He's given a chance to India and I really hope that he takes advantage of that.
Let's not also forget that we asked to bat last and as much as that was a relatively difficult decision to make, one can't help thinking that it is the fragility of our top order that influenced Root to put India in.
Test cricket really needs to rethink its stance on wides down leg. Not saying anything down leg should be a wide, but I am saying that Pant has had 12 byes against his name in the last two overs that should have been 15 wides
Seeing as we dont seem to have a top 3 why not play the T20 openers there & go for it from the start. Can't be any worse than being 1 for 2......with the run being a no-ball. As a pp said......first time ever in a home Test we've lost both openers for 0.
Play Roy, Hales & Bairstow as the first 3. Would at least give the opposition something to think about.
Seeing as we dont seem to have a top 3 why not play the T20 openers there & go for it from the start. Can't be any worse than being 1 for 2......with the run being a no-ball. As a pp said......first time ever in a home Test we've lost both openers for 0.
Play Roy, Hales & Bairstow as the first 3. Would at least give the opposition something to think about.
Test cricket really needs to rethink its stance on wides down leg. Not saying anything down leg should be a wide, but I am saying that Pant has had 12 byes against his name in the last two overs that should have been 15 wides
It's the same as the Law that was changed three years ago meaning that a beamer that sails over the batsman and keeper's head to the boundary goes down in the book as "1 No Ball and 4 Byes". I wrote to the ECB about it and they explained that they felt the previous "5 No Balls" was unfair on the bowler. Of course, it's the keeper's fault that the bowler bowled the No Ball which is why they should be punished four times as much!!!
Test cricket really needs to rethink its stance on wides down leg. Not saying anything down leg should be a wide, but I am saying that Pant has had 12 byes against his name in the last two overs that should have been 15 wides
In thirteen overs, India have only bowled one ball from a seamer that would have gone on and hit the stumps. That doesn't seem very tactically astute.
Astute enough to have England 3 down.
See? As soon as they bowled straight again, they took a wicket. And did the same with Bairstow. Makes you wonder why their bowling was so off-target in the first thirteen overs.
As I said earlier, might as well go for it. Bairstow faced 24 deliveries for just 2 runs. Might have taken up 30 mins or so but imagine if he had tee'd off instead of defending. Might not even have needed to tee off.....just play the shot you would have played if we were 380-3 and no pressure. At least it would spread the field & make the bowler bowl differently. Just like their lower order batters. They were taking singles at will because the fielders were on the boundary waiting for a top edge.
This is only going one way unless we change the situation & the tempo.
Repeating what Atherton said a few days ago. You can have an evenly poised Test match & its decided on one bad session. England are having that bad session. 23 overs & lost 5 top wickets......inc the captain & talisman.
Comments
1-2
Problem is there's no one knocking at the door to replace them.
Let's not also forget that we asked to bat last and as much as that was a relatively difficult decision to make, one can't help thinking that it is the fragility of our top order that influenced Root to put India in.
Play Roy, Hales & Bairstow as the first 3. Would at least give the opposition something to think about.
That one was the worst of the bunch from Shami!
This is only going one way unless we change the situation & the tempo.
Cant do any worse.