On 2/3/2024 3:45 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:00:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> India is winning Test 2.
>> Too early to say.
>
> We must be watching different games :)
>

Didn't we think that India was winning first test at Hyderabad after Day
3 too?

You never know with England's bazball, even though India is ahead now.

Rohit is the ONLY experienced batsman in Indian team.

Gill and Iyer are inconsistent.

Rajat is debutant.

Axar is NOT a pure batsman.

You never know with Indian batsmen giving 7 wickets to debutant Tom
Hartley and losing the Hyderabad test from a winning position with 90%
odds after Day 3.

Richard Dixon wrote:

> On Saturday 3 February 2024 at 11:45:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:00:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> > On 2/3/2024 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > > India is winning Test 2.
>> > Too early to say.
>> We must be watching different games :)

> Excited to find out which way England find to win this won.

Yes a heavy defeat seems more likely, but England have yet to test
India with a proper new ball attack. each time its hartley/root/bash
just letting them have easy runs. Bumrah and anderson showed that
its not impossible for the seamers to take wkts on these surfaces.
It does seem odd that england have decided that only spin will
take wkts at vizag. I think beforehand there were plenty saying it
would only really start to take spin later on in the match.

mike

In message <d4513bbe-da3d-495a-8bb1-508c5a390e82n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>India is winning Test 2.
>
>Whilst I love the reverse-sweeps, it's criminal of Root to play one in
>his first 6 deliveries. The basics of batting remain unchanged. You
>need to build an innings.

As FBIetc says, England were in a decent position when he played it.
Their subsequent collapse was due to brilliant bowling by Bumrah rather
than to poor batting. He might be the best proponent of reverse swinger
since Wasim and Waqar. Though Anderson bowled well, nowadays he is
probably 5 mph slower than Bumrah, which makes a big difference.

Without Jaiswal and Bumrah, England would probably have been totally
dominating this match by now. Apart from Kuldeep, the other nine players
in the Indian team have been almost irrelevant. However heroically
England play from here, the big difference from Hyderabad is that they
have to bat last, so at this point the chance of their winning is
probably even more remote than it was after two days in the first Test..
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <a18bba46d5ea4cce4f3de2c98f5b05fd@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Richard Dixon wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 3 February 2024 at 11:45:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:00:340 >>>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> > On 2/3/2024 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> > > India is winning Test 2.
>>> > Too early to say.
>>> We must be watching different games :)
>
>> Excited to find out which way England find to win this won.
>
>Yes a heavy defeat seems more likely, but England have yet to test
>India with a proper new ball attack. each time its hartley/root/bash
>just letting them have easy runs. Bumrah and anderson showed that
>its not impossible for the seamers to take wkts on these surfaces.

Even Bumrah didn't have success with the new ball, though. It was his
ability to get reverse swing at pace with the old one that made him so
devastating. Had Wood played, I have my doubts whether he could have
been all that effective. England were probably influenced by his
performance in the first Test. If he HAD played, it would probably have
been in place of Bashir, who was the best of England's spinners.

>It does seem odd that england have decided that only spin will
>take wkts at vizag.

I think that was a reasonable assumption to make.

> I think beforehand there were plenty saying it
>would only really start to take spin later on in the match.
>
>mike

It would certainly have helped had England won the toss.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <bd871823-5520-4901-a08b-dbc65914c4edn@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 5:58:070 >> Yes, that was a pleasant surprise. Perhaps it was at least partly
>> because there were very few recourses to DRS.
>
>Ah, the dreaded DRS boogeyman.
>
>Why hint that DRS might have caused slow over rates (in other games)
>when DRS has an explicit time allowance in the ICC regulations?
>
>12.9 Minimum Over Rates
>12.9.3 In calculating the actual over rate for the match, allowances
>will be given as follows:
>12.9.3.3 The time taken for all third umpire referrals and
>consultations and any umpire or player review

Presumably that comes into play when deciding if the bowling side should
be penalised for a slow over rate. It can't affect how long the overs
actually took to be bowled, though.
>
>England bowled 74 overs of spin. You should be looking at that for reasons.

