creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

It also helps to have a batting line up with a backbone. It pisses me off how too many of our players seem happy with a quick 80 rather than really knuckling down and getting a big score. Then when the pressure is really on we just collapse. We've just given away 4 wickets in the last hour again ffs

Of course. Though I'd argue we've scored 477 first innings. That is a decent, nay more than decent score. But India can score whatever they like against us as in these conditions are bowling attack is as bad as it gets. Zero threat. Any side that knocks 750 without being bowled out shows that the bowling attack they are facing is piss poor.

Not really, can also show the bowling attack is not suited to the wickets they're bowling on. Or can show that we've spilled too many chances (which we have over the course of the series). Got to look at the batting too, which has looked fragile both in Bangladesh and again in India. Long way from being guaranteed to get a draw here...Just lost 4 wickets for 8 runs....

I mean piss poor in this series. In English conditions, different story. But these are spinning pitches. And our spinners are trash. Pure unadulterated trash.

We will score close to or over 700 runs in this match in total and still lose.

Tough on batsmen to be asked to score 800 runs merely to save a test. I acknowledge there are issues with our batsmen. But our bowling attack in these conditions has been entirely shown up as inadequate and the biggest problem.

Yes until you spot that they scored nearly that many in one innings (For 7 declared). There wasn't 300-runs worth of poorer bowling - some of it down to the batting too. They bag 759 with Rahul getting nigh on 200 and Nair grabbing 300 (not out) - they might have scored pushing 900 all out (on a track we'd had first go on)....In which case 477 in the first innings looks pretty much below par.

They scored that because we have no wicket takers on this surface. Sure we shelled catches. But we offer so little threat on sub-continent pitches.

[Worthy4England]

I'm not disagreeing that we don't have the bowlers to take advantage of this surface. Just pointing out the despite a generally accepted "big total" in the first innings, it wasn't a big total for this wicket. Because they pi$$ed it. We've just come off the back of managing a draw against Bangladesh...who didn't manage more than 300 in any of their innings (iirc).

We've had the perfect storm in this series of spinners not being anywhere near good enough, seamers completely nullified, completely and comprehensively out batted - albeit disadvantaged a couple of times on the toss of a coin and we've spilled shedloads of catches...If you're in the field for 2 days, you need to be able to stay awake for 2 days...

Been Pi$$ poor all round - not disputing that our spinners are a bit shit...

[Worthy4England]

^^ We've just lost all 10 wickets for 104 runs....

[BWFC_Insane]

The biggest problem is we couldn't bowl them out.

Add Swann in and I'd argue we'd not have won but been a lot closer.

The batting has significant issues. But I have some sympathy for them that they've mainly had to bat under scoreboard pressure.

People will focus on collapses but we've barely been able to bowl India out once. Let alone twice. Lack of a wicket taking spin bowler isn't a minor problem in India. It's absolutely massive.

[Worthy4England]

So you don't think 255 and 158 in the second test was a batting problem? 195 in the second innings in the 4th test? Just over 200 in the 5th test when there's been 1200 runs in the first two innings?

They're poor match losing scores every day of the week. Not bowling them out does indeed inhibit your ability to win. Not being able to bat a full day under pressure means you lose - we should have been able to draw the 2nd, 4th and 5th tests (at least) - that we didn't win the 1st test is down to the bowling. 3rd test we didn't hit enough runs whichever way you look at it - 2 scores below 300.

[TANGODANCER]

Fair to say we've been well and truly Madrassed this trip?

[BWFC_Insane]

So you don't think 255 and 158 in the second test was a batting problem? 195 in the second innings in the 4th test? Just over 200 in the 5th test when there's been 1200 runs in the first two innings?

They're poor match losing scores every day of the week. Not bowling them out does indeed inhibit your ability to win. Not being able to bat a full day under pressure means you lose - we should have been able to draw the 2nd, 4th and 5th tests (at least) - that we didn't win the 1st test is down to the bowling. 3rd test we didn't hit enough runs whichever way you look at it - 2 scores below 300.

India scored an innings over 400 in every match. Over 600 in one.

And 759 in this.

Our batting has issues generally.

Our bowling in these conditions has even bigger issues.

[Worthy4England]

So you don't think 255 and 158 in the second test was a batting problem? 195 in the second innings in the 4th test? Just over 200 in the 5th test when there's been 1200 runs in the first two innings?

They're poor match losing scores every day of the week. Not bowling them out does indeed inhibit your ability to win. Not being able to bat a full day under pressure means you lose - we should have been able to draw the 2nd, 4th and 5th tests (at least) - that we didn't win the 1st test is down to the bowling. 3rd test we didn't hit enough runs whichever way you look at it - 2 scores below 300.

India scored an innings over 400 in every match. Over 600 in one.

And 759 in this.

Our batting has issues generally.

Our bowling in these conditions has even bigger issues.

They've averaged 47-50 per wicket in the last three test series (obviously against different opposition) - make no mistake, they can bat some. In that sense, our bowlers faired little worse than New Zealand's and West Indies bowlers (West Indies tour was in WI - they only had to bat 4 times and hit 500 twice)...

They won 3-0 against South Africa prior to that in India with their highest score being 334. Only once in 7 innings did the Saffers hit more than 200 and 4 innings were below 150.

To put their good batting into context, against out poor bowling is fine - but sometime you have to acknowledge they're ranked #1 in the world for a reason. Our performances were a combination of not good enough bowling, not good enough batting and not good enough fielding against a better side.

If you look at the ICC World Rankings, you'll spot that we've played 50 Test matches (10 more than our nearest competitor) - 15 more than India and 21 more than Saffers...

[BWFC_Insane]

So you don't think 255 and 158 in the second test was a batting problem? 195 in the second innings in the 4th test? Just over 200 in the 5th test when there's been 1200 runs in the first two innings?

They're poor match losing scores every day of the week. Not bowling them out does indeed inhibit your ability to win. Not being able to bat a full day under pressure means you lose - we should have been able to draw the 2nd, 4th and 5th tests (at least) - that we didn't win the 1st test is down to the bowling. 3rd test we didn't hit enough runs whichever way you look at it - 2 scores below 300.

India scored an innings over 400 in every match. Over 600 in one.

And 759 in this.

Our batting has issues generally.

Our bowling in these conditions has even bigger issues.

They've averaged 47-50 per wicket in the last three test series (obviously against different opposition) - make no mistake, they can bat some. In that sense, our bowlers faired little worse than New Zealand's and West Indies bowlers (West Indies tour was in WI - they only had to bat 4 times and hit 500 twice)...

They won 3-0 against South Africa prior to that in India with their highest score being 334. Only once in 7 innings did the Saffers hit more than 200 and 4 innings were below 150.

To put their good batting into context, against out poor bowling is fine - but sometime you have to acknowledge they're ranked #1 in the world for a reason. Our performances were a combination of not good enough bowling, not good enough batting and not good enough fielding against a better side.

If you look at the ICC World Rankings, you'll spot that we've played 50 Test matches (10 more than our nearest competitor) - 15 more than India and 21 more than Saffers...

Not arguing that. But the SA performance you've highlighted does show that a) better bowling attacks have done far better against India than we have b) Saffers aren't a bad side yet their batting performance was way below ours.

Were we to play India in England this summer I'd imagine if you transplanted our exact batting totals across, we'd have a chance of winning the series. If it were a bit cloudy, I'd bet on us.
So my point is that whilst we need to improve in all aspects, if you pitch up in India without a respectable spin attack you are in massive trouble. I accept we may have drawn every test if our batting line up matched India's but it doesn't and whilst I don't think our batting is weak, it is inconsistent and far too collapse prone.

[jimbo]

You need to score big first innings runs to compete in India. Batsmen have to bat for a long time and rack up big scores. These pitches have been relatively flat but we've still struggled and conceded huge first innings deficits.

1st test - 537 v 488
2nd - 255 v 455
3rd - 283 v 417
4th - 400 v 631
5th - 477 v 759

We've been poor all round, and obviously we lack any control in the bowling department but the issue of batsmen not kicking on and making big scores has annoyed me for a while and is now properly pissing me off after watching two of their weaker players score 500 between them

[Worthy4England]

The SA performances and series show that the wickets were different. Neither side hit more than 344 in the series, whereas both sides in this series hit much bigger scores. The winning margins against the Saffers were just as large proportionally. They won by 108 runs in a match where 201 was the highest score in 4 innings, 124 runs where 215 was the highest score in 4 innings and 337 in a match where 334 was the highest score.

Dropped catches have played a huge part - we've dropped (i.e. bowler has done their job) some absolute clangers - Nair on 34 off Jake Ball? Difficult chance but when you're facing an uphill battle, those chances make a huge difference. Bayliss reckons our dropped catches in the first innings cost us 500 runs - that's probably not far short of the mark.

[Worthy4England]

You need to score big first innings runs to compete in India. Batsmen have to bat for a long time and rack up big scores. These pitches have been relatively flat but we've still struggled and conceded huge first innings deficits.

