All roads lead to Oval: Upbeat India aim to deliver succour punch in series finale
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Cricket Council
3 hours ago
- Int'l Cricket Council
Match in balance after bowlers stage India's fightback ICC World Test Championship
The see-saw battle in the England-India series continued as India ended Day 2 of The Oval Test with 52 runs ahead, after bowling out England for 247 in the first innings. Yashasvi Jaiswal (51*) and nightwatchman Akash Deep saw off England's attack after the hosts were succesful in grabbing two Indian wickets of KL Rahul and Sai Sudharsan before stumps even as they dropped Jaiswal when he was on 41. As many as 16 wickets fell on the second day of the decider as pacers dominated the proceedings leaving the Test perfectly poised for an exciting finish. With England openers Ben Duckett and Zak Crawley threatening to take the game away after India folded up early at the start, Mohammed Siraj and Prasidh Krishna staged India's comeback into the game, restricting England's lead to just 23 runs. Both Siraj and Krishna bowled better lines post lunch with Siraj breaking England's back as he picked four key wickets including that of the stand-in captain Ollie Pope (22), Joe Root (29), and Jacob Bethell during a fiery eight-over spell. Siraj's terrific comeback after a forgettable morning session, made him the highest wicket taker in the series after claiming Harry Brook (53) as his 18th scalp in the tournament. Siraj was ably supported by Krishna who started the proceedings after lunch by removing the sublime-looking Crawley (64), following up with the wickets of Jamie Smith, Jamie Overton and Gus Atkinson. Brook tried to hold one end with the tail and brought up his half-century in process before Siraj got better off him. England began Day 2 at The Oval with a player short and with extra responsibility falling on their pacers after Chris Woakes was ruled out of the final Test due to a shoulder injury. As India resumed at 204/6, the England bowlers led by Gus Atkinson made light work of the Indian tail after Josh Tongue trapped Karun Nair (57) plumb in front. The visitors lost their final four wickets for just six runs and collapsed within the first half an hour of day's play with Atkinson claiming his fourth five-wicket haul after he snapped the last three wickets. England continued to boss the first session as openers Ben Duckett and Zak Crawley got off to a flier, with a scoring rate of over seven runs per over notching up their 100 within 15 overs, losing Duckett (43) in the process. However the second session belonged to India as the pacers with four wickets each made sure India fought their way back into the game.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means, Benny
What transpired was particularly unpleasant. England's batters being brought on to bowl like an under-10s team to serve up anything but Test standard bowling. To this was added vituperative sledging, albeit hardly of the venomous kind. England's fielders ambled after balls struck through the cordon, running like puppets with broken strings. Only muted acknowledgment was given when each Indian batter brought up three figures. The match ended almost immediately after that. Fairly assessed, it was sooky and petulant conduct, driven by Stokes' incandescence at not getting his own way. This, to all intents and purposes, is of course the same England team that cried with poisonous fury after the Lord's Test of the 2023 Ashes series, once Jonny Bairstow was stumped by Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey having absent-mindedly meandered from his crease. You almost get the sense of a theme … By any sensible analysis of what is legislated for under the Laws of Cricket, Bairstow was fairly dismissed that day. Equally, Gill's decision to not agree to prematurely end the Test match at Old Trafford was entirely within the rules of the game. The England team's posturing and remonstrations were misguided, unedifying and wrong. In almost any other sport – golf is the true exception which comes to mind – you would readily cop Stokes' and his teammates' behaviour. In any football code, Stokes' conduct would be seen as positively de rigueur. Yet cricket is supposedly different. For not only is it governed by the laws of the game, but also the esoteric spirit of cricket, which ties the laws together with a veritable golden thread. What the Laws of Cricket say is that although the laws themselves have governed the playing of the game for nearly three centuries, cricket owes much of its particular appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should also be played within the right 'spirit'. But if indeed it exists, what constitutes cricket's spirit is hard to identify. The preamble to the Laws of Cricket are directed to this concept of the spirit of the game. The opening paragraphs state that the notion of respect is central to the spirit of cricket. It is expressly written that central to the spirit of this noble sport is to play hard and fair; to show respect for your opponents; to show self-discipline even in the face of adversity; to congratulate the opposition on their successes; and to establish an overall positive atmosphere. Could the case be prosecuted that the England team's actions in