Topic: Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod] - page 894. (Read 168548 times)
^^^ Bangladesh is a weak team (especially when they are playing without Shakib al Hassan), so I don't want to make my predictions based on what happened at Eden Gardens. England is a much more experienced side, and many of the players do have experience in playing with the pink ball. The Indian batsmen also struggled during that test, with the openers (Mayank Agarwal and Rohit Sharma) unable to make decent scores. It was Virat Kohli who came to the rescue in the end. Also, the Bangladeshi pace attack was led by Ebadot Hossain and Al-Amin Hossain, who doesn't have much test experience.
In case of 2-2, Australia would get direct entry to the Finals against the Kiwis. Tricky situation for team India, they need 1 win and 1 draw to qualify. England chances are slim, to qualify they need to win last 2 match which seems tough task to ask.
Winning the next two matches for England is a difficult task and now the chances of India qualifying and playing New Zealand is highly likely but if England could pull out a victory in the next two matches then it would be great, the day night Test might be a puzzle as it is difficult to understand how the pitches perform at night in Asian situation as i do not remember any day night match in Asia.Pitch for 3rd test, Motera Stadium (report - 19 Feb). looks pretty solid for seamers but few more days to go so let's see.
https://twitter.com/murgersb/status/1362691230023434246
Indian team are well versed to indian pitches so I do not think pitche will be an issue for them but it might be for England. This is a D/N match so it will be different and both the teams have a chance to win it.
Indian team may be well adjusted to the ground conditions, but how many times they have played a D/T test in the sub-continent? If I am not wrong, England team is more accustomed to playing D/N matches (international or domestic). BTW, why are are not looking at the possibility of rain interruption? If rain washes out the remaining two matches, then it will be possible for Australia to qualify for the WTC finals.
In case of 2-2, Australia would get direct entry to the Finals against the Kiwis. Tricky situation for team India, they need 1 win and 1 draw to qualify. England chances are slim, to qualify they need to win last 2 match which seems tough task to ask.
Winning the next two matches for England is a difficult task and now the chances of India qualifying and playing New Zealand is highly likely but if England could pull out a victory in the next two matches then it would be great, the day night Test might be a puzzle as it is difficult to understand how the pitches perform at night in Asian situation as i do not remember any day night match in Asia.In case of 2-2, Australia would get direct entry to the Finals against the Kiwis. Tricky situation for team India, they need 1 win and 1 draw to qualify. England chances are slim, to qualify they need to win last 2 match which seems tough task to ask.
Winning the next two matches for England is a difficult task and now the chances of India qualifying and playing New Zealand is highly likely but if England could pull out a victory in the next two matches then it would be great, the day night Test might be a puzzle as it is difficult to understand how the pitches perform at night in Asian situation as i do not remember any day night match in Asia. The day/night test match will start on 24th between India and England. After their humiliating performance in the second test, this is the best opportunity for England to again take the lead. The pink ball may give slight advantage to their seamers. BTW, who will qualify for the World Test Championship final, in case the series ends in a 2-2 draw?
In case of 2-2, Australia would get direct entry to the Finals against the Kiwis. Tricky situation for team India, they need 1 win and 1 draw to qualify. England chances are slim, to qualify they need to win last 2 match which seems tough task to ask.This is new scenario for all 3 teams (Eng/Aus/Ind)
The day/night test match will start on 24th between India and England. After their humiliating performance in the second test, this is the best opportunity for England to again take the lead. The pink ball may give slight advantage to their seamers. BTW, who will qualify for the World Test Championship final, in case the series ends in a 2-2 draw?
CA did the right thing to cancel the tour, there are more strains of the virus and CA have the rights to decide whether to send the players and more over the players will opt to avoid the bubble and the situation. The financial loss for CSA is their concern and they might be looking for some kind of compensation.
Back in 2020, most of the international tours were cancelled as a result of the pandemic and there was no complaints from any of the cricket boards. And I don't know why the CSA is upset so much. It is not like the CA didn't provided them any of the alternate options. They were ready to play the matches at neutral venue and CA also gave an option to play the matches in South Africa at a later date. It was the CSA which rejected all the options put forward by the CA and remained stubborn in its insistence on playing the matches in South Africa without any delay.
