Pope's 196 greatest innings ever in the subcontinent by an English batsman - Stokes

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Pope's 196 greatest innings ever in the subcontinent by an English
batsman - Stokes

Stokes also said that this is the GREATEST TRIUMPH since he took over as
a captain.


==================================================================


https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ben-stokes-definitely-our-greatest-triumph-since-i-ve-been-captain-1418762

Stokes: 'Definitely our greatest triumph since I've been captain'

Also calls Pope's 196 "the greatest innings ever in the subcontinent by
an English batsman"

Ben Stokes described England's unlikely turnaround win against India in
Hyderabad as their "greatest triumph" since he took over as captain, and
labelled Ollie Pope's second-innings 196 "the greatest innings that has
ever been played in the subcontinent by an English batsman".

England have won 14 of their 19 Tests since Stokes took over as captain
in May 2022, a streak that has included statement victories over New
Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Australia. But Stokes believes that
this 28-run win - away from home, against a side that has dominated in
their own conditions for a decade - is the best of the lot.

"Since I've taken the captaincy on, we've had a lot of fantastic moments
as a team," Stokes said. "We've had a lot of great victories, we've been
involved in some amazing games. But I think [with] where we are and who
we're playing against, this victory is 100%, definitely our greatest
triumph since I've been captain."

England's match-winner on the fourth day was Tom Hartley, the debutant
left-arm spinner, who added 34 in an 80-run partnership with Pope before
running through India's batting line-up with 7 for 62. It marked a
significant transformation from the mauling he suffered on the first
evening, when he bowled nine wicketless overs that cost 63.

"The gameplan there is, we're out here for a long tour and this is going
to be a long game, so I was willing to give him the longer spell
regardless of what had happened because I knew I was going to have to
turn back to him at some point throughout this Test match," Stokes said.
"Allowing him to have the longer spell at the start was almost
justification to say: 'You know, what I was telling you before the game
started is going to happen.'

"Whether or not that was the reason to say he got seven wickets and won
us the game this innings, who knows? But that was the thought process
behind it and giving the people we select complete backing and not going
back on the words that we speak.''

"It's unbelievable," Hartley said. "It's not going to sink in for a
while. I'm just over the moon, to be honest." Asked for his thoughts
after England's first innings, he joked: "'This is hard work!' It was
really tough out there. It didn't spin quite as much as we thought, but
testament to the coaches, Stokesy, and Baz [Brendon McCullum]. They
really got around me and I lost no confidence, really. And I was able to
come out and do my best out here.

"It's fantastic in that dressing room. We can have a great day, we can
have a really bad day: it is the same vibe in there. They're always
ultra-positive. There's never a dull moment, to be honest. I'm always
looking around and thinking, 'Is there a fielder there? There was one
there last ball.' But that's just the Stokes way and we've all bought
into it. We've come out on top today, so it's definitely working."

Stokes said that he had learned from England's first innings by watching
Rohit Sharma's captaincy of India's three spinners: R Ashwin, Ravindra
Jadeja and Axar Patel. "It's my first time coming out here and being in
charge of a team and being a captain in these conditions," he said. "I'm
not going to lie - I actually may not seem it - but I'm a great observer
of the game. I learned a lot from our first innings in the field.

"I watched a lot of how the Indian spinners operate in the field and the
fields that Rohit set, and tried to take a lot of that into our innings
here when we obviously had to bowl them out. I'm thrilled for everyone
involved… it's been an incredible effort by everyone, and even the
people who might not necessarily have the rewards. I think everyone's
contributed to a great win."

Stokes reserved special praise for Pope, who had not played since July
following shoulder surgery and managed 153 runs in eight innings on
England's 2021 tour of India. "I've been lucky enough to play a lot of
Test matches in the subcontinent with a certain Joe Root, and I've seen
some pretty special innings from himself.

