India dominate day one as Yashavi Jaiswal and Shubman Gill hit centuries
England gifted India the initiative on day one of the Rothesay Test series at Headingley, where Yashavi Jaiswal and Shubman Gill rose to the occasion with a pair of fine centuries.
Ben Stokes sent the tourists in after winning the toss, perhaps hoping to unsettle a batting lineup missing the star power of the recently retired Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma, but the gambit merely handed over first use of serene batting conditions.
Advertisement
Jaiswal led from the front with 101 on his first appearance on English soil, while Gill finished unbeaten on 127 in his maiden knock as Test captain. Kohli and Sharma's golden legacies are sure to linger, but India's future already looks in safe hands.
Yashasvi Jaiswal celebrates his century (Danny Lawson/PA)
By stumps England were staring at a score of 359 for three, weighed down by a long, draining day in sticky summer heat and a difficult road ahead.
Stokes was the pick of the bowlers with two for 43 but Chris Woakes, Brydon Carse and Josh Tongue struggled to impose themselves in unhelpful conditions.
The story was set in motion at 10.30am, Gill calling wrong at the toss and Stokes opting to field. There was a hint of swing from the new ball, shared by the returning Woakes and Carse on home debut, but it quickly became apparent that there were no terrors in the pitch.
Advertisement
KL Rahul (42) offered a calm head at the top of the order and Jaiswal, well known to England after helping himself to a monstrous series tally of 712 runs when the sides last met in India, shackled his more explosive instincts as he bedded in.
Carse hit him with a rib-tickler in the initial burst but when it came to clear chances, England were coming up empty-handed, squandering a review on Jaiswal when they sent Tongue's ambitious lbw appeal upstairs.
India were seven minutes away from a wicketless session when Rahul threw his hands at a wide one from Carse to feed Joe Root at slip.
That breakthrough brought the Yorkshire crowd alive and their celebrations had barely dipped when they enjoyed a second. Sai Sudharsan's first Test innings brought a four-ball duck, flicking Stokes down leg and into Jamie Smith's gloves just seconds after flirting with an identical dismissal.
Advertisement
If that double strike smoothed some of the rough edges from England's slow start, the afternoon's play exposed them again.
Ollie Pope missed the chance to run out out Gill for just one, sweetening the deal with four overthrows, and Harry Brook parried a low edge into the wicketkeeper's helmet to give up five penalty runs.
Jaiswal's first half-century occupied 96 balls and he glided through the gears to get his next 50 in just 48, despite several delays for cramp in his hand. Twice he took three boundaries in an over, first taking aim at the lethargic Woakes and later breezing through the nineties at Carse's expense.
Shoaib Bashir brought some control in his 21 overs but there was not enough spin on offer to turn that into real pressure.
Ben Stokes' brilliant dismissal of Yashasvi Jaiswal was a brief moment of respite for England (Danny Lawson/PA)
It took a burst of inspiration from Stokes to stop the rot, charging in from round the wicket and toppling Jaiswal's off stump having forced one past the outside edge.
Advertisement
By then Gill had progressed to 63 and had set his sights on a captain's century. He got there with his 14th boundary, a peach of a cover drive off Tongue. It was the sixth hundred of his career but his first outside Asia.
The unpredictable Rishabh Pant poured on further pain with 65 not out. Starting his innings by charging Stokes for four down the ground, he settled into an extended spell of defence before springing into life with some big hits in the closing stages.
