backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Got to feel a bit sorry for Sunder. 96 not out, then left stranded as last three wickets fell in 4 balls.
Optimist !Shall we start a sweep? An innings and 67 runs for me.
? what have I woken up too?
So in conclusion the vast majority of the 900 odd test matches took more than 3 days. This series (with the exception of match 1 where India lost on a half decent deck) is a buck against the trend in that the results have come far quicker than recent history suggests.
So what is the reason for this?
I suggest that the main factor has been the pitches on which the games have been played.
I suggest the main reason is England's woeful batting.
Let’s get a Tour Autopsy list going
1) pitches
2) woeful England batting
4) poor selection - 3 seamers 3rd test3) Jonny Bairstow
4) poor selection - 3 seamers 3rd test
I’m still leaving Pitches at 1 because the deck on the first test was half decent and well over 1000 runs were scored but there were also 40 wickets taken. Fair contest between bat and ball.
Decks in the rest of the tests caused games to end in 3 days or less and each has yielded less than 1000 runs and wickets falling in clumps.
I am increasingly moving away from the pitch thing. Agree 2&3 had difficult pitches but equally would Eng not have a green top to favour our ABBA - Anderson, Broad, Ben stokes and Archer? Folks like Rohit, Fokes, Lawrence and Pant showed batting was possible if the opposition chooses seamers on a turning pitch. Root was about a day late in bringing himself on.
8) hot Indian conditions
I suggest the main reason is England's woeful batting.