I was waiting for the next 2nd test match which is held between Pakistan and Newzeland and I hope this time Pakistani team show some potential and give their 100%. Our team highly disappoint us on their last test match all the team goes back to the pavilion without contributing the score. New Zealand is now leading the series with 1-0 and in order to draw the series Pakistani should have to do something and give the big target otherwise they'll lose this series too as they lost the T20
When is the Pakistan and New Zealand series, i checked at their schedule and could not find anything and PSL is starting this week so what is the schedule. What i know is that New Zealand is scheduled to face Australia next week.The South African strain of the Coronavirus is a big concern all over the world and I believe that CA did the right thing by requesting to move the series to either Australia, or to a neutral venue. It is the CSA which remained adamant about this.
CA did the right thing to cancel the tour, there are more strains of the virus and CA have the rights to decide whether to send the players and more over the players will opt to avoid the bubble and the situation. The financial loss for CSA is their concern and they might be looking for some kind of compensation.
The spat between CSA and CA is getting really ugly.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sa-vs-aus-tour-postponed-csa-lodges-official-complaint-against-cricket-australia-with-icc-1252099
I never had a good opinion about CSA for the last two decades and my opinion hasn't changed till now. They remain one of the most incompetent cricket boards out there. In two decades time, they managed to destroy a team, which once ranked as the no.1 side. The South African strain of the Coronavirus is a big concern all over the world and I believe that CA did the right thing by requesting to move the series to either Australia, or to a neutral venue. It is the CSA which remained adamant about this.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sa-vs-aus-tour-postponed-csa-lodges-official-complaint-against-cricket-australia-with-icc-1252099
I never had a good opinion about CSA for the last two decades and my opinion hasn't changed till now. They remain one of the most incompetent cricket boards out there. In two decades time, they managed to destroy a team, which once ranked as the no.1 side. The South African strain of the Coronavirus is a big concern all over the world and I believe that CA did the right thing by requesting to move the series to either Australia, or to a neutral venue. It is the CSA which remained adamant about this.
Not saying that they are equally talent.
I'm saying that as we grow old we tend to get defensive to certain aspect of our life/things which we grow up with, its not 70s 80s or 2000s anymore. Modern cricket is changed for good or bad dramatically, we can't do much about except embrace and enjoy the change.
How could we expect same from the modern bowlers (Pace or spin) when there is restrictions on fielding, Ball, Bouncers etc? Not fair IMO
I'm saying that as we grow old we tend to get defensive to certain aspect of our life/things which we grow up with, its not 70s 80s or 2000s anymore. Modern cricket is changed for good or bad dramatically, we can't do much about except embrace and enjoy the change.
How could we expect same from the modern bowlers (Pace or spin) when there is restrictions on fielding, Ball, Bouncers etc? Not fair IMO
As far as I know, these restrictions impacted pace bowlers 95% of the times. Spinners were not much affected. Obviously spinners are not going to bowl any bouncers.. Look at the T20 leagues. The spin bowlers are in great demand, while the pace bowlers (Steyn, Starc, Anderson.etc) are not getting good offers. The ICC could have made it neutral, but they specifically targeted the pace bowlers. On top of that, with every passing year we have less number of tracks which support quality fast bowling.
I think you didn't get to watch last India tour of SA and ENG? Pacers dominated the series by miles when compared to Batsmen and spinners in all 8 tests ( 3 SA + 5 ENG) and then you also missed the Eng vs Ire, average score was 150ish if i'm not wrong.
Here are the some comments on first page of this thread.
LOL England 52/7 and against a team like Ireland.
Lol was about to send comment and he's gone 
67/9 
What next after this? Ireland bowled out with in 30 overs too?
67/9 What next after this? Ireland bowled out with in 30 overs too?
Not saying that they are equally talent.
I'm saying that as we grow old we tend to get defensive to certain aspect of our life/things which we grow up with, its not 70s 80s or 2000s anymore. Modern cricket is changed for good or bad dramatically, we can't do much about except embrace and enjoy the change.
How could we expect same from the modern bowlers (Pace or spin) when there is restrictions on fielding, Ball, Bouncers etc? Not fair IMO
I'm saying that as we grow old we tend to get defensive to certain aspect of our life/things which we grow up with, its not 70s 80s or 2000s anymore. Modern cricket is changed for good or bad dramatically, we can't do much about except embrace and enjoy the change.
How could we expect same from the modern bowlers (Pace or spin) when there is restrictions on fielding, Ball, Bouncers etc? Not fair IMO
As far as I know, these restrictions impacted pace bowlers 95% of the times. Spinners were not much affected. Obviously spinners are not going to bowl any bouncers.. Look at the T20 leagues. The spin bowlers are in great demand, while the pace bowlers (Steyn, Starc, Anderson.etc) are not getting good offers. The ICC could have made it neutral, but they specifically targeted the pace bowlers. On top of that, with every passing year we have less number of tracks which support quality fast bowling.
