Are England over complicating the game ?

[ravishingravi]

You look at the talent and bench strength of England team. Its right up there with the very best especially in bowling. 

 

But seems like they are over thinking and not doing the simple things right. Select your best team. If they play together long enough, they will develop the chemistry and camaraderie to combat any conditions. Why did they change the team after first test ? Doesnt make sense.

[Jay]

21 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

You look at the talent and bench strength of England team. Its right up there with the very best especially in bowling. 

 

But seems like they are over thinking and not doing the simple things right. Select your best team. If they play together long enough, they will develop the chemistry and camaraderie to combat any conditions. Why did they change the team after first test ? Doesnt make sense.

Ali 

Should have picked stone. That's it. No one else tbh. 

 

You could also say India are missing jaddu, Umesh and Shami. 

 

 

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

Ali 

Should have picked stone. That's it. No one else tbh. 

 

You could also say India are missing jaddu, Umesh and Shami. 

 

 

Both Umesh and Shami are the deadliest in terms of SR in Ind; I think their SR is even lower than the spinners. And Jaddu's batting is hugely missed, although his bowling has been compensated by Axar

[Vilander]

England has a phenomenal bunch of players. Only other country which matches or exceeds India in terms of pure talent available for the game. Australia and SA used to be there but now i dont see either, even though Aus has some very fine players in their domestics waiting to break rank - SA is in free fall. Otherwise one has to go to Pak/BD level to find lots of players - in their cases not world class - but BD has everything structure, palyers, fans just the players themselves lack skills in few areas for some reason. WI /SL /SA /NZ have lesser pools of players. 

[Vilander]

4 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

Select your best team.

they did not do this in all games this series. some where because of their funny rotation policy - it is more because they could afford to do it as their players were in same level. If they had beat India last game if they scored say a 250 first inning.. or if they scored 280 in the first inning here and got Pant out imagine they were 2.-2 end of series then they would have rued a chance to beat India in India because of their stupid team selections. Some of their selections are also because they are not able to read the pitch well and over emphasized impact of the lacquer on the pink SG.. its intriguing how a test cricket game is quite complex, what all a top team needs to do when players on two sides are perfectly capable of beating each other but still one team wins. 

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

England has a phenomenal bunch of players. Only other country which matches or exceeds India in terms of pure talent available for the game. Australia and SA used to be there but now i dont see either, even though Aus has some very fine players in their domestics waiting to break rank - SA is in free fall. Otherwise one has to go to Pak/BD level to find lots of players - in their cases not world class - but BD has everything structure, palyers, fans just the players themselves lack skills in few areas for some reason. WI /SL /SA /NZ have lesser pools of players. 

Bangla only lacks fast bowlers. Out bumrah and Shami or Siraj in their team and they will become powerhouses. Can easily beat Pak and upset India in their country. 

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

they did not do this in all games this series. some where because of their funny rotation policy - it is more because they could afford to do it as their players were in same level. If they had beat India last game if they scored say a 250 first inning.. or if they scored 280 in the first inning here and got Pant out imagine they were 2.-2 end of series then they would have rued a chance to beat India in India because of their stupid team selections. Some of their selections are also because they are not able to read the pitch well and over emphasized impact of the lacquer on the pink SG.. its intriguing how a test cricket game is quite complex, what all a top team needs to do when players on two sides are perfectly capable of beating each other but still one team wins. 

Their best team would have buttler who isn't great vs real spin. Flakes actually better player or spin. Would make no difference tbh. 

 

Broad is done in India. Archer and stone are their only options. Archer is injury prone and has weak stamina. Could have opted for stone. 

 

Moeen is one guy they could used as an all rounder in this game over bessy. Not much difference as Moen averages 50 with the ball in India. Although the way lolli and Rahane are playing he would have got them anyway. 

 

So Moeen, stone/Archer and maybe buttler. 

 

 

India missing Shami, umesh, Jadeja, Mayank (yes check his record), Rahul. 

 

So India are just better overall. India missing way more players and better quality players. 

 

They may have better like for like replacements but India have better quality for the first choice 11 as the ones missing are AtGs in these great Condtions. 

 

Also this rotation policy is an excuse for poor stamina. Andy can't last more than one match without adequate rest. 

 

Stone is ok but India will figure him out soon just like they did towards the end when he last played. 

 

Archer has very poor stamina. Not good enough. This was a forced change. 

 

Moeen is well Moeen. 

 

Buttler imo is just being a sour grape. 

[putrevus]

They have the talent to be the best team.Their strength is their all allrounders but they are not using them properly. They should have never ended in yesterday's position with so many allrounders in the team.

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

They have the talent to be the best team.Their strength is their all allrounders but they are not using them properly. They should have never ended in yesterday's position with so many allrounders in the team.

they do have a lot of them - moeen, stokes, the two currans, bess, and so on. but most of them are closer to bits-and-pieces apart from stokes

[Vilander]

54 minutes ago, Jay said:

Their best team would have buttler who isn't great vs real spin. Flakes actually better player or spin. Would make no difference tbh. 

 

Broad is done in India. Archer and stone are their only options. Archer is injury prone and has weak stamina. Could have opted for stone. 

 

Moeen is one guy they could used as an all rounder in this game over bessy. Not much difference as Moen averages 50 with the ball in India. Although the way lolli and Rahane are playing he would have got them anyway. 

 

So Moeen, stone/Archer and maybe buttler. 

 

 

India missing Shami, umesh, Jadeja, Mayank (yes check his record), Rahul. 

 

So India are just better overall. India missing way more players and better quality players. 

 

They may have better like for like replacements but India have better quality for the first choice 11 as the ones missing are AtGs in these great Condtions. 

 

Also this rotation policy is an excuse for poor stamina. Andy can't last more than one match without adequate rest. 

 

Stone is ok but India will figure him out soon just like they did towards the end when he last played. 

 

Archer has very poor stamina. Not good enough. This was a forced change. 

 

Moeen is well Moeen. 

 

Buttler imo is just being a sour grape. 

its just that they give a sense of how others feel about India, when you see so many fresh faces but all ready..there and there abouts. Its amazing turn around for England that 90s fans are used to seeing. 

[Jay]

56 minutes ago, Vijy said:

they do have a lot of them - moeen, stokes, the two currans, bess, and so on. but most of them are closer to bits-and-pieces apart from stokes

This is the truth. None of them are close to Jadeja level or even Ashwin as an all rounder for the matter. 

 

Not Sundar level either. 

 

Only in their conditions, woakes and Curran can excel at their trundling pacer due to Conditions. 

 

Stokes vs Jadeja in Asia? No brianer Jadeja. 

 

Stokes vs Jadeja is Australia and South Africa is very close. 

 

Obviously in England and n.z stokes is better. 

[rangeelaraja]

3 hours ago, Vilander said:

England has a phenomenal bunch of players. Only other country which matches or exceeds India in terms of pure talent available for the game. Australia and SA used to be there but now i dont see either, even though Aus has some very fine players in their domestics waiting to break rank - SA is in free fall. Otherwise one has to go to Pak/BD level to find lots of players - in their cases not world class - but BD has everything structure, palyers, fans just the players themselves lack skills in few areas for some reason. WI /SL /SA /NZ have lesser pools of players. 

 

 

Not true at all. 

 

England does not have any bench strength in their batting. Their bowling bench strength is good but not great. 

 

Anderson and Broad are almost at retirement. Take them out and England bowling does not look too good either.

 

 

 

 

 

[chewy]

Yes and no,

 

In terms of who is in their squad the correct XI are playing, Dom Bess looked a million bucks in SL, but Indian batsmen just kept attacking every time he came to bowled.

 

But there rotation policy didn't help, Bairstow hit good form in SL but was sent home for rest, missed first two matches, came back and looks a sitting duck every ball. Moen Ali was only.suppose to play first two Tests.

 

But the rotation policy is England prioritising their England summer and T20 World Cup. I think for T20s series they are playing their full strength team.

 

 

 

[Jamadagni]

The thing is they have too many average/above average players; but very few world class ones. Good bench strength in pacers - Anderson, Broad, Stone, Woakes, Archer, Curran, Wood....but no one is close to the level of Cummins or Bumrah. Ditto for batsmen and wicketkeepers. England test team in a nutshell overall except for a brief period in early 2010s.