"But I think the situation we found ourselves in, coming in at No. 3,
some of the shots that we've seen, just that whole innings, 190 on such
a difficult wicket. He was able to manipulate the field with his sweep
shots - reverse sweeps, normal sweeps - and the way he was able to
rotate the strike… for me, I think that's the greatest innings that's
ever been played in the subcontinent by an English batsman."

Pope said that he rated his fifth Test century "head and shoulders above
the other four" and described India as "probably the toughest place for
a batter to come at the minute". He was caught at slip for 1 in the
first innings, and said: "I think I got a bit luckier in the second
innings. I played and missed a few.

"First up, I was at peace with getting out caught at slip like I did in
the first. I was focused on covering the inside edge and my pad: I knew
that was a real danger ball, and if you do edge one, it's still got to
carry, and they've still got to catch it. I maintained that mindset and
really wanted to be positive with my sweeping and reverse-sweeping as well.

"I've tinkered throughout my career so far… I've changed my technique
slightly for this series specifically. I had shoulder surgery, so I've
had a long time to prepare for this series and make some adjustments to
what I produced the last time we were here three years ago. I've worked
hard on my game and tried to tailor my technique for these conditions."

[John Hall]

In message <up5le8$3ufnt$1...@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes

>
>
>Pope's 196 greatest innings ever in the subcontinent by an English
>batsman - Stokes

Root said it was the best innings he'd seen by an England batsman in
India. Since Root's first tour of India was in 2012-13, the tour during
which Pietersen made his phenomenal 186 at Mumbai, that's high praise
indeed. (I see that Bairstow and Anderson both played in that match, so
it would be interesting to know which innings they thought was the
better.)
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[miked]

John Hall wrote:

> In message <up5le8$3ufnt$1...@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
>>
>>
>>Pope's 196 greatest innings ever in the subcontinent by an English
>>batsman - Stokes

> Root said it was the best innings he'd seen by an England batsman in
> India. Since Root's first tour of India was in 2012-13, the tour during
> which Pietersen made his phenomenal 186 at Mumbai, that's high praise
> indeed. (I see that Bairstow and Anderson both played in that match, so
> it would be interesting to know which innings they thought was the
> better.)

well both set up victories but popes dragged england away from defeat
to set up a victory. that drop by axel when he was on 110 really
cost india the match. but there cant be many debutants who took
7 wkts in their first test, and surely not england spinners? Its
left a lot of us armchair critics covered in egg, i can still
hartley believe it.

mike

[John Hall]

In message <13fe1a3814183a96...@www.novabbs.com>, miked
<dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

Yep. I was among those who were liberally egg-coated.

[David North]

The only other England spinners to take 7 wickets in an innings on debut
were James Langridge, 7-37 v WI at Old Trafford in 1933, and Jim Laker,
7-103 v WI at Bridgetown in 1947/48.

--
David North

[John Hall]

In message <l1osgg...@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes

A couple of final (?) thoughts on the match:
1. Reiffel and Gaffaney were excellent, getting very few decisions
wrong.
2. England's over-rate was funereal, in spite of almost exclusively
bowling spin. On day four, even after the extra half-hour they were one
over short of the quota for overs in a day - that was before the extra
extra half-hour, of course! I think the failure to get the overs in was
primarily down to them rather than India's over-rate in the morning.

[miked]

John Hall wrote:

> In message <l1osgg...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>On 28/01/2024 21:10, miked wrote:
>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <up5le8$3ufnt$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com>
>>>>writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pope's 196 greatest innings ever in the subcontinent by an English
>>>>>batsman - Stokes
>>>
>>>> Root said it was the best innings he'd seen by an England batsman in
>>>>India. Since Root's first tour of India was in 2012-13, the tour
>>>>during which Pietersen made his phenomenal 186 at Mumbai, that's high
>>>>praise indeed. (I see that Bairstow and Anderson both played in that
>>>>match, so it would be interesting to know which innings they thought
>>>>was the better.)
>>> well both set up victories but popes dragged england away from
>>>defeat
>>> to set up a victory. that drop by axel when he was on 110 really
>>> cost india the match. but there cant be many debutants who took
>>> 7 wkts in their first test, and surely not england spinners?
>>
>>The only other England spinners to take 7 wickets in an innings on
>>debut were James Langridge, 7-37 v WI at Old Trafford in 1933, and Jim
>>Laker, 7-103 v WI at Bridgetown in 1947/48.

but i bet neither of them had their first ball hit for 6!