the fourth Test were consistent with this idea of the spirit of cricket? It would seem not. The England team's feigned incredulousness at India's decision to play on despite the likely impossibility of a match result, and everything that occurred thereafter, certainly has a spirit interwoven. But a slightly malicious one. The swearing of England's fielders, picked up by the stump microphones, and the incredulity displayed by Stokes and Harry Brook especially, bears scant correlation to the notion of the good spirit of anything at all. A mountain of pressure can reveal character; however this was not a situation where pressure existed. This was a Test match meandering towards oblivion. Stokes' ungracious reaction to his team being required to play on revealed much, but not much of it positive. Loading All of this leaves this columnist unconvinced that the spirit of cricket exists otherwise than in a form of words written within the rules of the sport. In 2013, the Australian Test umpire Simon Taufel delivered the Marylebone Cricket Club's Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture at a black tie dinner at Lord's, during which he argued that the spirit of cricket means that the values of the game take priority over personal gain or advancement. If that's an accurate summation, you have to question whether it still exists at all.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means, Benny
What transpired was particularly unpleasant. England's batters being brought on to bowl like an under-10s team to serve up anything but Test standard bowling. To this was added vituperative sledging, albeit hardly of the venomous kind. England's fielders ambled after balls struck through the cordon, running like puppets with broken strings. Only muted acknowledgment was given when each Indian batter brought up three figures. The match ended almost immediately after that. Fairly assessed, it was sooky and petulant conduct, driven by Stokes' incandescence at not getting his own way. This, to all intents and purposes, is of course the same England team that cried with poisonous fury after the Lord's Test of the 2023 Ashes series, once Jonny Bairstow was stumped by Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey having absent-mindedly meandered from his crease. You almost get the sense of a theme … By any sensible analysis of what is legislated for under the Laws of Cricket, Bairstow was fairly dismissed that day. Equally, Gill's decision to not agree to prematurely end the Test match at Old Trafford was entirely within the rules of the game. The England team's posturing and remonstrations were misguided, unedifying and wrong. In almost any other sport – golf is the true exception which comes to mind – you would readily cop Stokes' and his teammates' behaviour. In any football code, Stokes' conduct would be seen as positively de rigueur. Yet cricket is supposedly different. For not only is it governed by the laws of the game, but also the esoteric spirit of cricket, which ties the laws together with a veritable golden thread. What the Laws of Cricket say is that although the laws themselves have governed the playing of the game for nearly three centuries, cricket owes much of its particular appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should also be played within the right 'spirit'. But if indeed it exists, what constitutes cricket's spirit is hard to identify. The preamble to the Laws of Cricket are directed to this concept of the spirit of the game. The opening paragraphs state that the notion of respect is central to the spirit of cricket. It is expressly written that central to the spirit of this noble sport is to play hard and fair; to show respect for your opponents; to show self-discipline even in the face of adversity; to congratulate the opposition on their successes; and to establish an overall positive atmosphere. Could the case be prosecuted that the England team's actions in the fourth Test were consistent with this idea of the spirit of cricket? It would seem not. The England team's feigned incredulousness at India's decision to play on despite the likely impossibility of a match result, and everything that occurred thereafter, certainly has a spirit interwoven. But a slightly malicious one. The swearing of England's fielders, picked up by the stump microphones, and the incredulity displayed by Stokes and Harry Brook especially, bears scant correlation to the notion of the good spirit of anything at all. A mountain of pressure can reveal character; however this was not a situation where pressure existed. This was a Test match meandering towards oblivion. Stokes' ungracious reaction to his team being required to play on revealed much, but not much of it positive. Loading All of this leaves this columnist unconvinced that the spirit of cricket exists otherwise than in a form of words written within the rules of the sport. In 2013, the Australian Test umpire Simon Taufel delivered the Marylebone Cricket Club's Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture at a black tie dinner at Lord's, during which he argued that the spirit of cricket means that the values of the game take priority over personal gain or advancement. If that's an accurate summation, you have to question whether it still exists at all.
