creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21658
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:31 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:00 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:45 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:35 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:23 pm
Well of course. This test proves that if you bat first you will win 100% of them time.
No doesn't guarantee you win. But its not like I didn't say this after India's first innings you could see what was going to happen. It wasn't hindsight. Bowling first worked last time because we removed them for 78 and effectively it took all the pressure off our first innings. But they got 191 which was still great for us IF we had a normal batting side. But we don't.

When you can bat well bowling first is a better option if conditions are right for it. But we cannot bat. And once India scored anything over 120/30 they were always likely to be in the game if the wicket calmed down as it was always likely to. And I'm afraid with this England side the last thing you want to ask it to do is bat day 5 to win or draw a test.

Its purely down to the conditions and players available. For me we'd have always been better off batting first even with the green tinge and weather. Simply because we'd have been out quickly enough to still take advantage with the ball, bat on a reasonable surface and hopefully get some sort of a lead. India are a better side but I still (and its not hindsight) never thought bowling first was a good call.
You predict doom and gloom all the time. Given this is an average at best team you're going to be right sometimes. You like talking about confirmation bias... Worthy set out the stats on batting second.

Also worth pointing out that that India's bowlers have really contributed with the bat in a way that was unexpected, whether it's an outlier or they've really gone away and worked on it. Thakur's contribution with the bat might well be the difference.

I'd still have batted first, but it's a lot closer call, and that this test goes one way doesn't "prove" much at all. No guarantees for example we wouldn't have been skittled for less than 100 then lost by an innings.

They're not 2nd in the world for nothing.
See, where I'm at with it is, in normal circumstances, India will get more runs per innings than us over a period - they're a better team currently. So if you see an opportunity to dart them out coz it's a bit green or whatever, you take that. We did and got a lead. That makes it a one innings game with us having +100 advantage.

The other way around, they'd likely have had a significant first innings lead, they might not have had to bat twice.

Crazy thinking not to take any advantage if you're the weaker team.
I broadly agree except I'd frame it more widely: no matter how good you are relative to the other side your decision at the toss should be about trying to maximise your conditions vs the other team's. I'd say the pitch is the most important factor and that will broadly get worse over five days (though not always, as we've seen here, although there's also been a bit of hindsight in that there was no guarantee at the toss it would get better) though you bet a bit of grass early on, and then overheads/injuries, weather forecast, whether you've picked two spinners etc.

Where I think being the weaker team is a factor is that you might want to take more or a risk.

As I say, I'd still start with a presumption I'm going to bat, and still would have here, but I can absolutely see why he put them in. We did get rid of their top order cheaply, but the tail wagged and they batted well second time around. That's sometimes how it goes, and I'm far from convinced we'd be in a better position if we'd batted first, and they might well have all gone home by now.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:49 pm

TFL is well into her warming up routine....

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:59 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:31 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:00 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:45 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:35 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:23 pm
Well of course. This test proves that if you bat first you will win 100% of them time.
No doesn't guarantee you win. But its not like I didn't say this after India's first innings you could see what was going to happen. It wasn't hindsight. Bowling first worked last time because we removed them for 78 and effectively it took all the pressure off our first innings. But they got 191 which was still great for us IF we had a normal batting side. But we don't.

When you can bat well bowling first is a better option if conditions are right for it. But we cannot bat. And once India scored anything over 120/30 they were always likely to be in the game if the wicket calmed down as it was always likely to. And I'm afraid with this England side the last thing you want to ask it to do is bat day 5 to win or draw a test.

Its purely down to the conditions and players available. For me we'd have always been better off batting first even with the green tinge and weather. Simply because we'd have been out quickly enough to still take advantage with the ball, bat on a reasonable surface and hopefully get some sort of a lead. India are a better side but I still (and its not hindsight) never thought bowling first was a good call.
You predict doom and gloom all the time. Given this is an average at best team you're going to be right sometimes. You like talking about confirmation bias... Worthy set out the stats on batting second.

Also worth pointing out that that India's bowlers have really contributed with the bat in a way that was unexpected, whether it's an outlier or they've really gone away and worked on it. Thakur's contribution with the bat might well be the difference.

I'd still have batted first, but it's a lot closer call, and that this test goes one way doesn't "prove" much at all. No guarantees for example we wouldn't have been skittled for less than 100 then lost by an innings.

They're not 2nd in the world for nothing.
See, where I'm at with it is, in normal circumstances, India will get more runs per innings than us over a period - they're a better team currently. So if you see an opportunity to dart them out coz it's a bit green or whatever, you take that. We did and got a lead. That makes it a one innings game with us having +100 advantage.

The other way around, they'd likely have had a significant first innings lead, they might not have had to bat twice.