Yes, that was obviously the main reason. But they bowled an even larger
percentage of spin in the First Test, and still managed to get through
their overs far too slowly. But with the pitch trickier, I think there
were far more calls on DRS then. Yes, the3 DRS delays won't count
against them for possible penalties - and indeed shouldn't - but it
still slowed things down. Don't get me wrong. I think that DRS is
essential, but it is a pity that it slows things down. Not much of a
problem when a Test is as exciting as the one at Hyderabad, of course,
but not all Tests are that exciting.

>
>Perhaps, just perhaps, England's penalties for fluffing about and not
>bowling enough overs in earlier series has finally made England
>consider actually bowling enough overs per day. This WTC we've already
>been docked 19 points for slow over rates. We're now in 8th spot
>because of that, rather than 2nd spot.
>

One would certainly hope that was the case. The big test of that will
come in Tests back in England this summer, when maybe 25% of overs will
be spin rather than 75%.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 12:16:53 AM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> Excited to find out which way England find to win this won.

There's a non-zero chance, and if we do win, they'll be talking about this Test for the next 200 years.

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:58:31 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > We must be watching different games :)
> Didn't we think that India was winning first test at Hyderabad after Day
> 3 too?

Actually, I never ruled England out in Test 1.

This looks more dire. But yes, there's still a chance of England winning. The team, with this way of playing, could chase 400 in the 4th innings.
And I bloody hope they do.

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 5:09:28 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Presumably that comes into play when deciding if the bowling side should
> be penalised for a slow over rate. It can't affect how long the overs
> actually took to be bowled, though.

Sure, I just don't think raw overs is the proper way to judge how good a team has been at bowling overs that day. Um... please let me explain...

Bowling 70 overs in a day might be a Herculean feat, if 1 and a half sessions were lost to rain.
Whereas bowling 89 overs in a day might be a failure - full day's play, with added extra time.

Teams are given extra time to catch up lost overs lost to tardiness, and DRS has no impact on the number of overs required.

Yes, in a full day DRS will result in less overs. But there are way bigger issues like slow change of overs by teams.

> One would certainly hope that was the case. The big test of that will
> come in Tests back in England this summer, when maybe 25% of overs will
> be spin rather than 75%.

With the free additional time teams are given these days, plus the allowances, I feel no remorse for a team that can't bowl their 90 overs.

jack fredricks wrote:

> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 5:09:28 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> Presumably that comes into play when deciding if the bowling side should
>> be penalised for a slow over rate. It can't affect how long the overs
>> actually took to be bowled, though.

> Sure, I just don't think raw overs is the proper way to judge how good a team has been at bowling overs that day. Um... please let me explain...

> Bowling 70 overs in a day might be a Herculean feat, if 1 and a half sessions were lost to rain.
> Whereas bowling 89 overs in a day might be a failure - full day's play, with added extra time.

> Teams are given extra time to catch up lost overs lost to tardiness, and DRS has no impact on the number of overs required.

> Yes, in a full day DRS will result in less overs. But there are way bigger issues like slow change of overs by teams.

>> One would certainly hope that was the case. The big test of that will
>> come in Tests back in England this summer, when maybe 25% of overs will
>> be spin rather than 75%.

