He had an average series with the bat (being generous) but the odd thing is that Zak's position at the top of the order is now more secure than ever, thanks to the rusty Bethell contributing nothing in this game. Pope's position is secure too.
The blame for us losing this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Surrey boys - 96 runs in 8 innings and 10-324 between them.
Gus Atkinson has never received violence like this in his life
To be fair, he did OK and just about deserves his place on the plane to the Ashes. The other three were absolute tosh - 68 runs in 6 innings and 2-164. Fully expect them to be replaced. By Rory Burns, Tom Curran and Laurie Evans to keep wicket.
Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.
It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat.
Why ? Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt ?
Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.
But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there.
Bonkers rules.
Nothing bonkers about the rules.
Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.
Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
The blame for us losing this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Surrey boys - 96 runs in 8 innings and 10-324 between them.
Gus Atkinson has never received violence like this in his life
To be fair, he did OK and just about deserves his place on the plane to the Ashes. The other three were absolute tosh - 68 runs in 6 innings and 2-164. Fully expect them to be replaced. By Rory Burns, Tom Curran and Laurie Evans to keep wicket.
Can this please be the last we see of Jamie Overton in red ball cricket? Matty Potts or Sam Cook would have done more damage with the ball and Potts isn't too shabby with the bat either.
Annoyed with Bethell,we needed 57 after tea,we got 13 in two overs and could have just played around and got the rest.why take a stupid swipe like that,no need,just keep in.
same applies to Brook when England were cruising towards a win, a great batsman but all too often it seems his ego overrides his duty to the team
Players getting out when the conditions are moving against them is always frustrating. But that's not the reason we lost the Test. For that, you shouldn't have to look further than the six dropped catches and the 22 wides. For that to happen in a match that was a hit away from being tied is unforgivable.
We lost it in the field, not while we were batting.
Agree, plus we refuse to play steady when the winning post was in sight. India dropped the catches in the first test and that cost them the match.
The series was all about how fit players were from both sides. It a long shot that Archer and Stokes can ever stay fit for a series and that came to fruition and the thought of both of them bowling with Atkinson would've seen at least a 2-1 win.
India were missing many of their stars through recent retirements or fitness issues: Pants and Bumrah showed what they could do in their limited game time and retirements of Kohli, Rohit Sharma and the spin nemesis Ashwin.
It feels we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory but we win because of Jeopardy risks and we will lose some, when we won't go down a gear.
Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.
It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat.
Why ? Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt ?
Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.
But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there.
Bonkers rules.
Nothing bonkers about the rules.
Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.
Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
That raises an interesting theoretical question, @bobmunro. If another fielder stands behind the stumps (maybe the keeper with pads and gloves fields at short leg) and the non-keeper whips off the bails, is it still considered stumped? #justcurious
Annoyed with Bethell,we needed 57 after tea,we got 13 in two overs and could have just played around and got the rest.why take a stupid swipe like that,no need,just keep in.
same applies to Brook when England were cruising towards a win, a great batsman but all too often it seems his ego overrides his duty to the team
I totally agree. Difficult to criticise a batsman going so well. But his ego got in the way. I also think we would have won if Woakes had stayed fit. But India deserved to draw the series.
Bollocks, drew the series almost certainly due to Woakes dislocating his shoulder.
Pant gets injured & his sub fielder takes his place behind the stumps.
So why didnt we have a sub fielder for Woakes who could bowl ? And if someone says the rules say you cant then why could Pant's sub fielder keep wicket ?
Our sub fielder for Woakes was Dawson. Could Dawson have bowled ? Did we have a fast /swing/seam bowler who could have been a substitute ?
Genuine questions as I've got no clue.
It's quite simple. The Laws says that you can sub a fielder and that person can be a specialist keeper but they don't allow a sub fielder to bowl or bat.
Why ? Is a wicketkeeper such a specialist position but a fast bowler isnt ?
Alec Stewart kept wicket to a quiet decent standard but was a top order batsman. Foakes & Smith keep wicket but can bat well too. So they aren't "specialists" in si far as they can't do anything else.
But you are saying they can be replaced but if Jimmy Anderson (the highest non spinner wicket taker) got injured then you couldn't replace him. His batting was a proper no 11 do you aren't losing out there.
Bonkers rules.
Nothing bonkers about the rules.
Batsmen score runs, bowlers take wickets - that's pretty much the game of cricket in a nutshell (it isn't but will do for illustration) and only the named starting 11 can do either of those things.
Wicket Keeper is a specialist fielding position, but so for example is a slip fielder. Any of the fielding side can do everything a keeper can do, apart from wear gloves and pads. Ok, stumping is always the keeper and is one of the 10 specific ways to get out, but that's only because he is always the nearest fielder to the stumps and a stumping is in reality another form of run out.
That raises an interesting theoretical question, @bobmunro. If another fielder stands behind the stumps (maybe the keeper with pads and gloves fields at short leg) and the non-keeper whips off the bails, is it still considered stumped? #justcurious
Only the fielder immediately behind the stumps can wear gloves and pads.
Comments
Crawley,
Duckett
Pope,
Cox,
Root,
Brook,
Stokes,
Smith,
Atkinson,
Carse,
Dawson,
Archer,
Wood,
Bethell or AN Other
Bashir,
Tongue
Agree, plus we refuse to play steady when the winning post was in sight.
India dropped the catches in the first test and that cost them the match.
The series was all about how fit players were from both sides.
It a long shot that Archer and Stokes can ever stay fit for a series and that came to fruition and the thought of both of them bowling with Atkinson would've seen at least a 2-1 win.
India were missing many of their stars through recent retirements or fitness issues: Pants and Bumrah showed what they could do in their limited game time and retirements of Kohli, Rohit Sharma and the spin nemesis Ashwin.
It feels we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory but we win because of Jeopardy risks and we will lose some, when we won't go down a gear.
Test cricket lives on.
Only the fielder immediately behind the stumps can wear gloves and pads.