Vaughan stuffed it for England?

[King]

Nothing to take away from the likes of Dhoni, Laxman and the rest but England could have got there if they had rushed their overs early on. The average number of overs were about 12 before Monty was introduced. Tremlett was the worst culprit what with walking back like a 80 year old man back to his run up. After lunch Bell was wearing chin pads something he could have done during the break knowing Monty was going to be bowling. England played as if they had 4 days to knock India off. It was one uninspiring captaincy and less said about the bowlers the better. It may sound harsh but other than Sidebottom none were good enough. The bowlers over used the short balls and they didn't make the batters play enough balls in the first session. They did make some amendments and got really close but that only escalates the slowmo gameplay they played in the first few hours.

[Ram]

I think the accusation is very subjective . Nobody would be saying these things had england bowled India out , which could have very well have happend. Seems to me like a case of finding faults just for the sake of it , to be honest..

[King]

Why would I be finding faults for the sake of it? I don't see your point. Did you not watch the game or are you trying to brush it under the carpet Sriram? I think you need to check the over rate and then pass a judgement.

[Ram]

Why would I be finding faults for the sake of it? I don't see your point. Did you not watch the game or are you trying to brush it under the carpet Sriram? I think you need to check the over rate and then pass a judgement.

1st question -- Would you have bought up this topic had England bowled India out ?

[kumble_rocks]

Why would I be finding faults for the sake of it? I don't see your point. Did you not watch the game or are you trying to brush it under the carpet Sriram? I think you need to check the over rate and then pass a judgement.

I remember David lloyd alluding to your point during the rain break.The way Laxman and Dhoni were playing, who knows, Vaughn was probably concerned about losing and hence the slow overrate in the pre -lunch session.

[Ram]

Another 30 mins of play and England would have won , surely. The English did what they could today. Luck ruined their chances , not slow over rate.

[King]

1st question -- Would have bought up this topic had England bowled India out ?

That is not the question here. You have to look at the facts. How eager would a team be to bowl their overs quickly when you know bad weather can kick in any time? It was possible the bad weather would have kicked in earlier or later but that isn't the case. It was sezing the initiative and get in as many overs as possible.

[King]

Another 30 mins of play and England would have won ' date=' surely. The English did what they could today. Luck ruined their chances , not slow over rate.[/quote'] It was possible the bad weather would have kicked in 30 minutes or an hour earlier. In that case weren't they guilty of bowling less overs? In any case their over rate was pretty bad.

[Ram]

That is not the question here. You have to look at the facts. How eager would a team be to bowl their overs quickly when you know bad weather can kick in any time? It was possible the bad weather would have kicked in earlier or later but that isn't the case. It was sezing the initiative and get in as many overs as possible.

Would the england captain have done justice to his bowlers if before the start of every over, he runs up to them and says - " Just get this done with , ASAP". How much pressure would that have put on the young bowlers ? I understand your point Ravi , but you must see the big picture . England were denied by rain , not by poor over-rate. As i said , If Sreesanth had been out in the last ball of over he faced from panesar , none of us would be even talking about it.

[King]

The result is irrespective, the fact is they were guilty of playing slow cricket. In fact they should have been more eager and get their overs in quickly. Of course as a captain you need to make your players aware of the over rate. Even if they were able to get in say about 4 overs an hour more they would have had this game in their bag. Now they must have under bowled about 10-16 overs. Does that tell a story?

[Ram]

The result is irrespective' date=' the fact is they were guilty of playing slow cricket. In fact they should have been more eager and get their overs in quickly. Of course as a captain you need to make your players aware of the over rate. Even if they were able to get in say about 4 overs an hour more they would have had this game in their bag. Now they must have under bowled about 10-16 overs. Does that tell a story?[/quote'] You are merely speculating Ravi , which in itself is never a reliable exercise. As you claim that 4 overs an hour more would have given them 10-12 overs more overall , so can i claim that it was the pressure free bowling that bowlers were allowed to do which helped them to bowl well and take 6 indian wickets in the time they did it. Whats the point in having 10 extra overs when India were still only 5 wickets down , which could have happened had the bowlers tried to rush the overs and their discipline suffered .

[King]

You are merely speculating Ravi , which in itself is never a reliable exercise.

I don't understand how it is speculating? The over rate was dismal and that is the fact. 11-12 overs an hour is acceptable to you when you know you are in the driving seat and the bad weather was going to kick in at 3 pm? Sorry Sriram you are just not looking at the facts.

[Ram]

I don't understand how it is speculating? The over rate was dismal and that is the fact. 11-12 overs an hour is acceptable to you when you know you are in the driving seat and the bad weather was going to kick in at 3 pm? Sorry Sriram you are just not looking at the facts.

Fair enough Ravi. The problem here is , the way we see this issue is entirely different. You have your own views which seem right to you. I have my views which seem right to me. Lets just agree to dis-agree, though i might actually be wrong here ! :D

[King]

Fair enough Ravi. The problem here is ' date=' the way we see this issue is entirely different. You have your own views which seem right to you. I have my views which seem right to me. Lets just agree to dis-agree, though i might actually be wrong here ! :D[/quote'] Sure thing. Anyways I'm happy they bowled less overs and sprayed a bit. In fact their game plan sucked early on too what with bowling non stop short balls at both Laxman and dhoni. Sure enough Lax and dhoni looked quite susceptible at times against the short balls but I think they overdid it when clearly the balls that picked most wickets were a full length one. IMO they wasted the new ball big time.

[King]

Here we go Sriram, the media is asking similar questions : Poms left to rue what might have been 24/07/2007 7:09:20 AM PA Sport Rain and bad light left England one wicket short of victory in the first Test against India at Lord's but the hosts only have themselves to blame. Knowing rain was forecast for the final day, England was aware it had to maximise time to ensure there were enough overs to dismiss India, who resumed on 3-137 needing a further 242 runs for an unlikely victory. But England's sloppy over rate the previous evening - when the hosts finished five overs short - and a general lack of urgency in the field during the morning session when they bowled two short of the expected 30 overs cost them the chance of victory. With last man Shantha Sreesanth at the crease alongside wicketkeeper batsman Mahendra Dhoni, who had battled for over three hours for his unbeaten 76, bad light finally caught up with England and ended the match shortly before the scheduled tea interval with India on 9-282. Captain Michael Vaughan even attempted to bowl himself and left-arm spinner Monty Panesar in tandem to prevent the umpires offering bad light to the batsman. Vaughan, who has fresh memories of South Africa hanging on to reach 8-290 three years ago in Durban to salvage a draw, was forced to turn to spin just nine overs after taking the new ball. But having consulted their light meters on several occasions in the overs building up to the eventual close, umpires Steve Bucknor and Simon Taufel ended proceedings at 3.38pm after they decided the light was no longer suitable for play.

[Ram]

Such questions are bound to be asked , obviously. But my point is entirely different.

[yoda]

declaration did come a little late. we were discussing the same in the match thread. but england did get enough overs to bowl. it is very very very very very very rare for indian batters to score close to 300 in the 4th innings with the game on line.

[Gaurav]

Argggghhhh MAN! rain robbed India of a famous victory. I guess I will settle for a draw :haha: Great rear guard action from team India! Splitbottom ki _______ me tuta hua murgi ka anda! :hysterical:

[Donny]

Since this is hypothetical, try this one: Vaughan Accused of Tactical Error England captain, Michael Vaughan was today roundly criticised for 'handing victory to India on a plate'. Although some would applaud him for keeping up a brisk over rate, it was out of character for Vaughan and England. It's long been the policy to 'draw first but win if possible without risking a loss' for both England and India. It's hard to imagine Rahul Dravid hurrying up his bowlers in the same situation with the likes of Pietersen & co. threatening to blow them away Vaughan: "In retrospect, it looks like a bad decision but I'd rather be positive and if going all out for a win presented India with the chance to win, then so be it. I had the weather to consider as well. We all know how fickle that can be and nobody realistically expected the clouds to lift after tea." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ravi, had England bowled the '10-12' overs more, India could've been looking at a very possible 50-60 odd to win in the last session. Even though there was a high percentage of rain/bad light being a factor, MV still played it safe. I also think he was wrong but I certainly understand his thinking.

[The Outsider]

Yes he did. The forecast was for the rain to take over at around noon. It got delayed by almost 4 hours but the casual attitude by England in the first session did cost them the match.