> With the free additional time teams are given these days, plus the allowances, I feel no remorse for a team that can't bowl their 90 overs.

i agree and as most teams seem to manage to do it i dont see why england cant.
i read we are 8th in the wtc atm, but without the penalties it would be 2nd.
the wtc doesnt really matter to me, but it shows how little regard england
have for these rules.

however with india almost 400 ahead, and the pitch taking spin now, i cant
see anything but a win for india, and probably a big 1. The shubman came
good for them.

mike

John Hall wrote:

> In message <a18bba46d5ea4cce4f3de2c98f5b05fd@www.novabbs.com>, miked
> <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>Richard Dixon wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday 3 February 2024 at 11:45:12 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:00:340 >>>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> > On 2/3/2024 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> > > India is winning Test 2.
>>>> > Too early to say.
>>>> We must be watching different games :)
>>
>>> Excited to find out which way England find to win this won.
>>
>>Yes a heavy defeat seems more likely, but England have yet to test
>>India with a proper new ball attack. each time its hartley/root/bash
>>just letting them have easy runs. Bumrah and anderson showed that
>>its not impossible for the seamers to take wkts on these surfaces.

> Even Bumrah didn't have success with the new ball, though. It was his
> ability to get reverse swing at pace with the old one that made him so
> devastating. Had Wood played, I have my doubts whether he could have
> been all that effective. England were probably influenced by his
> performance in the first Test. If he HAD played, it would probably have
> been in place of Bashir, who was the best of England's spinners.

he shows promise but was expensive. i wouldnt have chosen wood, cos
he cant seem to bowl at the wkt often enough atm, but would have
robinson instead of bash.

> It would certainly have helped had England won the toss.

yep but 1 cant really count on that. so far in neither test have england
really needed 4 spinners.

mike

On 04/02/2024 09:45, miked wrote:
> jack fredricks wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 5:09:28 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>>> Presumably that comes into play when deciding if the bowling side
>>> should be penalised for a slow over rate. It can't affect how long
>>> the overs actually took to be bowled, though.
>
>> Sure, I just don't think raw overs is the proper way to judge how good
>> a team has been at bowling overs that day. Um... please let me explain...
>
>> Bowling 70 overs in a day might be a Herculean feat, if 1 and a half
>> sessions were lost to rain. Whereas bowling 89 overs in a day might be
>> a failure - full day's play, with added extra time.
>
>> Teams are given extra time to catch up lost overs lost to tardiness,
>> and DRS has no impact on the number of overs required.
>
>> Yes, in a full day DRS will result in less overs. But there are way
>> bigger issues like slow change of overs by teams.
>
>>> One would certainly hope that was the case. The big test of that will
>>> come in Tests back in England this summer, when maybe 25% of overs
>>> will be spin rather than 75%.
>
>> With the free additional time teams are given these days, plus the
>> allowances, I feel no remorse for a team that can't bowl their 90 overs.
>
>
> i agree and as most teams seem to manage to do it i dont see why england
> cant.
> i read we are 8th in the wtc atm, but without the penalties it would be
> 2nd.
> the wtc doesnt really matter to me, but it shows how little regard england
> have for these rules.

They obviously didn't prioritise the WTC over the Ashes, which is where
they picked up their penalties (in 4 of the 5 Tests). If series were
decided by the number of WTC points gained, rather than just the number
of wins, they'd probably take more notice.

--
David North

On 03/02/2024 11:45, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:00:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> India is winning Test 2.
>> Too early to say.
>
> We must be watching different games :)

.... or "is winning" has been inferred to mean "will win", whereas I
guess that you don't consider them to be the same thing. I certainly don't.

--
David North

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:47:34 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On 03/02/2024 11:45, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:00:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> On 2/3/2024 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> >>> India is winning Test 2.
> >> Too early to say.
> >
> > We must be watching different games :)
> ... or "is winning" has been inferred to mean "will win", whereas I
> guess that you don't consider them to be the same thing. I certainly don't.

I meant "is going to win Test 2". I hope I'm wrong!

On 2/3/2024 4:11 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:58:31 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> We must be watching different games :)
>> Didn't we think that India was winning first test at Hyderabad after Day
>> 3 too?
>
> Actually, I never ruled England out in Test 1.
>

Even at the moment India had a 190 run lead?

I don't think so.

IF that was true that you NEVER ruled out England in Test 1, then WHY
would you conclude Indian is winning Test 2 when england is in much
better shape than Test 1?

> This looks more dire. But yes, there's still a chance of England winning. The team, with this way of playing, could chase 400 in the 4th innings.
> And I bloody hope they do.

At the end of the day 3, Gill said India is ahead 70-30.

I also think England has 35% odds to win at this moment after reducing
the target by 67 for just one wicket loss, because there are NO demons
in the pitch that can't be handled with determination.

If the pitch stays true tomorrow, England will fancy their chances
tomorrow to win Test 2 at Vizag.

In message <c616bfbe-7f9a-4876-82a6-7f2cbee9f440@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>At the end of the day 3, Gill said India is ahead 70-30.

I think that suggests that India have been slightly spooked by bazball.
Had Root still been captain, I'd have put England's chances at no more
than 5%, but with the new regime I'd put them at 15%.

>
>I also think England has 35% odds to win at this moment after reducing
>the target by 67 for just one wicket loss, because there are NO demons
>in the pitch that can't be handled with determination.
>
>If the pitch stays true tomorrow, England will fancy their chances
>tomorrow to win Test 2 at Vizag.

I think there's increasingly uneven bounce, with a few balls keeping low
and a few bouncing more than expected. Also Bumrah's mastery of reverse
swing is likely to be important at some point.

It seems likely that it will all be over tomorrow, one way or another,
though if England should happen to win or go close it might take play
into the extra half-hour.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 11:16:35 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 4:11 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:58:31 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>> We must be watching different games :)
> >> Didn't we think that India was winning first test at Hyderabad after Day
> >> 3 too?
> >
> > Actually, I never ruled England out in Test 1.
> Even at the moment India had a 190 run lead?

Things weren't looking great, but I don't recall ever ruling them out, or declaring they'd lost like I have in this Test.

> I don't think so.

The thread is there. Go take a look.

> IF that was true that you NEVER ruled out England in Test 1, then WHY
> would you conclude Indian is winning Test 2 when england is in much
> better shape than Test 1?

1. England are batting last this time. That makes a big difference.

2. My "80 runs" rule. In an average scoring Test (defined as where first innings scores 350ish), the team batting second has to get a second innings lead of 80 runs to be dead even. Every additional run over the 80 puts them in the lead. So in Test 1, India finished their first innings with a lead of 190, meaning they were 110 ahead of par. In this test, England were ~140 runs *behind* after their first innings, which is really 220 runs behind par. 110 ahead vs 220 behind. England's position in this Test is much worse than it ever was in Test 1.

We lost. If I could've changed one thing to improve our chance of winning it would be Root's brazenness in both innings.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I still think you need to build an innings.

On 2/5/2024 2:44 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> We lost. If I could've changed one thing to improve our chance of winning it would be Root's brazenness in both innings.
>
> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> I still think you need to build an innings.

Root was in serious pain with his little finger injured. He didn't field
or bowl the whole day on Day 3.

Root WASN'T out reverse sweeping spinners in I1.

You can't blame Root for England's loss.

England actually scored the 2nd highest I4 score CHASING in India.

Sri Lanka scored 299/5 of 103 overs chasing 410 in I4 on a PLACID Delhi
PITCH in 2017 where 5 centuries were scored including a double century.

Indian players and fans WEREN'T sure if India was gonna win UNTIL Stokes
got out.

England's CONFIDENCE of chasing 398 and how they went about it PUT FEAR
in Indian team management and player's minds.

That itself is a BIG PLUS for England since India DOESN'T KNOW what
would be a GOOD I4 score to set for England in the remaining 4 tests
where required.

This is ONLY the third time out of 11 times England LOST CHASING in I4.