>>
> A couple of final (?) thoughts on the match:
> 1. Reiffel and Gaffaney were excellent, getting very few decisions
> wrong.

yes and the refering was pretty dismal. Also I think pope was caught like 1st
ball of the 4th day off bumrah but there was no appeal.

> 2. England's over-rate was funereal, in spite of almost exclusively
> bowling spin. On day four, even after the extra half-hour they were one
> over short of the quota for overs in a day - that was before the extra
> extra half-hour, of course! I think the failure to get the overs in was
> primarily down to them rather than India's over-rate in the morning.

yes and i expect that any wtc points they gain will be docked in
penalty points for slow over rates.

mike

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:25:27 AM UTC+10, miked wrote:
> yes and the refering was pretty dismal. Also I think pope was caught like 1st
> ball of the 4th day off bumrah but there was no appeal.

Player DRS referrals are a joke. How's one to hear an edge at Test in India?
There was an LBW chance not referred by India that would've been Out, too.

[John Hall]

In message <3a239571-e846-434c...@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:25:270 >> yes and the refering was pretty dismal. Also I think pope was caught

>>like 1st
>> ball of the 4th day off bumrah but there was no appeal.
>
>Player DRS referrals are a joke. How's one to hear an edge at Test in India?

If a spinner is bowling, the keeper and close fielders have a better
chance of hearing it than the umpire does, who is standing much further
away. So that's an argument for keeping player DRS referrals rather than
for doing away with them.

>There was an LBW chance not referred by India that would've been Out, too.

Yep. Though in that ionastance ISTR that Bumrah got his man soon
afterwards.

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 8:05:22 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> So that's an argument for keeping player DRS referrals rather than
> for doing away with them.

I want all appeals automatically referred to DRS (combined with benefit of doubt going to batsman).
Yes, all appeals.
I know, we're not quite ready for it yet. The DRS process would have to speed up first.

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 8:05:22 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:

> >There was an LBW chance not referred by India that would've been Out, too.
> Yep. Though in that ionastance ISTR that Bumrah got his man soon
> afterwards.

Sure, luckily (for them).

My beef with this is the audience will see;

1. the smallest fraction of the ball hitting the stumps and it being Out (given Out, batsman referred, ump's call on DRS)
2. a ball smacking dead centre middle stump and it being Not Out (given Not Out, not referred)

I understand how/why we get those mixed results, but many casual viewers don't. There are still grumblings about DRS outputting "strange" results.

[John Hall]

In message <a6d29318-c20d-4ab3...@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 8:05:220 >> So that's an argument for keeping player DRS referrals rather than

>> for doing away with them.
>
>I want all appeals automatically referred to DRS (combined with benefit
>of doubt going to batsman).
>Yes, all appeals.
>I know, we're not quite ready for it yet. The DRS process would have to
>speed up first.
>

It would indeed, given the large number of rather frivolous appeals that
are currently being made.

[jack fredricks]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:53:33 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> It would indeed, given the large number of rather frivolous appeals that
> are currently being made.

I don't believe the frivolous appeals would be the issue. Like front-foot no-balls, they'd be "silently" checked and rejected before the bowler got back to the top of their run up.
The issue would be close calls, that require deep inspection.

The baby steps to what I want would be automatically referring all Outs.

[David North]

Langridge started with 10 dot balls to Ivan Barrow and George Headley.
Laker's first ball was hit for 4 by fellow debutant Clyde Walcott, but
he bowled him 3 balls later.

--
David North