[Cricket] India v England Test Series

[Charity Shield 1910]

It's not county crickets fault, it's the need for pyjama cricket to pay for the existence of the game and our wickets being roads. Medium pace sultans of swing are we.

Lets face it our batsmen are usually very poor dealing with a good spin bowler. I was always taught to meet the pitch of the ball so negating any turn, our batsmen try to play off the back foot. I feel on this rubble of a wicket India could declare now and win the match by lunch.

I does have to be asked if that patch of loose soil constitutes a prepared surface for a test match. It reminds me of that West Indies pitch, not being dangerous but it takes home advantage to a new level.

England have never had a proper spinner that I can think of, even before 20/20 was invented (spinner means someone who turns it right angles). The closest we came was Tufnell but he would admit that he really wasn't all that. Never produced a decent leg spinner and it's not the pitches. If you can turn it, then you can turn it on anything. It's natural. It is the fact that county sides seek bowlers who can bowl at 85 mph just outside off on a length, and a slow bowler to keep the runs down when the ball is old. It was the same in the 80's 90's and the like. England thought about finding a spin bowler when they saw Warne but their heart wasn't in it. Never has been.

 

[The Wizard]

England have never had a proper spinner that I can think of, even before 20/20 was invented (spinner means someone who turns it right angles). The closest we came was Tufnell but he would admit that he really wasn't all that. Never produced a decent leg spinner and it's not the pitches. If you can turn it, then you can turn it on anything. It's natural. It is the fact that county sides seek bowlers who can bowl at 85 mph just outside off on a length, and a slow bowler to keep the runs down when the ball is old. It was the same in the 80's 90's and the like. England thought about finding a spin bowler when they saw Warne but their heart wasn't in it. Never has been.

Swann? He was a world class spinner IMO, key to us winning down under.

Leach actually bowled very well today, the most consistent line and length I’ve seen from him, just Rohit played a special innings. I have a suspicion that innings will be the difference, if England try to defend on this pitch we’ll just get out for very few runs as the ball is turning so much, we need to try and get as close to the India score as possible, you’d suspect on this patch batting last chasing anything more than 200 would be very unlikely.

We should be looking at Rohit innings as an example, he is an exemplary player when his attacking style comes off but his aggressive strokes played into his hands as it spread the field pretty early on.

300-6 is an imposing score, I can see England losing this heavily, but it’s not the end of the world if we do, would have definitely taken 1-1 from the two dirt bowl tracks before the series heading into the pink ball D/N test

 

[Guinness Boy]

Swann? He was a world class spinner IMO, key to us winning down under.

Leach actually bowled very well today, the most consistent line and length I’ve seen from him, just Rohit played a special innings. I have a suspicion that innings will be the difference, if England try to defend on this pitch we’ll just get out for very few runs as the ball is turning so much, we need to try and get as close to the India score as possible, you’d suspect on this patch batting last chasing anything more than 200 would be very unlikely.

We should be looking at Rohit innings as an example, he is an exemplary player when his attacking style comes off but his aggressive strokes played into his hands as it spread the field pretty early on.

300-6 is an imposing score, I can see England losing this heavily, but it’s not the end of the world if we do, would have definitely taken 1-1 from the two dirt bowl tracks before the series heading into the pink ball D/N test

350 is the minimum they should get from here which puts us out of the game unless Root has another special innings and one or two can hang around for a while.

 

[Surf's Up]

Win the toss in India and, all other things being equal, you win the game.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Win the toss in India and, all other things being equal, you win the game.

Apart from Mumbai and Kolkata in 2012 when England lost both tosses and won both Tests.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

Swann? He was a world class spinner IMO, key to us winning down under.

Leach actually bowled very well today, the most consistent line and length I’ve seen from him, just Rohit played a special innings. I have a suspicion that innings will be the difference, if England try to defend on this pitch we’ll just get out for very few runs as the ball is turning so much, we need to try and get as close to the India score as possible, you’d suspect on this patch batting last chasing anything more than 200 would be very unlikely.

We should be looking at Rohit innings as an example, he is an exemplary player when his attacking style comes off but his aggressive strokes played into his hands as it spread the field pretty early on.

300-6 is an imposing score, I can see England losing this heavily, but it’s not the end of the world if we do, would have definitely taken 1-1 from the two dirt bowl tracks before the series heading into the pink ball D/N test

Swann, Giles, Embury, Edmonds, Leach, all a variation on a theme, some better than others. Swann took wickets by batsmen who technique hadnt adapted to reviews, and he bowled for LBW's as a slow bowler. He turned it less than Geoffrey Boycott's mum. None of the bowlers I have mentioned are spinners - they are slow bowlers. A spinner must turn it ball in ball out and also have the ability to turn it right angles. They also will get good revs and drift through the air. Shane Warne or Mushy are as far from a slow bowler like Giles or Embury as Wayne Daniels was from Jonathan Agnew. If we had a spnner on that wicket today then he would have made hay. England don't produce spinners, and in m lifetime they have never looked for one. England want slow bowlers. Its a different type of bowler.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

England have never had a proper spinner that I can think of, even before 20/20 was invented (spinner means someone who turns it right angles). The closest we came was Tufnell but he would admit that he really wasn't all that. Never produced a decent leg spinner and it's not the pitches. If you can turn it, then you can turn it on anything. It's natural. It is the fact that county sides seek bowlers who can bowl at 85 mph just outside off on a length, and a slow bowler to keep the runs down when the ball is old. It was the same in the 80's 90's and the like. England thought about finding a spin bowler when they saw Warne but their heart wasn't in it. Never has been.

We have a good spin bowler now, he just doesn't bowl himself enough.

The problem is to get to a top level you have to bowl and bowl some more and then bowl. Over here there's not enough time in the traditional game. First morning always something in the pitch and sideways movement, second day can be a long slog in the field and the spinner is asked to contain and if he gets tonked is taken off, third and forth they are suddenly expected to rip the often damp soft ball on a typically roadway wicket. Our cricket is full of medium paced dobbers

Tim May played for Horsham prior to his call up into the Aussie test side. I was fortunate to field in the slips so could see him close up. Even he would struggle on good wickets, such as the batting track at Horsham, yet put him on a less prepared one and he was lethal. Almost unplayable and really hard on the wicket keeper/slip fielders, it was the speed he bowled at. I faced him in the nets and he bowled faster than some so called medium paced bowlers. He played 24 test and 47 odi's so wasn't a bad player.

The other issue in this country, which has affected overseas spinners, is the damage to their fingers. We play most of the season in colder temps, I remember talking to Chris Waller and he said the issue for spin bowlers here is keeping their fingers in good condition. They end up with horribly split fingers and it's due to the conditions and cold balls.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

We have a good spin bowler now, he just doesn't bowl himself enough.

The problem is to get to a top level you have to bowl and bowl some more and then bowl. Over here there's not enough time in the traditional game. First morning always something in the pitch and sideways movement, second day can be a long slog in the field and the spinner is asked to contain and if he gets tonked is taken off, third and forth they are suddenly expected to rip the often damp soft ball on a typically roadway wicket. Our cricket is full of medium paced dobbers

Tim May played for Horsham prior to his call up into the Aussie test side. I was fortunate to field in the slips so could see him close up. Even he would struggle on good wickets, such as the batting track at Horsham, yet put him on a less prepared one and he was lethal. Almost unplayable and really hard on the wicket keeper/slip fielders, it was the speed he bowled at. I faced him in the nets and he bowled faster than some so called medium paced bowlers. He played 24 test and 47 odi's so wasn't a bad player.

The other issue in this country, which has affected overseas spinners, is the damage to their fingers. We play most of the season in colder temps, I remember talking to Chris Waller and he said the issue for spin bowlers here is keeping their fingers in good condition. They end up with horribly split fingers and it's due to the conditions and cold balls.

Yep, but I think it's more to do with what the county game has always wanted to produce. Millions of Jonathan Agnew medium fast dibly doblers and slow bowlers who cant turn it but can contain. I think England have changed to try and produce or at least poach proper fast bowlers hence pretty good results in that department. It will take a sea change in professional cricket in England to understand the value of someone who can turn it. I just don't think the imagination is there. They did think about it when they saw Warne but that was then put down to a "one off" and hence we have Leach turning his arm over. A slow bowler is not a spin bowler, just like a Agnew was not a fast bowler.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Swann, Giles, Embury, Edmonds, Leach, all a variation on a theme, some better than others. Swann took wickets by batsmen who technique hadnt adapted to reviews, and he bowled for LBW's as a slow bowler. He turned it less than Geoffrey Boycott's mum. None of the bowlers I have mentioned are spinners - they are slow bowlers. A spinner must turn it ball in ball out and also have the ability to turn it right angles. They also will get good revs and drift through the air. Shane Warne or Mushy are as far from a slow bowler like Giles or Embury as Wayne Daniels was from Jonathan Agnew. If we had a spnner on that wicket today then he would have made hay. England don't produce spinners, and in m lifetime they have never looked for one. England want slow bowlers. Its a different type of bowler.

