Cricket

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

The whole summer has been fantastic. I was looking back through the schedule and completely forgot about the Scotland game earlier in the year.

After the winter, I was expecting the absolutely worst this summer. Talking getting whitewashed at home to India.

They didn’t look like the cricketing galaticos that plenty thought they would. On the flip side, despite winning 4-1, we didn’t look like a side back on the rise that has answered the questions from the winter.

A good win. Lots to work on.
 
I understand whete you're coming from. However, I'd happily choose the old style bbc coverage over advert infested coverage any day. The analysis I can take or leave (except in football / rugby in which case I'll leave it all day long.)

The panacea was bbc cricket all day with TMS on the radio - Johnners, Blowers, and by god how I miss John Arlott's voice.

Wouldn't work with digital today because of the time lag. Certainly not progress.


TMS is a wonderful institution and has been a constant companion through the years. Arlott's Hampshire burr still resonates with me, great memories.

That was radio commentary at it's best but sadly the television coverage was fairly dire, cricket was treated as the poor relation, virtually anything else took priority and the poor relation existed on meagre handouts.

Not only featuring limited vision from behind the keeper and slips bit constant interruptions for more important sports and events. In Wimbledon fortnight only the morning session and a later catch up on wickets gone, nightmare. Richie Benaud was the doyen of all TV commentators and like an oasis in a dessert of mediocrity.

Tbf some of the commentators and commentary wasn't that poor at all, but sadly the coverage was.

Channel 4 despite the adverts upped the ante and almost overnight the standard of cricket broadcasting was raised dramatically. Tbf to Sky they've just taken that a lot further where the coverage is second to none but not available to many.
 
After the winter, I was expecting the absolutely worst this summer. Talking getting whitewashed at home to India.

They didn’t look like the cricketing galaticos that plenty thought they would. On the flip side, despite winning 4-1, we didn’t look like a side back on the rise that has answered the questions from the winter.

A good win. Lots to work on.

Agree on going forward there are still major areas to sort out but our record prior to this series of beating India in 7 of the previous 9 home tests always pointed to a winning scenario, India invariably lose in England

The 4-1 margin against the top ranked team (they play a high percentage of home tests) must mean there isn't too much wrong in England.

We have now won 11 of the last fourteen home tests against India, it was hardly unexpected.

England don't lose home test series very often at all, you have to go back to the early 2000s for the last proper series they lost -

( I'm not including ridiculous two test so called series as they just aren't)
 
Agree on going forward there are still major areas to sort out but our record prior to this series of beating India in 7 of the previous 9 home tests always pointed to a winning scenario, India invariably lose in England

The 4-1 margin against the top ranked team (they play a high percentage of home tests) must mean there isn't too much wrong in England.

We have now won 11 of the last fourteen home tests against India, it was hardly unexpected.

England don't lose home test series very often at all, you have to go back to the early 2000s for the last proper series they lost -

( I'm not including ridiculous two test so called series as they just aren't)

I know what the stats, history and omens pointed to but it was hard to shake what had happened in the winter and be confident in a win against the so-called best team in the world.
 
Reflections on the summer series.


India at times had England in difficulty throughout, if you look at just the first and fourth tests, where England won by 30 and 60 runs, that's just an aggregate difference of 90, so they were closer but overall the better side in the series came out on top. There were certain parts of the Indian team that were absolutely exceptional. This is far and away the best seam attack they've ever had on these shores and Kohli the batsman was just imperious at times. All this though has to be set against their total lack of any support for him with the bat and the impression that England for the most part had, of get Kohli out and they're all out soon after.

There were well documented reasons for why it went so badly, pitifully poor preparation, dreadful selection, notably at Lord's when Kuldeep played under leaden skies, a completely barmy pick, but most of all Virat Kohli the captain.

There is the reality, India with the crown of being the number one test match nation have now lost by a crushing 4-1 scoreline to a supposedly mediocre number five ranked England with a fragile top order, and this on the back of their loss in South Africa.

They may well beat the West Indies but have then got to go to Australia. Home form and the high percentage of home tests will always give them a high ranking, It all leaves their professed aim of being the best tourists in the world as looking more than a little hollow.

England's middle and lower order batsmen outclassed the majority of India's batsmen, and together with white ball specialist Jos Buttler, a balanced attack led by Jimmy, and a phalanx of all rounders, were deservedly victorious.

Curran made crucial runs in difficult situations and added extra variety and menace with his left arm bowling, he made a real difference, a bright future beckons as a real all rounder. All in all they can't be in that bad a place if they've just won 4-1 against the top ranked side in the world, despite so many in the media tearing a strip of them

Moeen with his tighter action must now surely be better equipped for touring, Curran is a real find and uses the angles well as a left armer going round the wicket, has the ability to bowl slower balls and is a batsman who scores runs in big moments. He'll need to show it can work even in Sri Lanka.

This has been a fantastic advertisement for test match cricket, the crowds have poured out to see some marvellous seam bowling, some gritty batting towards the end of the series and an England team where just about everybody made a contribution. England are now on the rise, have exciting young players breaking through, and with the test match version of Buttler and Sam Curran, have new weapons in their armoury.

Lastly, what a wonderful finale and send-off for one of England's all time best and a thoroughly likeable hero, he won't be forgotten.
 
TMS is a wonderful institution and has been a constant companion through the years. Arlott's Hampshire burr still resonates with me, great memories.

That was radio commentary at it's best but sadly the television coverage was fairly dire, cricket was treated as the poor relation, virtually anything else took priority and the poor relation existed on meagre handouts.

Not only featuring limited vision from behind the keeper and slips bit constant interruptions for more important sports and events. In Wimbledon fortnight only the morning session and a later catch up on wickets gone, nightmare. Richie Benaud was the doyen of all TV commentators and like an oasis in a dessert of mediocrity.

Tbf some of the commentators and commentary wasn't that poor at all, but sadly the coverage was.

Channel 4 despite the adverts upped the ante and almost overnight the standard of cricket broadcasting was raised dramatically. Tbf to Sky they've just taken that a lot further where the coverage is second to none but not available to many.
As you have alluded to, I also remember the days of a camera at one end of the pitch. No coverage of overseas tests. The BBC were rubbish.

Sky have taken sports coverage to new heights. When they cover sporting events they do it properly.
 
Back
Top