You're changing goal post now.
Anyway, before cricketer used to play max 100ish day of cricket every year but nowadays workload doubled for everyone and i think this believe comes through our bias. Every generation thinks that their timeline was golden period, if we ask same question to younger people in their early 20s or newly adults, they would say Bumrah, Cummins, Archer, Rabada are flag bearers of pace in the modern cricket and old guy like Anderson still kicking in.
Anyway, before cricketer used to play max 100ish day of cricket every year but nowadays workload doubled for everyone and i think this believe comes through our bias. Every generation thinks that their timeline was golden period, if we ask same question to younger people in their early 20s or newly adults, they would say Bumrah, Cummins, Archer, Rabada are flag bearers of pace in the modern cricket and old guy like Anderson still kicking in.
I have watched Glenn McGrath, Alan Donald and Curtly Ambrose bowl when I was a kid. And now I am watching Archer, Cummins and Bumrah. For me, the former bunch was much more skilled than the latter. They were exciting to watch and none of the current bowlers could deliver the balls the same way as they did back then. So I am going to disagree if you say that these two groups are equally talented.
I'm saying that as we grow old we tend to get defensive to certain aspect of our life/things which we grow up with, its not 70s 80s or 2000s anymore. Modern cricket is changed for good or bad dramatically, we can't do much about except embrace and enjoy the change.
How could we expect same from the modern bowlers (Pace or spin) when there is restrictions on fielding, Ball, Bouncers etc? Not fair IMO
I was waiting for the next 2nd test match which is held between Pakistan and Newzeland and I hope this time Pakistani team show some potential and give their 100%. Our team highly disappoint us on their last test match all the team goes back to the pavilion without contributing the score. New Zealand is now leading the series with 1-0 and in order to draw the series Pakistani should have to do something and give the big target otherwise they'll lose this series too as they lost the T20
You're changing goal post now.
Anyway, before cricketer used to play max 100ish day of cricket every year but nowadays workload doubled for everyone and i think this believe comes through our bias. Every generation thinks that their timeline was golden period, if we ask same question to younger people in their early 20s or newly adults, they would say Bumrah, Cummins, Archer, Rabada are flag bearers of pace in the modern cricket and old guy like Anderson still kicking in.
Anyway, before cricketer used to play max 100ish day of cricket every year but nowadays workload doubled for everyone and i think this believe comes through our bias. Every generation thinks that their timeline was golden period, if we ask same question to younger people in their early 20s or newly adults, they would say Bumrah, Cummins, Archer, Rabada are flag bearers of pace in the modern cricket and old guy like Anderson still kicking in.
I have watched Glenn McGrath, Alan Donald and Curtly Ambrose bowl when I was a kid. And now I am watching Archer, Cummins and Bumrah. For me, the former bunch was much more skilled than the latter. They were exciting to watch and none of the current bowlers could deliver the balls the same way as they did back then. So I am going to disagree if you say that these two groups are equally talented.
I have a different opinion on this. Even the pitches in SENA countries are no longer supportive of pace bowling as it used to be. WACA and Kingsmead used to be fast bowler's paradise and if a team managed to make more than 200 runs in an innings there, it used to be regarded as exceptional performance. But times have changed and pitches that once supported pace bowlers have become flatter. Perhaps that is the reason why we no longer have legendary pacers of the calibre of Alan Donald, Glen McGrath, Curtly Ambrose, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis.
It would be good if you ask this question to Sri Lanka or Pakistan (how they won and lost). I don't have an issue with teams preparing surfaces that suit them. My issue is that the role of tear-away pacers are getting reduced with every passing year. In the past, we had a great number of good fast bowlers. But due to the priority being given to shorter formats such as T20, and to an extent the teams preparing flat surfaces, we are no longer getting to watch such bowlers. Is it even possible to name one current pace bowler, who can match legends such as McGrath, Steyn, Donald.etc?
I think we won't get that kind of bowlers again. That type of bowling is actually dead. There are multiple reasons for this. One is obviously flat surfaces as you have mentioned. The second very strange reason is fitness. I have not seen any pace bowler these days who has been able to remain injury free for a long time and this is a department where lot of players have faced trouble despite of the fact that players these days take extra caution about their health. But we have to change ourselves and settle down with the fact that pace bowling has changed now and it's more about making each and every ball count these days as you have limited overs to ball. I think we should take this positively instead of merely cribbing about this fact.
