India v England - 1st Test **SPOILERS**

[MarcLister]

Hmm wasn't expecting that. This a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? How come we didn't bowl Harmison/Anderson as much as the others?

Bowler	        O	M	R	W
Harmison	10.0	0	48	0
Anderson	11.0	1	51	1
Panesar	        27.0	4	105	0
Flintoff	22.0	1	64	1
Swann	        28.3	2	103	2

Between them Harmison and Anderson bowled as many overs as Flintoff. Decent debut Test for Swann at least.

And as for Collingwoods decision..?

The lbw decision in his second innings?

 

[platypus]

Between them Harmison and Anderson bowled as many overs as Flintoff. Decent debut Test for Swann at least.
The lbw decision in his second innings?

Was he given lbw? I can't find it now but I'm sure I was reading an article on the Times about how he was given out c&b in ridiculous circumstances.

Edit: This was in the first innings by the way.

Shortly after Pietersen's bizarre innings, Paul Collingwood was the victim of an equally odd bit of umpiring from Billy Bowden, the ball clearly coming off pad instead of bat, before ending up in short leg's hands.

Trying to find the original article which had pictures.

Here it is!

 

[y2viks]

Hmm wasn't expecting that. This a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? How come we didn't bowl Harmison/Anderson as much as the others?

Bowler	        O	M	R	W
Harmison	10.0	0	48	0
Anderson	11.0	1	51	1
Panesar	        27.0	4	105	0
Flintoff	22.0	1	64	1
Swann	        28.3	2	103	2

Between them Harmison and Anderson bowled as many overs as Flintoff. Decent debut Test for Swann at least.
The lbw decision in his second innings?

Probably would have been their run rates which may have worried KP. I read on the cricinfo commentary that they were erratic with their line and control.

 

[Hamster]

Was he given lbw? I can't find it now but I'm sure I was reading an article on the Times about how he was given out c&b in ridiculous circumstances.

There's always a bad decision or two in a test match and usually they even out. You could quite easily argue that one of Swann's early wickets in the first innings was a poor decision. To be quite honest i don't think the Collingwood decision had much of a bearing on the match. You could say England didn't make the most of the pitch in the final innings but India batted incredibly well.

If you didn't watch the final innings, catch the highlights. India wouldn't have had a hope in hell if Sehwag hadn't gone ballistic after tea yesterday. The way Tendulkar controlled his own innings and also mentored Yuvraj through the innings was a sight to behold. If you remember his first innings, Yuvraj was sledged off the pitch by Flintoff. This time Flintoff tried his antics again but Yuvraj just walked towards square and blanked him. This made Flintoff uneasy; his reaction was to have a laugh about it with the rest of the England team before he realised it was all futile. Overs later you could see Flintoff looking quite dejected.

So it was more about winning mentality that was missing from England but not from India that won the match. Would anyone have really expected India to score the 4th highest ever 4th innings total in history to win the match? Probably not, but Sehwag said quite positively before his innings that they were going to chase down the total.

 

[MarcLister]

Was he given lbw? I can't find it now but I'm sure I was reading an article on the Times about how he was given out c&b in ridiculous circumstances.

Edit: This was in the first innings by the way.

Trying to find the original article which had pictures.

Here it is!

Ah. Some excellent looking links on that Times site.

Probably would have been their run rates which may have worried KP. I read on the cricinfo commentary that they were erratic with their line and control.

I still would have used them for a bit of fast shock bowling to try and intimidate the batsmen. Probably wouldn't have worked mind.

 

[Hamster]

I still would have used them for a bit of fast shock bowling to try and intimidate the batsmen. Probably wouldn't have worked mind.

LOL! Early on, after bowling to Yuvraj and collecting after a defensive shot, Harmison unsportingly threw the ball hard at Yuvraj's legs who was in his crease, directly in front of the stumps so it's not as if England didn't try and intimidate the batsmen. Also as i said, Flintoff had a good go to but it wasn't washing this time.

 

[MarcLister]

LOL! Early on, after bowling to Yuvraj and collecting after a defensive shot, Harmison unsportingly threw the ball hard at Yuvraj's legs who was in his crease, directly in front of the stumps so it's not as if England didn't try and intimidate the batsmen. Also as i said, Flintoff had a good go to but it wasn't washing this time.

I think having a tall bowler bang some fast balls in is a little more intimidating than the same bowler throwing a ball at you like that.