The art of a good spin bowler is to NOT turn the ball in ball out but to get variation from the same action or perceived action. Many can turn it 90 degrees but to do so would be so slow and pointless. It's getting the drift, dip, sideways, straight on, over spin combinations. The only way is to bowl, bowl bowl. In this country our spin bowlers tend to bowl flat and quicker, this reduces the ability to turn it. Why do we do it? How often do you hear them say, oh one ball an over is always poor, as it goes to the rope. Captain walks over contain contain don't give then anything. You can't master spin bowling unless you're prepared to watch that ball whistle to the boundary.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

The art of a good spin bowler is to NOT turn the ball in ball out but to get variation from the same action or perceived action. Many can turn it 90 degrees but to do so would be so slow and pointless. It's getting the drift, dip, sideways, straight on, over spin combinations. The only way is to bowl, bowl bowl. In this country our spin bowlers tend to bowl flat and quicker, this reduces the ability to turn it. Why do we do it? How often do you hear them say, oh one ball an over is always poor, as it goes to the rope. Captain walks over contain contain don't give then anything. You can't master spin bowling unless you're prepared to watch that ball whistle to the boundary.

That is the English definition of a spin bowler. Get a kid who turns it miles and see how much you can coach it out of him. Over in Australia in Pakistan however they see a lad who turns it and they say go for it. Not many can turn it sideways on anything, that is a myth. The straight one or the toppy for a leg spinner should be a variation ball, not the stock ball with the odd one turning half an inch, Swann/Giles style. There is nothing wrong with Swann or Giles, it's just that they were not spin bowlers, and they should be classified properly, they were slow bowlers. Just like Agnew wasnt a fast bowler, hew was a medium fast trundler. Nothing wrong with that, but let's ust get the classification correct. England never have in my lifetime had a half decent spinner. They have had a few very decent slow bowlers.

 

[big nuts]

Swann, Giles, Embury, Edmonds, Leach, all a variation on a theme, some better than others. Swann took wickets by batsmen who technique hadnt adapted to reviews, and he bowled for LBW's as a slow bowler. He turned it less than Geoffrey Boycott's mum. None of the bowlers I have mentioned are spinners - they are slow bowlers. A spinner must turn it ball in ball out and also have the ability to turn it right angles. They also will get good revs and drift through the air. Shane Warne or Mushy are as far from a slow bowler like Giles or Embury as Wayne Daniels was from Jonathan Agnew. If we had a spnner on that wicket today then he would have made hay. England don't produce spinners, and in m lifetime they have never looked for one. England want slow bowlers. Its a different type of bowler.

Swann turned it less than Boycott’s mum? Now I’ve never seen Geoff’s mum bowl, nor bat with a stick of rhubarb, but Swann was an excellent spinner, who could clearly spin the ball more than enough to take 200 to 300 wickets at under 30 with an exceptional strike rate.

Even today the ball that Ali bowled Kohli today, span 3 foot+. If that ball would have been bowled by Ashwin, we’d have all marvelled over it.

Leach is pretty decent and developing. I’m hoping he becomes our version of Nathan Lyon who for me does an underrated job for Australia.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Yep, but I think it's more to do with what the county game has always wanted to produce. Millions of Jonathan Agnew medium fast dibly doblers and slow bowlers who cant turn it but can contain. I think England have changed to try and produce or at least poach proper fast bowlers hence pretty good results in that department. It will take a sea change in professional cricket in England to understand the value of someone who can turn it. I just don't think the imagination is there. They did think about it when they saw Warne but that was then put down to a "one off" and hence we have Leach turning his arm over. A slow bowler is not a spin bowler, just like a Agnew was not a fast bowler.

Warne was a freak though, he himself says so. He has tried to coach a new "Warne" but has failed. His action and the fact he has amazing flexibility especially in his wrists made him. It like seeing the extra pace Archer gets from a languid run up compared to those that steam in.

 

[big nuts]

That is the English definition of a spin bowler. Get a kid who turns it miles and see how much you can coach it out of him. Over in Australia in Pakistan however they see a lad who turns it and they say go for it. Not many can turn it sideways on anything, that is a myth. The straight one or the toppy for a leg spinner should be a variation ball, not the stock ball with the odd one turning half an inch, Swann/Giles style. There is nothing wrong with Swann or Giles, it's just that they were not spin bowlers, and they should be classified properly, they were slow bowlers. Just like Agnew wasnt a fast bowler, hew was a medium fast trundler. Nothing wrong with that, but let's ust get the classification correct. England never have in my lifetime had a half decent spinner. They have had a few very decent slow bowlers.