Have to agree. We have seen how Steyn's career got destroyed by injury issues after such a promising start. And he was a big failure in the T20 format, despite his impressive statistics in the test matches. Nowadays, the pace bowlers have very short run-up (like Jasprit Bumrah) and they don't try to take wicket off every ball they bowl. It is another question whether we should take this positively or not.
I have a different opinion on this. Even the pitches in SENA countries are no longer supportive of pace bowling as it used to be. WACA and Kingsmead used to be fast bowler's paradise and if a team managed to make more than 200 runs in an innings there, it used to be regarded as exceptional performance. But times have changed and pitches that once supported pace bowlers have become flatter. Perhaps that is the reason why we no longer have legendary pacers of the calibre of Alan Donald, Glen McGrath, Curtly Ambrose, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis.
It would be good if you ask this question to Sri Lanka or Pakistan (how they won and lost). I don't have an issue with teams preparing surfaces that suit them. My issue is that the role of tear-away pacers are getting reduced with every passing year. In the past, we had a great number of good fast bowlers. But due to the priority being given to shorter formats such as T20, and to an extent the teams preparing flat surfaces, we are no longer getting to watch such bowlers. Is it even possible to name one current pace bowler, who can match legends such as McGrath, Steyn, Donald.etc?
Anyway, before cricketer used to play max 100ish day of cricket every year but nowadays workload doubled for everyone and i think this believe comes through our bias. Every generation thinks that their timeline was golden period, if we ask same question to younger people in their early 20s or newly adults, they would say Bumrah, Cummins, Archer, Rabada are flag bearers of pace in the modern cricket and old guy like Anderson still kicking in.
I think we won't get that kind of bowlers again. That type of bowling is actually dead. There are multiple reasons for this. One is obviously flat surfaces as you have mentioned. The second very strange reason is fitness. I have not seen any pace bowler these days who has been able to remain injury free for a long time and this is a department where lot of players have faced trouble despite of the fact that players these days take extra caution about their health. But we have to change ourselves and settle down with the fact that pace bowling has changed now and it's more about making each and every ball count these days as you have limited overs to ball. I think we should take this positively instead of merely cribbing about this fact.
Have to agree. We have seen how Steyn's career got destroyed by injury issues after such a promising start. And he was a big failure in the T20 format, despite his impressive statistics in the test matches. Nowadays, the pace bowlers have very short run-up (like Jasprit Bumrah) and they don't try to take wicket off every ball they bowl. It is another question whether we should take this positively or not.
I have a different opinion on this. Even the pitches in SENA countries are no longer supportive of pace bowling as it used to be. WACA and Kingsmead used to be fast bowler's paradise and if a team managed to make more than 200 runs in an innings there, it used to be regarded as exceptional performance. But times have changed and pitches that once supported pace bowlers have become flatter. Perhaps that is the reason why we no longer have legendary pacers of the calibre of Alan Donald, Glen McGrath, Curtly Ambrose, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis.
It would be good if you ask this question to Sri Lanka or Pakistan (how they won and lost). I don't have an issue with teams preparing surfaces that suit them. My issue is that the role of tear-away pacers are getting reduced with every passing year. In the past, we had a great number of good fast bowlers. But due to the priority being given to shorter formats such as T20, and to an extent the teams preparing flat surfaces, we are no longer getting to watch such bowlers. Is it even possible to name one current pace bowler, who can match legends such as McGrath, Steyn, Donald.etc?
I have a different opinion on this. Even the pitches in SENA countries are no longer supportive of pace bowling as it used to be. WACA and Kingsmead used to be fast bowler's paradise and if a team managed to make more than 200 runs in an innings there, it used to be regarded as exceptional performance. But times have changed and pitches that once supported pace bowlers have become flatter. Perhaps that is the reason why we no longer have legendary pacers of the calibre of Alan Donald, Glen McGrath, Curtly Ambrose, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis.
It would be good if you ask this question to Sri Lanka or Pakistan (how they won and lost). I don't have an issue with teams preparing surfaces that suit them. My issue is that the role of tear-away pacers are getting reduced with every passing year. In the past, we had a great number of good fast bowlers. But due to the priority being given to shorter formats such as T20, and to an extent the teams preparing flat surfaces, we are no longer getting to watch such bowlers. Is it even possible to name one current pace bowler, who can match legends such as McGrath, Steyn, Donald.etc?
Jump to: