India out-reversed on dry pitch

[rkt.india]

There was a time when reverse-swing was a strictly Asian art. Well, Pakistani first, and then rest of Asia's. The rest of the world has caught up with it now. Dale Steyn and James Anderson might even be the finest exponents of it. Still, when an England side outdoes India in almost Indian conditions on the reverse-swing front, it must hurt them as much as it should England or Australia if India or Pakistan bowl at top of off more often than them in green seaming conditions. In Nottingham, on a slow and low surface acknowledged by both sides as more Indian than English, the hosts out-reversed India. England consigned India to two reverse-swing-induced collapses whereas India bowlers mainly relied on the new ball's movement and uneven bounce by hitting the deck hard. There are three aspects to a contest of reverse-swing, and India were short on all three: maintaining the ball, then actually bowling with it, and weathering the storm with the bat once the opposition starts getting it to go. Virat Kohli and Ajinkya Rahane seem to be India's designated ball shiners. They worked hard on it through India's bowling, but there is more to maintaining the ball for reverse swing. Those commentators who were watching closely, looking for signs of reverse, say England simply maintained the ball better. Earlier in the year, a Test between South Africa and Australia, played in similar conditions in Port Elizabeth, got ugly because the umpires took an exception to the repeated banging of the ball into the ground by infielders. England were smarter here. They waited for the ball to go just far enough to justify that throw on the bounce. On occasions throws from mid-off or mid-on reached the stumps at the striker's end on a half-volley, which forced Matt Prior to go back and collect them on the bounce. Stuart Broad didn't mind sticking the boot out when fielding in his follow-through. In 2008, Wasim Akram, the king of reverse-swing, told ESPNcricinfo in an interview: "Sometimes bowlers used to stop the ball played back at them with their foot. If the boot spikes hit the rough side, it was Christmas. If it didn't, you shone the ball and moved on." Liam Plunkett bowled a spell made up almost exclusively of bouncers before lunch on day one, and the ball began to go just after lunch. The reverse might not have been a direct result of all this, but England were trying more than India. And this is not ball-tampering. Not until it gets so excessive that umpires start to take notice. You have to keep trying, and keep trying within reasonable limits. After maintaining it, though, you need to bowl well with it too. The England quicks do seem to have more pace and accuracy, than India's, to be able to exploit reverse. At various stages, Ishant Sharma and Mohammed Shami have shown they can cause damage with reverse, but they are not quite Zaheer Khan with it. When Cheteshwar Pujara was asked if it was disappointing that England did more with the old ball than India, he bemoaned the lack of carry in the pitch, but isn't the lack of carry the necessity in the first place? Also India are familiar with batting on such pitches, which is why their two periods of struggle against the reversing ball should come as a disappointment. In the first innings, Pujara went hard at one slightly slower inswinger from Anderson, and offered a catch to short mid-on. This was just when the ball had begun to go with the shine. Virat Kohli followed Pujara by becoming too mindful of inswing, and poked at a delivery wide enough to be left alone in normal circumstances. The second innings was worse. On the final day, which began with the ball reversing, Kohli committed the biggest mistake: a drive across the line. Ajinkya Rahane repeated Kohli's first-innings mistake by looking to cover for the inswing, thus playing at a delivery wide enough to be left alone. It was a nervous shot, but also a better delivery than what Kohli got in the first innings. MS Dhoni became a victim of inswing later in that session, which could have cost India the Test. The conditions, by all popular expectations, are not likely to change drastically over the series. It is hard to tell if India are pleased or displeased: they will welcome the soft launch for their batsmen, but these conditions eliminate their spinners and their quicks have struggled to bowl sides out twice for a long time. Reverse-swing promises to be a big factor in the rest of the series, and India will need to get better at dealing with it both when bowling and batting. Watch out for those throws into the ground and stuck-out boots.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2014/content/story/760409.html

[saneindian]

They struggled to get our tail out in both the innings and yet were good at reverse swing? If our bowlers were 'poor at reverse swing' so were English bowlers.

