England test wins since 2010 Melbourne [which was only spoiled by them
making asses of themselves doing that ridiculous dance off]. Many records
in this test too numerous to mention by me but apparently the most runs
ever scored in a test, and I suspect at the highest run rate?

Entertainment value 10/10.

But the Doc is out of the tour, and surely England need another bowler for
Multan, or do they just sub in Foakes if hes well again to take the gloves?
Pope did well across 245 overs despite a few drops, but I always prefer
a specialist keeper. Do they continue with Jacks or bring in Wood or
Overton if theyr fit?

mike

borrowed from reddit;

- The series going ahead at all given recent history.
- The whole England side being ill one day before.
- 500+ runs on day one, in 75 overs.
- 4 Centuries on day one.
- Every England player scoring a boundary in the first innings.
- Seven centuries in the first innings.
- A part time spinner taking six wickets on debut.
- Pope scoring 123 runs at 3 and having to keep wicket last minute.
- Brook scoring 240 (181) in his second test.
- Root scoring 9 off an over where he batted left-handed?!
- One of the bravest declarations by an away side in living memory.
- Seamers taking 9 wickets on day four and five in Asia.
- Pakistan going from 259-6 in the 80th over to 268-10 in the 96th over.
- 40yo Anderson taking his first ever wicket in Pakistan, then 4 more in the next innings.
- 5 wickets in the match for Robinson despite recovering from serious injuries.
- Stokes banging in 20 overs with whatever is left of his knees at this point.
- Leach at the death with the last wicket mere moments before bad light.
- The fact that there was any result at all on this road of a pitch.
- 1768 runs in the match!

On Monday, 5 December 2022 at 21:40:46 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:

- RH hated it.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 14:57:27 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 5 December 2022 at 21:40:46 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>- RH hated it.

I reckon RH is actually a Squidward derivative dreamed up by
Merriweather Williams that has escaped into reality but is unable to
hide the fact that it is a cartoon character. Not unlike the
Frankiendoodle episode, a simple 2 dimensional being trapped in a 3
dimensional world.

max.it

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 5:31:04 PM UTC, mike wrote:
> England test wins since 2010 Melbourne [which was only spoiled by them
> making asses of themselves doing that ridiculous dance off]. Many records
> in this test too numerous to mention by me but apparently the most runs
> ever scored in a test, and I suspect at the highest run rate?
>
> Entertainment value 10/10.
>
> But the Doc is out of the tour, and surely England need another bowler for
> Multan, or do they just sub in Foakes if hes well again to take the gloves?
> Pope did well across 245 overs despite a few drops, but I always prefer
> a specialist keeper. Do they continue with Jacks or bring in Wood or
> Overton if theyr fit?
>
> mike

There is a space to be filled because Livingstone is out of the tour... RH

On Monday, 5 December 2022 at 17:31:04 UTC, mike wrote:
> England test wins since 2010 Melbourne [which was only spoiled by them
> making asses of themselves doing that ridiculous dance off]. Many records
> in this test too numerous to mention by me but apparently the most runs
> ever scored in a test,

.... that wasn't "timeless". There were more runs in the two longest Tests (Durban 1938/39 and Bridgetown 1929/30).

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=runs;template=results;type=aggregate;view=match

> and I suspect at the highest run rate?

4th-highest (would have been 3rd if one more run had been scored)

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=runs_per_over;template=results;type=aggregate;view=match

On Monday, 5 December 2022 at 21:40:46 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> borrowed from reddit;
>
> - Every England player scoring a boundary in the first innings.

Strangely, neither Cricinfo nor CricketArchive credits Leach with a boundary. His came from overthrows, but I've never heard of that not counting as a boundary to the batsman before. He was credited with the 4 runs.

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 9:40:46 PM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> borrowed from reddit;
>
> - The series going ahead at all given recent history.
> - The whole England side being ill one day before.
> - 500+ runs on day one, in 75 overs.
> - 4 Centuries on day one.
> - Every England player scoring a boundary in the first innings.
> - Seven centuries in the first innings.
> - A part time spinner taking six wickets on debut.
> - Pope scoring 123 runs at 3 and having to keep wicket last minute.
> - Brook scoring 240 (181) in his second test.
> - Root scoring 9 off an over where he batted left-handed?!

i think mcculllum said he hoped he'd do it again. but he was dropped
that over. I think hes just fine batting right handed.

> - One of the bravest declarations by an away side in living memory.

Collingwood after the 4th day stressed that this side doesnt do 'normal',
or aim to play in the 'conventional' way. Thats fine for now, but it can be
taken too far just to be different like, rather than stick to what yor good
at. Jimmy bowling bouncers for 2 overs might be unusual but if its
every ball its not really much of a surprise after the 4th one.

> - Seamers taking 9 wickets on day four and five in Asia.
> - Pakistan going from 259-6 in the 80th over to 268-10 in the 96th over.
> - 40yo Anderson taking his first ever wicket in Pakistan, then 4 more in the next innings.
> - 5 wickets in the match for Robinson despite recovering from serious injuries.
> - Stokes banging in 20 overs with whatever is left of his knees at this point.

yes i forgot to say on the 4th evening when i expressed my doubts about
the declaration [as did the most of the comms] , i wonder what the bowlers
said when stokes told them he was gonna declare at tea. Cos theyd just
finished bowling pak out in 155 overs and had only a few hours off b4
they had to do it again! Stokes did say there were some broken
bowlers in the dressing room afterwards.

> - Leach at the death with the last wicket mere moments before bad light.

and just after pope and root had both left a straightforward chance!

> - The fact that there was any result at all on this road of a pitch.

I know some are still saying they just got lucky after tea when they
got the ball to reverse swing in the gloom, but they had to get the match
into that position where a win on this pitch was possible.

mike

On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 08:52:07 -0800 (PST), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Jimmy bowling bouncers for 2 overs might be unusual but if its
>every ball its not really much of a surprise after the 4th one.
....
>
>I know some are still saying they just got lucky after tea when they
>got the ball to reverse swing in the gloom, but they had to get the match
>into that position where a win on this pitch was possible.

Which was the point of the short barrage early on. They knew they were
going to need reverse swing and that the new ball would do very
little, so they set about getting the ball in poor condition from the
get-go.

Key, McCullum and Stokes have apparently agreed that failure is a
perfectly acceptable option as long as it's in the pursuit of a
difficult success. This is basically the complete opposite of the
traditional approach, in which insuring against losing is the
priority. Every time Stokes gets out playing a ludicrously extravagant
shot, he's underlining that nobody gets dropped for sticking with the
plan and failing. No wonder the village idiot is perplexed and
considers it an offence against nature.

For the rest of the world, though, it makes for an intriguing
prospect. We're going to have to get used to the England team doing
apparently mad things - obviously they themselves will be hoping that
they come off more often than not.

The village idiot and his traditionalist friends spend their entire
time telling us that this heretical form of Test cricket will
inevitably fail. Given the unbelievable record of success so far,
they're having conniptions because they cannot explain how modern
cricketers can achieve things which 1950s crickerers could only dream
about.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 5:53:28 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 08:52:07 -0800 (PST), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >Jimmy bowling bouncers for 2 overs might be unusual but if its
> >every ball its not really much of a surprise after the 4th one.
> ...
> >
> >I know some are still saying they just got lucky after tea when they
> >got the ball to reverse swing in the gloom, but they had to get the match
> >into that position where a win on this pitch was possible.
> Which was the point of the short barrage early on. They knew they were
> going to need reverse swing and that the new ball would do very
> little, so they set about getting the ball in poor condition from the
> get-go.

i think they got the ball changed cos it wasnt doing much. the 'new'
ball still didnt do much until after tea.

>
> Key, McCullum and Stokes have apparently agreed that failure is a
> perfectly acceptable option as long as it's in the pursuit of a
> difficult success. This is basically the complete opposite of the
> traditional approach, in which insuring against losing is the
> priority.

yes this is the big departure. it takes some getting used to, and
i can understand why many comms, ex players and writers, like
Marks whos all 3, find it rather vexing.

no doubt if rizwan and agha had knocked off the winning runs after
tea, the critics would have descended, how could they lose after making 657,
and throw away a test unnecessarily by a rash declaration, i'm sure
many including myself would have been saying.

One of the main things they have been talking about is banishing
the fear of failure, easy to say, not so easy to do. I think many of us
who follow the england team are still obsessed by this and therefore find
the new approach risky. But they had 1 win in 17 tests and 11 defeats
previously, its clear a different approach was needed. But no one
expected it would lead to such immediate and dramatic success on
the field with basically the same players. In fact theyve been missing
vital players on and off since the new regime took hold.

>Every time Stokes gets out playing a ludicrously extravagant
> shot, he's underlining that nobody gets dropped for sticking with the
> plan and failing. No wonder the village idiot is perplexed and
> considers it an offence against nature.
>
> For the rest of the world, though, it makes for an intriguing
> prospect. We're going to have to get used to the England team doing
> apparently mad things - obviously they themselves will be hoping that
> they come off more often than not.

as you say its gonna be interesting.

mike

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 11:48:15 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > - Every England player scoring a boundary in the first innings.
> Strangely, neither Cricinfo nor CricketArchive credits Leach with a boundary. His came from overthrows, but I've never heard of that not counting as a boundary to the batsman before. He was credited with the 4 runs.

All run 4s have *never* been counted a boundaries though. Right? Right?

On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 15:50:31 -0800 (PST), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>One of the main things they have been talking about is banishing
>the fear of failure, easy to say, not so easy to do. I think many of us
>who follow the england team are still obsessed by this and therefore find
>the new approach risky.

It is risky. And? As Stokes and increasingly the whole team would say.
You've got to speculate to accumulate, as the saying goes.

>But they had 1 win in 17 tests and 11 defeats
>previously, its clear a different approach was needed. But no one
>expected it would lead to such immediate and dramatic success on
>the field with basically the same players. In fact theyve been missing
>vital players on and off since the new regime took hold.

When Jimmy Anderson tells Stokes that this was the greatest win of his
career, and Root makes similar noises, the most important constituency
in this has clearly been won. We may talk as fans about stunning
victories, but when the players themselves are stunned by them, it's
life-changing. This lot will now believe they can do anything, and
will certainly be willing to try. Perversely, the absence of senior
players was probably an advantage - relative newbies would have had
less built-in resistance to playing Test cricket in an unprecedented
way. The newest recruits know no other way now, and they've started
their careers winning so are unlikely to want to deviate.

And what will reinforce it even further is that they all so obviously
enjoy what they're doing. What will especially disgust the village
idiot is that this lot now think that Test cricket is *fun*. Most of
them haven't enjoyed playing cricket this much since they were 10 and
got daddy out in the back garden.

This experiment could have been a howling disaster. They could have
ended up losing most of the games they've won and we'd all be sitting
here agreeing with the village idiot that it was utterly stupid. It
was a hell of a gamble.

The awkward fact for the traditionalists is that it paid off. It
wasn't a howling disaster but the most successful short period of Test
cricket in quite some time. They didn't lose all those games. And
there's no going back now, whether the fans and press like it or not.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 12:52:32 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> And
> there's no going back now, whether the fans and press like it or not.

I hope you're right. But let's see what happens next Ashes.

On 07/12/2022 00:09, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 11:48:15 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> - Every England player scoring a boundary in the first innings.
>> Strangely, neither Cricinfo nor CricketArchive credits Leach with a boundary. His came from overthrows, but I've never heard of that not counting as a boundary to the batsman before. He was credited with the 4 runs.
>
> All run 4s have *never* been counted a boundaries though. Right? Right?

Correct (or if they have, they shouldn't have been).

--
David North