On 2/4/2024 12:34 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 11:16:35 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 4:11 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:58:31 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> We must be watching different games :)
>>>> Didn't we think that India was winning first test at Hyderabad after Day
>>>> 3 too?
>>>
>>> Actually, I never ruled England out in Test 1.
>> Even at the moment India had a 190 run lead?
>
> Things weren't looking great, but I don't recall ever ruling them out, or declaring they'd lost like I have in this Test.
>
>> I don't think so.
>
> The thread is there. Go take a look.
>
>> IF that was true that you NEVER ruled out England in Test 1, then WHY
>> would you conclude Indian is winning Test 2 when england is in much
>> better shape than Test 1?
>
> 1. England are batting last this time. That makes a big difference.
>
> 2. My "80 runs" rule. In an average scoring Test (defined as where first innings scores 350ish), the team batting second has to get a second innings lead of 80 runs to be dead even. Every additional run over the 80 puts them in the lead. So in Test 1, India finished their first innings with a lead of 190, meaning they were 110 ahead of par. In this test, England were ~140 runs *behind* after their first innings, which is really 220 runs behind par. 110 ahead vs 220 behind. England's position in this Test is much worse than it ever was in Test 1.
>

That was according to the OLD SCHOOL STYLE of playing tests.

It no longer applies with bazball and teams playing to WIN rather than
DRAWING "AND" also players incorporating T20 and ODI style of aggression
mixed with defense in Tests in the last few years.

England WON 8 out of 11 times CHASING in I4 which is a testimony of this
new school of thinking in tests.

In message <71d23af5-c574-4a9a-8fa1-6c0611cb3762n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>We lost. If I could've changed one thing to improve our chance of
>winning it would be Root's brazenness in both innings.
>
>Live by the sword, die by the sword.
>I still think you need to build an innings.

He does seem to feel that his scoring rate needs to be up with that of
the young guns, even though before bazball he seemed able to score about
60 runs per 100 balls without undue risk. I'd prefer to have that Joe
Root back. Stokes' uncharacteristic doziness when going for a tight
single didn't help either, though at the time he was out it would have
needed a near-miracle from him and Foakes if England were to win.

It probably won't be much consolation to England that their 2nd innings
total was the second highest of the match, or that their 292 I suspect
was their highest ever total in the 4th innings in India. Before the
start of today's play the most likely result had seemed that they would
lose by about 100 runs, and so it proved.

One strange feature of the game was that in each of the four innings
there was only one substantial score, even though lots of batsmen got a
start - indeed all of England's top 9 reached double figures. Had Gill
not twice escaped being out lbw by the skin of his teeth when he had
only made 4 (once because he got the thinnest of inside edges that he
hadn't even been aware of when he reviewed, and once because the
on-field umpire had given him not out before England's review showed
that it was "umpire's call"), India might have only made 150 or so, and
we could have had a very exciting finish.

I didn't see who got Player of the Match. I expect it was Jaiswal,
though there was also a very strong case for Bumrah.

There's a break of almost two weeks before the next match, which
hopefully will allow those suffering from injuries on both sides to
recover and Kohli to return.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:07:00 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> He does seem to feel that his scoring rate needs to be up with that of
> the young guns, even though before bazball he seemed able to score about
> 60 runs per 100 balls without undue risk. I'd prefer to have that Joe
> Root back.

I want the Joe Root who reverse sweeps quicks. For me, it's just about the most majestic sight in Test cricket. It leaves me giddy.
I just don't think such shots should be played in a batsman's first 3ish overs.
Everyone who's played cricket knows the first handful of balls are the most difficult, as you're learning the pace and bounce of the pitch.
After that? Go ham.

> Stokes' uncharacteristic doziness when going for a tight
> single didn't help either, though at the time he was out it would have
> needed a near-miracle from him and Foakes if England were to win.
>
> It probably won't be much consolation to England that their 2nd innings
> total was the second highest of the match, or that their 292 I suspect
> was their highest ever total in the 4th innings in India. Before the
> start of today's play the most likely result had seemed that they would
> lose by about 100 runs, and so it proved.