Thumbing his nose at convention, Pant danced down again in the final over of the day to flog Woakes over deep square-leg for six.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mark Taylor calls for Marnus Labuschagne to make 15,000km move after Test axing
Aussie cricket great Mark Taylor hopes the axing of Marnus Labuschagne signals a more ruthless approach from selectors and believes the veteran batter should make the 15,000km trip back home from the Caribbean. Labuschagne paid the price for an alarming form slump over the last two years, with the 30-year-old dropped for this week's first Test against the West Indies, in Barbados. Teenage opener Sam Konstas returns to the starting XI after starring in the India series victory and will likely take Labuschagne's spot at opener. While Josh Inglis has also earned a Test recall at the expense of Steve Smith, who dislocated his finger in the WTC final loss to South Africa at Lord's. Labuchagne has remained with the squad in the Caribbean but Taylor believes it would be better for him to return home to Australia to have a 'refresh' and focus on returning for the Ashes series at the end of the year. "Come back, have a bit of time off from the game, just refresh. That wouldn't be a bad thing. Get ready for the Australian summer," the former Australia captain told Wide World of Sports. Taylor hopes Labuchagne's axing signals a 'tougher' approach from the Aussie selectors, who've had a long history of persisting with out-of-form veterans. The writing had been on the wall for Labuschagne for some time, with his last Test century coming in the 2023 Ashes series in England. Having previously been the world's No.1-ranked Test batter, Labuschagne has only averaged 27.82 in the past 12 months. And after struggling with the bat in Test series against India and Sri Lanka this year, as well as the WTC final, his average in 2025 has plummeted to just 16.16, leaving selectors with little option but to axe him. Considered among the best Test batters in the world, Marnus Labuschagne now finds himself out of the Australia did he slip so far down? @Aadya_Wisden examines.#WIvAUS #MarnusLabuschagne — Wisden (@WisdenCricket) June 22, 2025 At his best, Labuschagne has proven that he's a classy batter and an invaluable part of Australia's top order. And Taylor believes he has what it takes to go away and work on his technique, regain confidence and return to the Test side as a more formidable batter. "He's got time to come back, and I think he will come back, Marnus, and probably come back a better player," Taylor added. RELATED: Alyssa Healy reveals retirement backflip in huge call on future South Africa get last laugh as Aussie sledge backfires badly Pat Cummins' key confession after rival admits to 'dodgy' act For now though, teenage sensation Konstas gets the chance to cement his spot at opener after being dropped off the back of his incredible debut Test series against India. The 19-year-old is set to partner Usman Khawaja at the top of the order against the Windies, with Inglis perhaps favoured to take over at No.3 after Cameron Green's struggles there in the WTC final. Green looked troubled after returning scores of just 4 and 0 in his two innings at Lord's and would probably prefer to return to his favoured No.4 role in Smith's absence. While Inglis returns after his memorable century on debut in Sri Lanka this year. And the 30-year-old is happy to bat wherever suits, having performed in various roles for Western Australia and Australia's white-ball sides. "I think it's just because I have done it, I feel comfortable going into different positions," Inglis told reporters at Bridgetown's Kensington Oval. "I've batted at the top in white-ball cricket and in the middle, so I've become accustomed to moving around a fair bit and something I pride myself on. "I took a lot of confidence from (from Sri Lanka); my debut Test match, it was nice to go out there and get a hundred." Australia convincingly won both matches of the two-Test tour of the West Indies the last time they were there in 2015 and will be hoping to kick off the new WTC cycle in similar fashion. Aussie coach Andrew McDonald and captain Pat Cummins have described the Windies series as a "reset" for the Test side, and with eight members of the XI having never played a Test in the region, it has that feel. Bowlers Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon are the only current players who featured on that 2015 tour. with agencies
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Telford's Gelt Gladiator celebrates proper muddy weekend with tenth anniversary event
A MUCH loved Cumbrian obstacle course has celebrated its tenth year- as its organiser who has ran the event for the last decade prepares to pass the baton on to its next chapter. The Telford's Gelt Gladiator took place last weekend on Saturday, June 21 and Sunday, June 22 at the sites course in Gelt near Brampton. Mike James with wife Sarah on the course (Image: Supplied) This year the event celebrated a decade of the Gelt Gladiator, with 3,000 runners taking to the course for what was a weekend of 'typical British weather' - with 7,000 of Aqua Pura water handed out to race goers on a very hot Saturday, and an 'incredibly muddy' course on the Sunday. Eden Valley Hospice had 92 runners fundraising by taking part in the event, with James Rennie School also having a large number of runners taking part to raise funds for the school. Runners take on the course for Eden Valley Hospice (Image: Supplied) Organiser Mike James said: "Its an extraordinary experience, its remarkable how people enjoy getting wet and muddy at an event like that, it is challenging but also incredible fun. "Its aimed at all levels of ability and its amazing what people can do when they're with a team. "It gives you a great sense of self esteem and helps build confidence." It was the first time Mike had taken part in the event over the last 10 years, completing the course with his wife Sarah, daughter Sarah and son Harry, as he estimated that around 30,000 had conquered the Gelt Gladiator since it began a decade ago. Mike James takes on the course with his family (Image: Supplied) The Gelt Gladiator 2025 also marked another milestone with event organiser Mike James announcing it would be his last year doing the event, after deciding to pass the baton on to local business owners Gary Turner and Ross Pickthall who have now acquired the event. The pair have 'big plans' to invest in the course and take the Gelt Gladiator event further in 2026, with new obstacles and additions to the course. Mike has thanked all those who have taken part in the event over the last decade, as he looks forward to support Gary and Ross with their next chapter of the Gelt Gladiator.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Where does the word ‘soccer' come from?
