In message <l2gr5iF5jjbU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 05/02/2024 16:57, John Hall wrote:
>> 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.
>

Thanks. As bowlers often seem to lose out to batsmen, I'm pleased about
that.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 2/6/2024 11:08 PM, David North wrote:
> 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.
>

But generally and historically CHASING in I4 is considered difficult
THAN defending.

On 1/29/2024 5:00 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:51:20 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> Or if the
>> pitch looks like it will turn as much or more than Hyderabad, then
>> Shoaib Bashir could come into contention.
>
> Normally I'd say "India will double down with a more spin friendly pitch"... but... that decision is made more complex by England's proficiency with the sweep/rev-sweep. Sweeps seem to have negated India's spinners. Can they devise an anti-sweep tactic in time for the second Test? I'm not so sure they can.

According to ESPNcricinfo's ball-by-ball data, England played only 12
reverse sweeps in the second Test as opposed to 50 in the first, and
only two against Kuldeep, which were both dot balls.

In message <fd3e9d96-3f3b-4ec2-b2f3-3ca1657c96e7@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>On 1/29/2024 5:00 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:51:200 >>> Or if the
>>> pitch looks like it will turn as much or more than Hyderabad, then
>>> Shoaib Bashir could come into contention.
>> Normally I'd say "India will double down with a more spin friendly
>>pitch"... but... that decision is made more complex by England's
>>proficiency with the sweep/rev-sweep. Sweeps seem to have negated
>>India's spinners. Can they devise an anti-sweep tactic in time for the
>>second Test? I'm not so sure they can.
>
>
>
>According to ESPNcricinfo's ball-by-ball data, England played only 12
>reverse sweeps in the second Test as opposed to 50 in the first, and
>only two against Kuldeep, which were both dot balls.
>
>
>

I saw it suggested that the pitch had more bounce than that for the
first Test, making the reverse sweep (as well as conventional sweeps)
more risky, so that might be the reason. Another factor might be that in
the first Test Pope seemed to play a phenomenal number of reverse sweeps
even by England's recent standards.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 07/02/2024 20:31, John Hall wrote:
> In message <fd3e9d96-3f3b-4ec2-b2f3-3ca1657c96e7@america.com>,
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> writes
>> On 1/29/2024 5:00 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:51:200 >>> Or if the
>>>> pitch looks like it will turn as much or more than Hyderabad, then
>>>> Shoaib Bashir could come into contention.
>>>  Normally I'd say "India will double down with a more spin friendly
>>> pitch"... but... that decision is made more complex by England's
>>> proficiency with the sweep/rev-sweep. Sweeps seem to have negated
>>> India's spinners. Can they devise an anti-sweep tactic in time for
>>> the second Test? I'm not so sure they can.
>>
>>
>>
>> According to ESPNcricinfo's ball-by-ball data, England played only 12
>> reverse sweeps in the second Test as opposed to 50 in the first, and
>> only two against Kuldeep, which were both dot balls.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I saw it suggested that the pitch had more bounce than that for the
> first Test, making the reverse sweep (as well as conventional sweeps)
> more risky, so that might be the reason. Another factor might be that in
> the first Test Pope seemed to play a phenomenal number of reverse sweeps
> even by England's recent standards.

England only faced 80 overs of spin in the 2nd Test, compared to 131 in
the 1st, which accounts for some of the difference.

More specifically, with no Jadeja, there were far fewer deliveries
turning away from the right-handers (who faced about 70% of the bowling
in each Test), where reverse-sweeping would be hitting with the spin
rather than against it.

--
David North

John Hall wrote:

> In message <l2gr5iF5jjbU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>On 05/02/2024 16:57, John Hall wrote:
>>> 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.
>>

> Thanks. As bowlers often seem to lose out to batsmen, I'm pleased about
> that.

Jaiswal got about 85k for being the sponsors game changer of the match and
another 85k for striker of the match, and i assume foakes also got 85k for being
the smart saver of the match, which perhaps loses something in translation.

mike

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 17:16:00 +0000, dmike204@yahoo.co.uk (miked)
wrote:

>John Hall wrote:
>
>> In message <l2gr5iF5jjbU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>>On 05/02/2024 16:57, John Hall wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>
>> Thanks. As bowlers often seem to lose out to batsmen, I'm pleased about
>> that.
>
>Jaiswal got about 85k for being the sponsors game changer of the match and
>another 85k for striker of the match, and i assume foakes also got 85k for being
>the smart saver of the match, which perhaps loses something in translation.
>
>mike

India vs England: Andy Zaltzman's alternative awards for the series
after two Tests

*Queen Victoria award for 19th century bowling stats - James Anderson
*Scrooge memorial award for parsimonious bowling against Bazballian
England - Jasprit Bumrah.
*The corned beef award for surprising consistency - Zak Crawley.
*The Swann-Panesar award for doing better than India's spinners in
India - England.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68217309

max.it

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:00:24 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:51:20?AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> Or if the
>> pitch looks like it will turn as much or more than Hyderabad, then
>> Shoaib Bashir could come into contention.
>
>Normally I'd say "India will double down with a more spin friendly pitch"... but... that decision is made more complex by England's proficiency with the sweep/rev-sweep. Sweeps seem to have negated India's spinners. Can they devise an anti-sweep tactic in time for the second Test? I'm not so sure they can.

Still think that now?

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 8:29:47 PM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> >Normally I'd say "India will double down with a more spin friendly pitch"... but... that decision is made more complex by England's proficiency with the sweep/rev-sweep. Sweeps seem to have negated India's spinners. Can they devise an anti-sweep tactic in time for the second Test? I'm not so sure they can.
> Still think that now?

Sorry, I have no idea. At the start of England's 2nd innings I went to put the kettle on and by the time I came back we were all out. So I really have no idea what happened.
The scorecard tells me something went horribly wrong.

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 12:04:23 PM UTC-5, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 8:29:47 PM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> > >Normally I'd say "India will double down with a more spin friendly pitch"... but... that decision is made more complex by England's proficiency with the sweep/rev-sweep. Sweeps seem to have negated India's spinners. Can they devise an anti-sweep tactic in time for the second Test? I'm not so sure they can.
> > Still think that now?
> Sorry, I have no idea. At the start of England's 2nd innings I went to put the kettle on and by the time I came back we were all out. So I really have no idea what happened.
> The scorecard tells me something went horribly wrong.

India just too good for England!?