Crazy thinking not to take any advantage if you're the weaker team.
I broadly agree except I'd frame it more widely: no matter how good you are relative to the other side your decision at the toss should be about trying to maximise your conditions vs the other team's. I'd say the pitch is the most important factor and that will broadly get worse over five days (though not always, as we've seen here, although there's also been a bit of hindsight in that there was no guarantee at the toss it would get better) though you bet a bit of grass early on, and then overheads/injuries, weather forecast, whether you've picked two spinners etc.

Where I think being the weaker team is a factor is that you might want to take more or a risk.

As I say, I'd still start with a presumption I'm going to bat, and still would have here, but I can absolutely see why he put them in. We did get rid of their top order cheaply, but the tail wagged and they batted well second time around. That's sometimes how it goes, and I'm far from convinced we'd be in a better position if we'd batted first, and they might well have all gone home by now.
Agree - just without the presumption that I'm going to bat - although I might more often than not :-) Had we batted first and scored what they did or less, Root would have got pelters anyhow. :-)

We've won 4 out of 12 this year - three of them batting second.

Anyhow Jimmy and Overton for the draw! :-)

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:17 pm

Actually scratch that - Overton and Robinson have test highs of 41 and 42. Jimmy has 81. Could be a close one with 166 required.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21658
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:18 pm

:lol:

And with the new ball the run rate should go up :D
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:31 pm

Some more wonderful stats...

"Assuming India win it will be the first time they have won a match where they've been put into bat and dismissed for less than 200 in the first innings.

The last time England put their opponents in, bowled them out for less than 200, and let on to lose was the centenary Test in Australia in 1977."

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21658
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:35 pm

Maybe this has been a 20 year hustle from Jimmy.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:47 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:35 pm
Maybe this has been a 20 year hustle from Jimmy.
Or not, as the case may be. Still he nearly carried his bat. :-)

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21658
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:59 pm

Catching in the slips needs improving. Changes in the cordon broadly enforced so I have sympathy.

Overton not good enough for me (nor Curran) Shame to hear Mahmood has an injury, I'd like to have a look at him. And obviously missing Broad Archer and to an extent Wood.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21658
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:06 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:59 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:31 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:00 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:45 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:35 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:23 pm
Well of course. This test proves that if you bat first you will win 100% of them time.
No doesn't guarantee you win. But its not like I didn't say this after India's first innings you could see what was going to happen. It wasn't hindsight. Bowling first worked last time because we removed them for 78 and effectively it took all the pressure off our first innings. But they got 191 which was still great for us IF we had a normal batting side. But we don't.

When you can bat well bowling first is a better option if conditions are right for it. But we cannot bat. And once India scored anything over 120/30 they were always likely to be in the game if the wicket calmed down as it was always likely to. And I'm afraid with this England side the last thing you want to ask it to do is bat day 5 to win or draw a test.

Its purely down to the conditions and players available. For me we'd have always been better off batting first even with the green tinge and weather. Simply because we'd have been out quickly enough to still take advantage with the ball, bat on a reasonable surface and hopefully get some sort of a lead. India are a better side but I still (and its not hindsight) never thought bowling first was a good call.
You predict doom and gloom all the time. Given this is an average at best team you're going to be right sometimes. You like talking about confirmation bias... Worthy set out the stats on batting second.

Also worth pointing out that that India's bowlers have really contributed with the bat in a way that was unexpected, whether it's an outlier or they've really gone away and worked on it. Thakur's contribution with the bat might well be the difference.

I'd still have batted first, but it's a lot closer call, and that this test goes one way doesn't "prove" much at all. No guarantees for example we wouldn't have been skittled for less than 100 then lost by an innings.

They're not 2nd in the world for nothing.
See, where I'm at with it is, in normal circumstances, India will get more runs per innings than us over a period - they're a better team currently. So if you see an opportunity to dart them out coz it's a bit green or whatever, you take that. We did and got a lead. That makes it a one innings game with us having +100 advantage.

The other way around, they'd likely have had a significant first innings lead, they might not have had to bat twice.

Crazy thinking not to take any advantage if you're the weaker team.
I broadly agree except I'd frame it more widely: no matter how good you are relative to the other side your decision at the toss should be about trying to maximise your conditions vs the other team's. I'd say the pitch is the most important factor and that will broadly get worse over five days (though not always, as we've seen here, although there's also been a bit of hindsight in that there was no guarantee at the toss it would get better) though you bet a bit of grass early on, and then overheads/injuries, weather forecast, whether you've picked two spinners etc.

Where I think being the weaker team is a factor is that you might want to take more or a risk.