The word 'soccer' remains at the heart of one of the most enduring, if comparatively low-key and petty fronts of the culture war. At its most basic level, it's a transatlantic disagreement over language, but there seems to be more to it than that. The most basic and probably most sensible point of view is that it's simply one country — America, though there are others — using a word to differentiate one extremely popular sport from a slightly less popular sport. Advertisement But use the word in the wrong context — which is to say, 'in England' — and you can expect paroxysms of disgust from people who seem to think it represents something much deeper. These people are, admittedly, those who are far too easily outraged (check their sent email files and there's a reasonable chance they have also complained to a TV station about a newsreader not wearing a tie), but it seems like these people think of this as somehow chipping away at the identity of the game, and even themselves. It's an Americanism, as everyone knows, and this is apparently something to be suspicious of. If you look on Etsy (surely the great battleground for any sporting culture war), you can find merchandise on either side: in one corner, a T-shirt with the slogan, 'It's football, not soccer', in the other a hoodie proclaiming, 'It's called soccer', complete with suitably patriotic Star-Spangled Banner. It's a curious thing. As Stefan Szymanski and Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in their book It's Football, Not Soccer (And Vice Versa), 'In general, transatlantic relations have remained peaceful when it comes to sweaters and jumpers, trucks and lorries, boots and trunks, or pants and trousers. Americans get to marvel at the quaintness of the English, the English get to take joy at the Americans' failure to master basic vocabulary. Everybody is happy. Except when it comes to soccer. Why does this word generate such vitriol?' The quick answer is that some people will get outraged about anything. Perhaps more interesting is to look into the story of how the word 'soccer' came into being, which is a bit more detailed than you might think. You probably already know the basics. These days, it is viewed as an Americanism (and also used in Australia, Canada and a few other countries whose own version of football dominates the collective consciousness) but the word soccer came from England at some point in the 1800s. Then, there were two types of football: rugby football and association football, and 'soccer' comes from a contraction of the latter, to differentiate it from the former. Advertisement But where did that contraction originate? It's hard to say exactly how the word came into being, but the most common origin tale comes, as with many things in England in the 1800s, from private schools. The story goes that a student and amateur footballer called Charles Wreford-Brown (who would go on to be a relatively senior figure at the Football Association) was having breakfast at Oriel College, part of Oxford University. The English have a habit of essentially giving nicknames to nouns by adding 'er' onto the end, or by contracting the word and then adding the 'er', with the colloquial word for a five-pound note ('fiver') acting as a good example. So, as Geoffrey Green, the great former football/soccer correspondent for the Times, the London-based newspaper, wrote in his book Soccer: The World Game: 'He was approached by a friend: 'Wreford, come and have a game of 'rugger' after 'brekker'?'. 'No, thank you, John. I'm going to play 'soccer'.' In that fleeting moment, a new word came into being. Little could Wreford-Brown, who was to grace the game for so long afterwards, have realised how the word would finally ring around the world.' It's not clear exactly when this was, but Wreford-Brown was born in 1866, so would have attended university at some point in the mid/late 1880s. Of course, much like many of these neat stories where something has a definitive beginning, there's every chance it's apocryphal: arguably, it's more likely that the word started being used in those circles at around that time, and that the Wreford-Brown story is just a neat peg to hook it on. Indeed, it seems to have been mentioned in print for the first time in 1885, in an edition of The Oldhallian, which was a periodical for Oxford alumni. An unsigned letter to the Oldhallian said: 'The Varsity played Aston Villa and were beaten after a very exciting game; this was pre-eminently the most important 'socker' game played in Oxford this term…' Advertisement It took a little longer to enter more mainstream discourse. The first mention of it in the Manchester Guardian newspaper (now the Guardian) came in 1905, while its first appearance in the Times came in 1907, presciently enough in a letter to the editor about hooliganism. Football gradually became the more prevalent word for the game in England as its popularity grew and became the sport of the working class, but soccer was still routinely used, most often by more highbrow newspaper columnists to differentiate it from rugby, until the 1980s. One of the most popular football entertainment shows in the country was called Soccer AM. Anyone who pretends that soccer is purely an Americanism and football always has been the term used in England is simply incorrect. But of course, despite this, the word soccer is the one that has always been used in America, right? 'Football' is the one with the oval-shaped ball and the helmets, and always has been. Well, sort of. The first mention of soccer in the pages of the New York Times came on October 22, 1905, in a report of a game involving a team known as the Pilgrims, who had come over from England to promote the game in America. 'English socker (sic) team won football match,' read the slightly confusing headline (above), followed by an account of the game at the Polo Grounds in New York that ended 7-1 to the English touring team, declaring it to be a 'clean, well-played contest, bristling with clever passing, intricate dribbling, capital dodging and exceptionally hard kicking'. Capital dodging! Exceptionally hard kicking! Sounds like a jolly old show. You have probably noticed the incorrect spelling in the headline — that may have been the work of some wisecracking members of that Pilgrims team, who told people present at the game that the term came from the thick woollen socks that the players wore. But New York Times reader Frances H Tabor picked up on the snafu, writing a letter to the paper that was published a few weeks later, upbraiding them for their mistaken use of the word. 'In the first place,' wrote Mr Tabor, 'there is no such word, and in the second place, it is an exceedingly ugly and undignified one.' Advertisement But the letter is instructive beyond the ramblings of a haughty pedant, because Mr Tabor (below) goes on to repeat the popular story about where the word came from, writing that it was 'a fad at Oxford and Cambridge to use 'er' at the end of many words, such as foot-er, sport-er and as association did not take an 'er' easily, it was, and is, sometimes spoken of as soccer'. This indicates that the Wreford-Brown origin story is relatively solid. The word seemed to be taking hold by the following year, particularly when English team Corinthians arrived in New York for a tour of exhibition games. And who should be with them, in the touring party as a player but listed as the referee in one fixture that they won 18-0, but our old friend Charles Wreford-Brown? Alas, history doesn't record how he reacted to the word he coined a few years earlier being used halfway around the world. The natural assumption would be that 'soccer' became the automatic term for the sport in America fairly quickly, but that isn't quite the case. The name of the sport's governing body was called, until the 1940s, the United States Football Association. And even when it was changed, 'football' remained. The Harrisburg Telegraph, a newspaper published in Pennsylvania, reported in July 1944 that: 'United States Soccer Football Association is the new name of the organisation having supervision of the booting game, and conducting annual amateur and professional tournaments throughout the country.' In fact, 'football' wasn't entirely dropped from the organisation's title until 1974, when it became the United States Soccer Federation, the name it is known as today. There doesn't seem to be any more complicated reason for this than a sort of institutional dithering — or, as Andrei Markovits and Steven Hellerman put it in their book Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism, it represented their struggles to 'find a distinct identity for soccer that was American, yet also apart from the behemoth of American football'. These days, the distinction is a little clearer. The word that Wreford-Brown (or at least some of his peers) coined is still used by those who love the game around the world, and irritates those of a slightly pedantic disposition. Surely, we can all just settle on that.