It was a fine effort. Even until the end I dared to dream. That's what Bazball does.

jack fredricks wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:07:00 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> He does seem to feel that his scoring rate needs to be up with that of
>> the young guns, even though before bazball he seemed able to score about
>> 60 runs per 100 balls without undue risk. I'd prefer to have that Joe
>> Root back.

agree, in fact i dont care if he scores like boycott so long as he makes 100
next time. roots odd innings threw it away really. he had 3 innings of note
in the ashes, now 29 5 4 16, i think if hed stayed in provided the rest with
an anchor, india looked so nervous, you never know they might have got the
total.

>> Stokes' uncharacteristic doziness when going for a tight
>> single didn't help either, though at the time he was out it would have
>> needed a near-miracle from him and Foakes if England were to win.

it was casual cricket again, and losing crawley and bairstow just before lunch
was the death knell. Seeeing that the wkt wasnt providing much to bowlers, it
was a good team effort by the weakened india today. they were missing virat jadega
rahul shami, thats quite a list.

>>
>> It probably won't be much consolation to England that their 2nd innings
>> total was the second highest of the match, or that their 292 I suspect
>> was their highest ever total in the 4th innings in India. Before the
>> start of today's play the most likely result had seemed that they would
>> lose by about 100 runs, and so it proved.

> It was a fine effort. Even until the end I dared to dream. That's what Bazball does.

true, but they really needed to say to themselves, 1 of us has to stay in,
theres plenty of time, rather than all the other bullshit they usually talk in
interviews. Stokes didnt like that afterwards becos it was true. Ducket has looked
good in every innings so far, but hasnt made a big score, gotta be disappointed.

Anyway its back to the golfing holiday in the international crim capital for 7 days.
hope roots finger recovers while theyr having a good swing, and no bizarre
golfing injuries please.

mike

In message <c51ec97428825a1039b5e27f2d1f61d8@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>jack fredricks wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:07:000 >>> He does seem to feel that his scoring rate needs to be up with that
>>>of the young guns, even though before bazball he seemed able to
>>>score about 60 runs per 100 balls without undue risk. I'd prefer to
>>>have that Joe Root back.
>
>agree, in fact i dont care if he scores like boycott so long as he makes 100
>next time. roots odd innings threw it away really. he had 3 innings of
>note in the ashes, now 29 5 4 16, i think if hed stayed in provided the
>rest with an anchor, india looked so nervous, you never know they might
>have got the total.
>
>>> Stokes' uncharacteristic doziness when going for a tight single
>>>didn't help either, though at the time he was out it would have
>>>needed a near-miracle from him and Foakes if England were to win.
>
>it was casual cricket again, and losing crawley and bairstow just before lunch
>was the death knell. Seeeing that the wkt wasnt providing much to bowlers, it
>was a good team effort by the weakened india today. they were missing
>virat jadega
>rahul shami, thats quite a list.

It is But they still had Rohit, Jaiswal, Gill, Ashwin and Bumrah. In
fact the way those players performed, who the other six were was almost
irrelevant.

>
>>> It probably won't be much consolation to England that their 2nd
>>>innings total was the second highest of the match, or that their 292
>>>I suspect was their highest ever total in the 4th innings in India.
>>>Before the start of today's play the most likely result had seemed
>>>that they would lose by about 100 runs, and so it proved.
>
>> It was a fine effort. Even until the end I dared to dream. That's
>>what Bazball does.
>
>true, but they really needed to say to themselves, 1 of us has to stay in,
>theres plenty of time, rather than all the other bullshit they usually
>talk in interviews. Stokes didnt like that afterwards becos it was
>true. Ducket has looked
>good in every innings so far, but hasnt made a big score, gotta be
>disappointed.

I read somewhere that, because this pitch had more bounce that that for
the first Test, the sweep and reverse sweep were more risky because of
the chance of getting a top edge. Apart from Crawley, the rest of the
top six have been heavily reliant on those shots, which could me why he
was the most successful batsman.

>
>Anyway its back to the golfing holiday in the international crim
>capital for 7 days.
>hope roots finger recovers while theyr having a good swing, and no bizarre
>golfing injuries please.
>
>mike

:)

If Leach is also fit by the third Test, they are going to have a tricky
decision who to leave out, especially should they decide to go for a
second quick.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 05/02/2024 12:24, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 12:34 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 11:16:35 PM UTC+10,
>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2024 4:11 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 1:58:31 AM UTC+10,
>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>> We must be watching different games :)
>>>>> Didn't we think that India was winning first test at Hyderabad
>>>>> after Day
>>>>> 3 too?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I never ruled England out in Test 1.
>>> Even at the moment India had a 190 run lead?
>>
>> Things weren't looking great, but I don't recall ever ruling them out,
>> or declaring they'd lost like I have in this Test.
>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The thread is there. Go take a look.
>>
>>> IF that was true that you NEVER ruled out England in Test 1, then WHY
>>> would you conclude Indian is winning Test 2 when england is in much
>>> better shape than Test 1?
>>
>> 1. England are batting last this time. That makes a big difference.
>>
>> 2. My "80 runs" rule. In an average scoring Test (defined as where
>> first innings scores 350ish), the team batting second has to get a
>> second innings lead of 80 runs to be dead even. Every additional run
>> over the 80 puts them in the lead. So in Test 1, India finished their
>> first innings with a lead of 190, meaning they were 110 ahead of par.
>> In this test, England were ~140 runs *behind* after their first
>> innings, which is really 220 runs behind par. 110 ahead vs 220 behind.
>> England's position in this Test is much worse than it ever was in Test 1.
>
> That was according to the OLD SCHOOL STYLE of playing tests.
>
> It no longer applies with bazball and teams playing to WIN rather than
> DRAWING "AND" also players incorporating T20 and ODI style of aggression
> mixed with defense in Tests in the last few years.
>
> England WON 8 out of 11 times CHASING in I4 which is a testimony of this
> new school of thinking in tests.

They also won 5 out of 6 times bowling in I4, which is a higher
proportion, although not by very much.

--
David North

On 05/02/2024 16:57, John Hall wrote:
> In message <71d23af5-c574-4a9a-8fa1-6c0611cb3762n@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>> We lost. If I could've changed one thing to improve our chance of
>> winning it would be Root's brazenness in both innings.
>>
>> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
>> I still think you need to build an innings.
>
> He does seem to feel that his scoring rate needs to be up with that of
> the young guns, even though before bazball he seemed able to score about
> 60 runs per 100 balls without undue risk. I'd prefer to have that Joe
> Root back. Stokes' uncharacteristic doziness when going for a tight
> single didn't help either, though at the time he was out it would have
> needed a near-miracle from him and Foakes if England were to win.
>
> It probably won't be much consolation to England that their 2nd innings
> total was the second highest of the match, or that their 292 I suspect
> was their highest ever total in the 4th innings in India. Before the
> start of today's play the most likely result had seemed that they would
> lose by about 100 runs, and so it proved.
>
> One strange feature of the game was that in each of the four innings
> there was only one substantial score, even though lots of batsmen got a
> start - indeed all of England's top 9 reached double figures. Had Gill
> not twice escaped being out lbw by the skin of his teeth when he had
> only made 4 (once because he got the thinnest of inside edges that he
> hadn't even been aware of when he reviewed, and once because the
> on-field umpire had given him not out before England's review showed
> that it was "umpire's call"), India might have only made 150 or so, and
> we could have had a very exciting finish.
>
> I didn't see who got Player of the Match. I expect it was Jaiswal,
> though there was also a very strong case for Bumrah.

It was Bumrah.

--
David North