What about Adil Rashid? He wasn’t asked to contain. England wanted to use him as an attacking leg spinner and were prepared for him to go at 3.5 runs per over.

The problem being he was nowhere near effective as he was in one day cricket.

His wicket taking variations were encouraged and he had the leg spinner, googly and flipper. The issue was he lacked control but at no point did England try and coach anything out of him and he could get the ball to turn prodigiously.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

Swann turned it less than Boycott’s mum? Now I’ve never seen Geoff’s mum bowl, nor bat with a stick of rhubarb, but Swann was an excellent spinner, who could clearly spin the ball more than enough to take 200 to 300 wickets at under 30 with an exceptional strike rate.

Even today the ball that Ali bowled Kohli today, span 3 foot+. If that ball would have been bowled by Ashwin, we’d have all marvelled over it.

Leach is pretty decent and developing. I’m hoping he becomes our version of Nathan Lyon who for me does an underrated job for Australia.

Swann was not a spn bowler because he turned it only a little bit 1 ball in 5. He was a slow bowler. A very very good slow bowler who also got lucky with the review system coming in so he could bowl for LBW's. But he was as much a spin bowler as Jonathan Anew was a fast bowler. Spin bowlers spin it, slow bowlers are a different type of bowler. England produce slow bowlers not spinners.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

What about Adil Rashid? He wasn’t asked to contain. England wanted to use him as an attacking leg spinner and were prepared for him to go at 3.5 runs per over.

The problem being he was nowhere near effective as he was in one day cricket.

His wicket taking variations were encouraged and he had the leg spinner, googly and flipper. The issue was he lacked control but at no point did England try and coach anything out of him and he could get the ball to turn prodigiously.

Yes, he was a spin bowler, but they didnt like him turning it and wanted him to contain. We will never know how good he might have been had the English coach's not asked him to become a slow bowler instead of a spinner. I thought he looked like he had something.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

What about Adil Rashid? He wasn’t asked to contain. England wanted to use him as an attacking leg spinner and were prepared for him to go at 3.5 runs per over.

The problem being he was nowhere near effective as he was in one day cricket.

His wicket taking variations were encouraged and he had the leg spinner, googly and flipper. The issue was he lacked control but at no point did England try and coach anything out of him and he could get the ball to turn prodigiously.

They did attempt to bring on spinners in our game but in truth there's still only a handful of quality spinners in the whole of cricket. I love seeing a spin bowler, to me better than watching a fast bowler attempt to bounce out a batmen.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

Warne was a freak though, he himself says so. He has tried to coach a new "Warne" but has failed. His action and the fact he has amazing flexibility especially in his wrists made him. It like seeing the extra pace Archer gets from a languid run up compared to those that steam in.

No he wasn't a freak, anymore than Wayne Daniels was a freak fast bowler. He was brilliant tho. Mushy was very very good as well, and Sri Lanka produced. It all depends what you put your resources into. If you seek you will find. England seeks trundlers and slow bowlers. They may have changed to now seek fast bowlers in the last 15 years or so but they still seek slow bowlers. There is nothing wrong with slow bowlers, but just dont call them spinners, because they are not spinners. Different type of bowlers.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Swann was not a spn bowler because he turned it only a little bit 1 ball in 5. He was a slow bowler. A very very good slow bowler who also got lucky with the review system coming in so he could bowl for LBW's. But he was as much a spin bowler as Jonathan Anew was a fast bowler. Spin bowlers spin it, slow bowlers are a different type of bowler. England produce slow bowlers not spinners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaGWOvWMDDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqqH9mIodw

Kept hitting those divots to make them turn or perhaps spin

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaGWOvWMDDc

Magic, he turned one, about 2.5 inches (just enough). But he didnt turn it ball in ball out and never gave it a proper rip. He was a slow bowler. A very good one but he was not a spinner.

 

[vegster]

Swann turned it less than Boycott’s mum? Now I’ve never seen Geoff’s mum bowl, nor bat with a stick of rhubarb, but Swann was an excellent spinner, who could clearly spin the ball more than enough to take 200 to 300 wickets at under 30 with an exceptional strike rate.

Even today the ball that Ali bowled Kohli today, span 3 foot+. If that ball would have been bowled by Ashwin, we’d have all marvelled over it.

Leach is pretty decent and developing. I’m hoping he becomes our version of Nathan Lyon who for me does an underrated job for Australia.

He bowled another one through the gate too, both beautiful balls although the shot selection for the second one was not the best !

I agree with what you say about Leach, he keeps dropping the ball on a sixpence and if he can do Nathan lyon's job for us that is going to be a massive bonus for England.