 

[Hamster]

I think having a tall bowler bang some fast balls in is a little more intimidating than the same bowler throwing a ball at you like that.

They did try a few bouncers too but the batsmen just avoided them well. There's no better player of a head shot than Tendulkar!

Bodyline days are over!!

England just aren't a unit under their current management and captaincy. KP isn't ready or to captain yet; there was no structure to the the way he even set the field with the bowling attack. It's all very well Strauss getting a couple of hundreds, which i must say was an awesome feat, but if the bowlers can't get more than 4 wickets for 387 in the final innings on a crater of a pitch, it's just wasted.

 

[MarcLister]

Bodyline days are over!!

Thems were the days.

England just aren't a unit under their current management and captaincy. KP isn't ready or to captain yet; there was no structure to the the way he even set the field with the bowling attack. It's all very well Strauss getting a couple of hundreds, which i must say was an awesome feat, but if the bowlers can't get more than 4 wickets for 387 in the final innings on a crater of a pitch, it's just wasted.

No. I think we'll see more and more evidence to support the theory that Pietersen shouldn't be captain. I'm not convinced he should ever be captain. Nothing to do with his being born in a different country, how could it when I want Strauss who was also South Africa born to be captain. I just don't think he's got the skills whereas Strauss has and did pretty well in his few Tests as captain. I think England need to let Pietersen do what he does best, bat like practically no-one else in Test cricket. If we burden him with captaincy his batting will suffer, not improve like some suggested when he got the nod.

 

[Fothsn]

They did try a few bouncers too but the batsmen just avoided them well. There's no better player of a head shot than Tendulkar!

Bodyline days are over!!

England just aren't a unit under their current management and captaincy. KP isn't ready or to captain yet; there was no structure to the the way he even set the field with the bowling attack. It's all very well Strauss getting a couple of hundreds, which i must say was an awesome feat, but if the bowlers can't get more than 4 wickets for 387 in the final innings on a crater of a pitch, it's just wasted.

Agree with you there, this should have being our game but no we lose it again and again, we cannot get the job done as a team We need to sort this mess out, I mean 5-0 drubbing in the ODI now the test are looking a whitewash, get you act together England.


Well done India, showed your class as a batting side once again Strauss looks in good nick hope we can put up more of a batting stand in the next test rather than 2 getting a decent score we need the whole team to pull their socks up!!

 

[sigma]

I think we'll see more and more evidence to support the theory that Pietersen shouldn't be captain. I'm not convinced he should ever be captain.

I totally agree. In fact I remember saying this when he was first made captain. Over here we have a thing about making the 'best' player in the team the captain which is totally wrong IMO.

His form has suffered since he was made captain. Also he can at times, express too much emotion on the field (as he did today) which has a negative impact on the morale of the team. I'd like to see either Strauss or Colly captain the side and maybe even Freddy once he gets back to his best, he used to inspire a lot of confidence in the team.

Great performance by India, I don't think many people thought they'd do it after the rather poor 1st innings display. Although Sehwag got India off to a flyer I think Sachin should have been made man of the match.

 

[MarcLister]

Strauss

Strauss was captain for 5 Tests. In those 5 Tests he scored 501 runs at an average of 55.66. This compares to his 54 Tests played where he's scored 4174 runs at an average of 42.59. Of his 5 Tests as captain he won 2 and drew 3. In the 2 he won he scored 194 runs at an average of 64.66. The 3 he drew he scored 307 runs at an average of 51.16.Strauss has played in 49 Tests where he wasn't captain. In these Tests he scored 3673 runs at an average of 41.26, lower than his overall average from his 54 Tests. 23 of Strauss' Test matches (not captain) have ended in wins for England. In these 23 Tests he's scored 1931 runs at an average of 48.27. Of his 49 Tests not as captain Strauss has lost 15 times scoring 902 runs at an average of 30.06. Then there are 11 drawn Tests for Strauss out of his 49 not as captain. He's scored 840 runs at an average of 44.21 runs.


Flintoff

Flintoff was captain for 11 Tests. He scored 565 runs in these 11 Tests at an average of 33.23 without scoring a century, instead achieving a high score of 89 as captain. Overall Flintoff has been in 71 Tests and has scored 3516 runs at an average of 31.96. In his 60 Tests where he wasn't captain Flintoff scored 2951 runs at an average of 31.73. Just slightly lower than as captain, just .23 runs in fact.