1st test - 537 v 488
2nd - 255 v 455
3rd - 283 v 417
4th - 400 v 631
5th - 477 v 759

We've been poor all round, and obviously we lack any control in the bowling department but the issue of batsmen not kicking on and making big scores has annoyed me for a while and is now properly pissing me off after watching two of their weaker players score 500 between them

This bit is the bit I'm on about - they're all capable of scoring big hundreds, sometimes very quickly - what they're not capable of doing is toughing it out for a three session final day, when you just need to bat the day. They can bat at one pace only - when it works it's great.

[BWFC_Insane]

You need to score big first innings runs to compete in India. Batsmen have to bat for a long time and rack up big scores. These pitches have been relatively flat but we've still struggled and conceded huge first innings deficits.

1st test - 537 v 488
2nd - 255 v 455
3rd - 283 v 417
4th - 400 v 631
5th - 477 v 759

We've been poor all round, and obviously we lack any control in the bowling department but the issue of batsmen not kicking on and making big scores has annoyed me for a while and is now properly pissing me off after watching two of their weaker players score 500 between them

This bit is the bit I'm on about - they're all capable of scoring big hundreds, sometimes very quickly - what they're not capable of doing is toughing it out for a three session final day, when you just need to bat the day. They can bat at one pace only - when it works it's great.

I think to an extent that criticism can be levelled at a lot of sides. Batting against scoreboard pressure when all you are trying to do is bat out a day is notoriously tough. Think how many times sides have tried to do that over here and we've skittled them in a session or two. Or they've collapsed late on. I think its tough in those circumstances especially on a 5 day pitch in India. Yes the wickets were good for batting generally, but I still think it probably happens more often than not.

[jimbo]

Root is probably the one that pisses me off most. So much natural talent, so many great starts and so many lovely 70s and 80s. Problem is his conversion rate into 100s is awful! He's good enough to do the hard work and has enough talent to build an innings but so often gives it away. We're lucky enough to have 4 players - root, smith, Williamson and kohli all at similar stages of their careers with similar averages.

Root has passed 50 38 times in tests but has only reached 3 figures 11 times. Compare that to kohli and smith who's records are much closer to a 50% conversion. 50s are great but they don't win you games, especially in India when 500 is par for the first innings

[jimbo]

We've batted first in 3 of the 5 tests after winning the toss and conceded huge first innings deficits each time! That's not scoreboard pressure!

[BWFC_Insane]

We've batted first in 3 of the 5 tests after winning the toss and conceded huge first innings deficits each time! That's not scoreboard pressure!

No. Thats not having the ability to bowl India out.

[jimbo]

And it's also us not being able to bat forever when the pitch is doing feck all

[BWFC_Insane]

And it's also us not being able to bat forever when the pitch is doing feck all

Maybe. I suspect though that they got much more out the surfaces than we did with the ball. Ultimately we could easily win a series with the same batting performance. We'd never win a series with the bowling statistics though.

[jimbo]

It's all relative though. We could win games elsewhere scoring those runs, but on the pitches this series 400 hasn't been competitive. Scoring a nice 80 might help get a result at headingly on a green topper but doesn't but a dent in the opposition when they're going to get 600.

As for getting more out of the surface, how many wickets have we lost this series die to genuinely brilliant unplayable bowling? I've lost count on the other hand of how many times we've just given it away cheaply. Even in this test where he's scored 190 moeen has got out to two of the worst shots you'll see.

The hardest thing in cricket is getting in and getting to 20. Once you're in it should get easier and easier. We've too many who just throw it away.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's all relative though. We could win games elsewhere scoring those runs, but on the pitches this series 400 hasn't been competitive. Scoring a nice 80 might help get a result at headingly on a green topper but doesn't but a dent in the opposition when they're going to get 600.

As for getting more out of the surface, how many wickets have we lost this series die to genuinely brilliant unplayable bowling? I've lost count on the other hand of how many times we've just given it away cheaply. Even in this test where he's scored 190 moeen has got out to two of the worst shots you'll see.

The hardest thing in cricket is getting in and getting to 20. Once you're in it should get easier and easier. We've too many who just throw it away.

Yes but lots of teams say the same when Jimmy and Broad bowl at them at say, Edgbaston on a cloudy day in July. Its the pressure of quality bowling in those conditions rather than every wicket being a brilliant ball. I get the point, we aren't good generally at batting out long periods. I'd argue though that we're not abnormally poor at it. We just look that way when we can't bowl the other side out for anything approaching a modest total. As would most teams.