4ddc8168@america.com>,
>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
>>> writes
>>>> Yeah it was a great experience watching test cricket live after a
>>>> very  long time in India because I have been living in USA for quite
>>>> a while.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The two old british guys to my right in the picture were from Essex
>>>> and North London respectively.
>>>> https://imgbox.com/JScoVzE0
>>>  Is that you wearing the shirt with "SURYA" on the back?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, it wasn't me.
>>
>> I sat right next to this bloke from Essex.
>>
>>
>> The two old british guys to my right in the picture were from Essex
>> and North London respectively.
>> https://imgbox.com/JScoVzE0
>>
> Ah, of course if you were taking the picture then you wouldn't be in it..
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another british family enjoying their holiday two rows down to the left
>>>> https://imgbox.com/V9DuEW8k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the afternoon session, I moved close to the sight screen and
>>>> another young lad from Oxford but currently living in Berlin
>>>> Germany, sat next to me.
>>>   It's been good to see crowds of 20,000+ on both the first two days.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark Wood about to start at his run up and bowl to Axar Patel in
>>>> late  post tea session.
>>>> https://imgbox.com/sKqRkyRA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There were quite a few barmy army britsh fans in the crowd in
>>>> different sections of the ground.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All in all, it was quite enjoyable especially India doing quite well
>>>> after losing Yashasvi in the first over of the day.
>>>>
>>>> I was surprised Stokes didn't bowl Root for a couple of overs in
>>>> late  Day one.
>>>  Me too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stokes was also over enthusiastic in asking for DRS reviews on Day
>>>> one during Indian innings.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed Stokes employed a 6-3 offside and onside field OR vice
>>>> versa for Jadeja, Axar, Bharat, Rahul for Spinners.
>>>>
>>>> It would be "very difficult" for England to get back into the match
>>>> after conceding 175 run lead to India with 3 wickets still in hand.
>>>  If they could do that, it would probably be the most remarkable
>>> turn-around in a Test in India since India won against Australia
>>> after following on.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I sincerely hope England scores another 75 odd runs tomorrow morning
>> and set India a 4th innings target of about 200+ so fans can enjoy a
>> riveting day tomorrow.
>>
>> Even commentator Kevin Pietersen was hoping for it.
>
> Yep. Anyone who bought tickets in advance for tomorrow will be delighted
> that they should get a substantial amount of play, when that didn't look
> likely when Day 3 started.
>

It happened almost exactly like I wanted, EXCEPT the END RESULT today :-((

India let England score 30 runs more on Day 4 than they should have.

Great test match, very tense until the end.

Turning point for India losing the match was Jadeja getting run out in I2.

WHY was Yashasvi SO CAUTIOUS in I2 after playing a BRILLIANT aggressive I1?

How stupid was Siraj to dance down the wicket with a wild heave
especially AFTER Foakes tried to stump him three times AND also after
watching Ashwin get out to a wild heave.

Why didn't the Indian coach and team management send a message to Siraj
to fucking stay in the crease and REMIND him that he is NOT a top class
batsman to play that kind of shots.

It was a tough loss for India after being AHEAD most of the game.

India has been quite often losing the first test in recent years.

Gill has been out of form for a while for India.

All in all, it was a great test to watch for cricket fans.

Well played England and a great come from behind win.

>>
>> It will be even more enjoyable if India is about 100/3 or 4 wickets
>> chasing tomorrow, making it a very tense contest.
>>
>
> Yep. I think at the moment India remain strong favourites, though, for
> reasons I've set out in another post - if not as strong favourites as
> they were.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think England will go back to two pace bowlers in Vizag, most
>>>> likely James Anderson.
>>>  I think Anderson will have to play, whether with or without Wood.
>>> England really needed a bowler who could bowl a longish spell and
>>> keep it tight.
>>
>>
>> Anderson can probably get England 25 overs for 50 odd runs while
>> taking a wicket or two or even more in Vizag which is NOT as SPIN
>> friendly as some of the other Indian grounds.
>
> He will also get reverse swing if there's any to be had.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  Thanks for the photos.
>>
>>
>> You are welcome.
>>
>>
>

In message <07dcc085-f36d-485b-8807-215103af3d7c@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>Turning point for India losing the match was Jadeja getting run out in I2.

Yes, I thought that too. It also looked as if he might have pulled a
hamstring in attempting the run. If he's unfit for the next Test, that
would be a big loss for *India.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <OVPDn3AqRVtlFw2U@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>The only rational explanation I can come up with for our spin selection
>is that England privately felt that they had no chance of winning the
>series whichever spinners they picked, so they might as well pick
>promising youngsters who should learn a massive amount from the
>experience and thus have their development expedited. But it's hard to
>imagind McCullum and Stokes having such a defeatist mindset.

I know it's hard to credit, but it's just possible that Key, McCullum
and Stokes might know more about cricket than I do. :) Apart from
Hartley's talent as a spinner, it says a lot for his mentality that he
was able to bowl so well after having such a terrible time in the first
innings of his debut Test.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:33:43 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Turning point for India losing the match was Jadeja getting run out in I2..

A local paper here in Aus described it as "a brilliant one-armed throw by Stokes".
Aren't most throws one-armed?

In message <ea721d26-427b-4883-b63e-91dc61f4b41en@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:33:430 >FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Turning point for India losing the match was Jadeja getting run out in I2.
>
>A local paper here in Aus described it as "a brilliant one-armed throw
>by Stokes".
>Aren't most throws one-armed?

Yes, not the best description. He was pretty much facing the wrong way,
but managed a sort of back-handed underarm flick of a throw.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:57:35 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> >A local paper here in Aus described it as "a brilliant one-armed throw
> >by Stokes".
> >Aren't most throws one-armed?
> Yes, not the best description. He was pretty much facing the wrong way,
> but managed a sort of back-handed underarm flick of a throw.

Whilst diving.

On Sunday 28 January 2024 at 17:32:43 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <OVPDn3AqRVtlFw2U@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >The only rational explanation I can come up with for our spin selection
> >is that England privately felt that they had no chance of winning the
> >series whichever spinners they picked, so they might as well pick
> >promising youngsters who should learn a massive amount from the
> >experience and thus have their development expedited. But it's hard to
> >imagind McCullum and Stokes having such a defeatist mindset.
> I know it's hard to credit, but it's just possible that Key, McCullum
> and Stokes might know more about cricket than I do. :)

Even so, they probably can't believe that things have turned out as well as they have, both in this match and since they took over generally, although they probably won't admit it.