I could put up Flintoff's bowling record over his 71 Tests, his 11 as captain and his 60 not captain but since Strauss doesn't bowl this doesn't seem like a fair comparison. So whilst Flintoff's batting average is higher for his 11 Tests as captain it is only .23 runs higher. Strauss on the other hand boasts an overall average of 42.59, 41.26 when not captain and 55.66 when captain. So I can't really see any reason to make Flintoff captain over Strauss. That and Flintoff lost the 5 2006/2007 Ashes matches in Australia. That and this is why I want Strauss as captain over Flintoff.

 

[Hamster]

I can see where you're coming from Marc and i agree that Strauss would probably be a better captain and ought to be the next one but it's not fair to compare both these players on batting performance alone. He's not a specialist batsman; he's an all-rounder and a consistent bowler. Take a look at the stats for this challenging match, for example. He was the most consistent bowler and he bowls good line and length unlike some of the carp that was thrown down the wicket by some of what are supposed to be England's specialist bowlers (even apart from the odd no-ball ):


India's 1st Innings:

O M R W Econ
SJ Harmison 11 1 42 1 3.81
JM Anderson 11 3 28 1 2.54
A Flintoff 18.4 2 49 3 2.62 (6nb)
GP Swann 10 0 42 2 4.20
MS Panesar 19 4 65 3 3.42


India's 2nd Innings:

O M R W Econ
SJ Harmison 10 0 48 0 4.80
JM Anderson 11 1 51 1 4.63
MS Panesar 27 4 105 0 3.88
A Flintoff 22 1 64 1 2.90 (4nb)
GP Swann 28.3 2 103 2 3.61

 

[MarcLister]

I can see where you're coming from Marc and i agree that Strauss would probably be a better captain and ought to be the next one but it's not fair to compare both these players on batting performance alone.

I could put up Flintoff's bowling record over his 71 Tests, his 11 as captain and his 60 not captain but since Strauss doesn't bowl this doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

Flintoff is a batsman, OK not a specialist normally but he has played for England and Lancashire as a specialist whilst recovering from ankle injuries.

Apart from fielding, normally both at slip, batting is the only skill the two Andrews have in common. I was trying to compare them both. How can I compare them if only one bowls? They both bat, they both can play as specialist batsmen and both have scored centuries. Enough of a distinction to make my statistical post valid I believe.

 

[sigma]

Do the selectors decide who the captain is?

 

[Hamster]

No, it's not enough of a distinction. Just because Flintoff had a temporary role as a specialist batsman for Lancs doesn't make him a specialist batsman for England, even if he has scored centuries. Not all county batsmen play for England and specialist batsmen (who don't bowl) don't usually last long in an international squad with an average of 30 over a long period. Flintoff isn't a just a stand-in bowler, he's taken 210 test wickets with an average of 32.13.

You were 'scientifically' justifying Strauss's captaincy on the basis of batting statistics rather than ability to perform in the full roles they actually do regularly perform in the England squad. You must be able to see that the equation isn't that simple, even if it is the only thing you can compare them with because Strauss doesn't really bowl.

On top of all that there are qualities in a captain that can't be counted in figures, eg leadership, team bonding etc.

 

[Hamster]

Do the selectors decide who the captain is?

Yes but we're taking over

 

[MarcLister]

No, it's not enough of a distinction. Just because Flintoff had a temporary role as a specialist batsman for Lancs doesn't make him a specialist batsman for England, even if he has scored centuries. Not all county batsmen play for England and specialist batsmen (who don't bowl) don't usually last long in an international squad with an average of 30 over a long period. Flintoff isn't a just a stand-in bowler, he's taken 210 test wickets with an average of 32.13.

You were 'scientifically' justifying Strauss's captaincy on the basis of batting statistics rather than ability to perform in the full roles they actually do regularly perform in the England squad. You must be able to see that the equation isn't that simple, even if it is the only thing you can compare them with because Strauss doesn't really bowl.

On top of all that there are qualities in a captain that can't be counted in figures, eg leadership, team bonding etc.

First of all you missed my and I didn't say Flintoff was a specialist batsman. I said that they both "can" play as specialist batsmen.

 

[Hamster]

LOL. I missed the I have been up for 38hrs mostly on adrenaline and i should really hit the sack now!!

 

[MarcLister]

No probs. Good debate though.