[BeautifulGame]

England collapsed to 135 /1 to 190/7 once we started reversing. So how clueless their batsmen are with negotiating reverse swing?

[BlueBee]

Sheer nonsense by CI..!

[vvvslaxman]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

[Old guy]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

That almost part is killing me :hysterical:

[BlueBee]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[BeautifulGame]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

They are actually admiring Cook's attacking (?) captaincy in that test :hysterical:

[saneindian]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

Yeah and George Doebell thinks Cook has suddenly done enough to script a major turnaround! All that Cook needs is a pacier pitch. Suddenly these jokers in English media have no shame in admitting that they have played on made to order pitches in last few years. Dry spinning tracks for Swann for the Ashes and vs SA. For them doing so is exploiting home advantage , when we do its doctoring the pitches.

[BlueBee]

One can judge the biasness of the Pommies by how they awarded the MOTM to Anderson :giggle:

[SLICKR392]

England collapsed to 135 /1 to 190/7 once we started reversing. So how clueless their batsmen are with negotiating reverse swing?

Monga is a cockhead. Anything from Dobell?

[Stuge]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

:hysterical::hysterical:

[saneindian]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

In the match thread, that seemed to be the overriding sentiment among ICFers as well. If Eng took 20 wickets, they will have a mental edge over us was what they said!

[SLICKR392]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

:facepalm: Even Botham said this to Atherton, or Atherton to Botham, don't remember exactly. A- Who do you think would be more happy after this Test match? B- England. If it does matter, they will leave with some moral victory. Atherton, Gower and Strauss are unruly and obstinate.

[SLICKR392]

In the match thread, that seemed to be the overriding sentiment among ICFers as well. If Eng took 20 wickets, they will have a mental edge over us was what they said!

Yeah. Lol. Heard that from someone in the sky box.

[sscomp32]

I read even more pathetic comment form English media. They said England gained more out of the test since England almost took 20 wickets. But India did not :hysterical:

:WTF: Really? They are one delusional bunch i must say. :rofl:

[NareshK]

:facepalm: Even Botham said this to Atherton, or Atherton to Botham, don't remember exactly. A- Who do you think would be more happy after this Test match? B- England. If it does matter, they will leave with some moral victory. Atherton, Gower and Strauss are unruly and obstinate.

You have idiots from India like Sid Monga who agrees with everything they say and only write negatively about Indian team. Why do you blame them ? Sid Monga is similar to Laxman Siva and Arun Lal who dont have capacity to think for themselves, so they agree with whatever other commentators say which will usually be biased in favor of their own country.

[Crookbond]

England consigned India to two reverse-swing-induced collapses whereas India bowlers mainly relied on the new ball's movement and uneven bounce by hitting the deck hard. There are three aspects to a contest of reverse-swing, and India were short on all three: maintaining the ball, then actually bowling with it, and weathering the storm with the bat once the opposition starts getting it to go.

The article says, 1. England bowled better reverse swing to India 2. India bowled better with the new ball and hit the deck hard than the English bowlers. Also, here are other lines in the article.

The reverse might not have been a direct result of all this, but England were trying more than India. And this is not ball-tampering. Not until it gets so excessive that umpires start to take notice. You have to keep trying, and keep trying within reasonable limits. After maintaining it, though, you need to bowl well with it too. The England quicks do seem to have more pace and accuracy, than India's, to be able to exploit reverse. At various stages, Ishant Sharma and Mohammed Shami have shown they can cause damage with reverse, but they are not quite Zaheer Khan with it

The point about doctored pitches and the stupid comment about England taking 20-wickets is LOL-worthy. But, lets separate the wheat from the chaff.

[NareshK]

^^ What happened to their reverse swing when they couldnt get the tailenders Binny, Jaddu and B Kumar who batted for over a combined 50 overs in 2nd innings or even in 1st innings when B Kumar and Shami put on 111 partnership ?

[Crookbond]

:wall: Just because England reversed the ball better than India, doesn't make England the masters of reverse swing. This is a relative comparison!