As I say, I'd still start with a presumption I'm going to bat, and still would have here, but I can absolutely see why he put them in. We did get rid of their top order cheaply, but the tail wagged and they batted well second time around. That's sometimes how it goes, and I'm far from convinced we'd be in a better position if we'd batted first, and they might well have all gone home by now.
Agree - just without the presumption that I'm going to bat - although I might more often than not :-) Had we batted first and scored what they did or less, Root would have got pelters anyhow. :-)

We've won 4 out of 12 this year - three of them batting second.

Anyhow Jimmy and Overton for the draw! :-)
I mean having said all that I'd start with a presumption of putting them in at Old Trafford. No chance for them to bat out a draw, know what you have to do, must be a decent chance Rohit and Pujara won't be fit.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2849
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:28 pm

I’d expect OT to spin, and Ashwin to play, so sticking them in there would be akin to suicide!

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29715
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:49 pm

There is no shame in losing but the manner of the collapse today when we looked comfortable is not good.

I get the ball to Bairstow was a pearler but I still think he could do better. Pope played all around his. Yes Bumrah produced a spell but it’s not like this was an intimidating pitch where you are on the back foot and a full delivery is the surprise that is impossible to play. You have to question how many deliveries Pope would survive if bowlers just went full and at the stumps all the time. Bairstow obviously you give more leeway to but I still feel that these guys see this stuff all the time in the short format. I guess the balance of test cricket just doesn’t suit them.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:19 pm

If we park Hameed and Malan for a mo, we have 2 batsmen averaging over 30 this year. And you wanna drop one of them. Even at 31, that's not really good test level. But you keep telling us who you want to drop, but not who we're going to replace them with...With Stokes injured, who should be in the top 7, who we've not tried?

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:21 pm

Or who we have tried... :-)

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21658
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:27 pm

jimbo wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:28 pm
I’d expect OT to spin, and Ashwin to play, so sticking them in there would be akin to suicide!
Ha! A good point well made. I'm less convinced than you on Ashwin though, a lot of the build up to this test was that the Oval would spin and he didn't play there. I think Kohli likes the combination of 4 seamers and one spinner. Four right arm over and Jadeja can chuck it in the rubbish and then be as dangerous as Ashwin might be on a normal pitch but with more batting and having 4 seam options.

Certainly wouldn't rule out Ashwin coming in though with OT's reputation and the work the quicks have been getting through.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29715
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:51 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:19 pm
If we park Hameed and Malan for a mo, we have 2 batsmen averaging over 30 this year. And you wanna drop one of them. Even at 31, that's not really good test level. But you keep telling us who you want to drop, but not who we're going to replace them with...With Stokes injured, who should be in the top 7, who we've not tried?
Not suggesting we drop anyone just that it’s clear we once again haven’t been able to really apply ourselves after a very good start. No doubt we don’t have the talent. But probably be nice to see more real fight and application in these scenarios.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:56 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:27 pm
jimbo wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:28 pm
I’d expect OT to spin, and Ashwin to play, so sticking them in there would be akin to suicide!
Ha! A good point well made. I'm less convinced than you on Ashwin though, a lot of the build up to this test was that the Oval would spin and he didn't play there. I think Kohli likes the combination of 4 seamers and one spinner. Four right arm over and Jadeja can chuck it in the rubbish and then be as dangerous as Ashwin might be on a normal pitch but with more batting and having 4 seam options.

Certainly wouldn't rule out Ashwin coming in though with OT's reputation and the work the quicks have been getting through.
Chucked them in at OT last time we played them at OT. Bowled them out under 200 both innings and only batted once. 0 wickets for Ashwin.

That'd do nicely.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26101
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:02 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:51 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:19 pm
If we park Hameed and Malan for a mo, we have 2 batsmen averaging over 30 this year. And you wanna drop one of them. Even at 31, that's not really good test level. But you keep telling us who you want to drop, but not who we're going to replace them with...With Stokes injured, who should be in the top 7, who we've not tried?
Not suggesting we drop anyone just that it’s clear we once again haven’t been able to really apply ourselves after a very good start. No doubt we don’t have the talent. But probably be nice to see more real fight and application in these scenarios.
We certainly didn't help ourselves much. 6? missed catches, 3? Played on and a run out for a really risky run.

Despite all that, yesterday afternoon, Pant and Thakur took it away yesterday. It was crying out for one of Bumrah's Yorkers at some pace. When you are second best in general, all those things have to go for you (or a few more against them)

KeyserSoze
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by KeyserSoze » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:03 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58512624

Test cancelled. Would have thought this would need more than two hours' notice!
Nero fiddles while Gordon Burns.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2849
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:12 am

KeyserSoze wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:03 am
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58512624

Test cancelled. Would have thought this would need more than two hours' notice!
Yeah there will be people travelling a long way. It’s not like the issues weren’t known about yesterday!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests