England v New Zealand (Jun 2022 - 3 Match Test Series)

[PhatBoy]

I will say to anyone who will listen that Brian Lara is the best player of spin I’ve seen.

Yet he didn’t score a century in India (didn’t have as many chances as root has in Australia, mind you). But his dominance of Murali in Sri Lanka, Kaneria etc in Pakistan, his mastery of Shane warne - that’s enough to show that his record in india was an exception rather than definitive. And yeah it does tell you, like Root’s record in Australia, that the Indian’s bowled better to him there than other attacks bowled at him elsewhere BUT there’s no way I would think ‘well he’s just not good enough/they’re just too good for him over there.’

 

[Sphynx]

Where have I said they have no idea or no plans or anything like that?

He is getting runs against them with the same frequency he’s getting runs against everyone across the entire sample size of his career, HE IS SIMPLY NOT CONVERTING THOSE SCORES INTO CENTURIES.

For a player with 27 of them in his career, that would suggest that if he’s passing 50 with the regularity he is, and STILL not making 3 figures, there is no way known I’m putting that down to the bowling. Yes the bowling has its part to play, of course it does, and they are generally at any given time 4 very good bowlers.

But if it’s the bowling only that’s stopping him getting a century, why don’t their plans work before he gets 60-70-80?

I haven’t shifted anything mate.

Australia isn’t the hardest attack to score runs against away.

Joe Root has proven he can handle any sort of bowling in any sorts of conditions.

Yet he hasn’t here to the point of breaking 3 figures.

My claim was that it is a mental thing and I stand by it, as a multitude of other nations, bowling attacks and conditions show his record here to be an exception rather than a rule.

Hell you even arced up for some reason about how I spoke of Smith - someone anybody who’s read my posts will know I put in the argument as being the next best batsman to Bradman.


Play the ball, not the man.

You understand how averages work don't you? Their plans have worked stopping him getting to 60-70-80 for the most part, it's why he averages 35 and he still averages less 50/100's per innings vs Australia than his career average.


Again, it's not about the hardest attack to score runs against, the statement was "Australia has the best attack in the world in their home conditions"

I decided to look into it.

Since the Windies tour in 1992, 30 years ago, the following visiting 6 bowlers have left with a series average of 20 or lower.

Bracewell, Bresnan, Bumrah, Abbott, Donald and Akram.

By comparison, in the same period, it's occurred 54 times for Australian bowlers.

McGrath (10), Warne (5), Lee (4), Cummins (4), Starc (3), Johnson (3), Gillespie (3), Siddle (2), MacGill (2), Lyon (2), Kasprowicz (2), Hazlewood (2), Pattinson (1), Miller (1), McDermott (1), Hilfenhaus (1), Harris (1), Green (1), Clark (1), Bollinger (1), Boland (1), Bird (1), Bichel (1), Bevan (1).


The above may even exceed Indian bowlers in their own conditions tbh.

So yes, it's very easily debatable, Australia's bowlers are probably the best in their home conditions in the world; that is a huge discrepancy.

 

[PhatBoy]

You understand how averages work don't you? Their plans have worked stopping him getting to 60-70-80 for the most part, it's why he averages 35.


Again, it's not about the hardest attack to score runs against, the statement was "Australia has the best attack in the world in their home conditions"

I decided to look into it.

Since the Windies tour in 1992, 30 years ago, the following visiting 6 bowlers have left with a series average of 20 or lower.

Bracewell, Bresnan, Bumrah, Abbott, Donald and Akram.

By comparison, in the same period, it's occurred 54 times for Australian bowlers.

McGrath (10), Warne (5), Lee (4), Cummins (4), Starc (3), Johnson (3), Gillespie (3), Siddle (2), MacGill (2), Lyon (2), Kasprowicz (2), Hazlewood (2), Pattinson (1), Miller (1), McDermott (1), Hilfenhaus (1), Harris (1), Green (1), Clark (1), Bollinger (1), Boland (1), Bird (1), Bichel (1), Bevan (1).


The above may even exceed Indian bowlers in their own conditions tbh.

So yes, it's very easily debatable, Australia's bowlers are the best in their home conditions in the world.

In his career, he fails to get to 50-60-70 more often than not.

Thanks for explaining how averages work. Being a stats **** since my first ABC cricket guide in 1992-93 I have never made the effort to understand how they work.

He ‘fails’ with no more real regularity against australia than he does against anyone else. For the purpose of the comment, I defined ‘failure’ as scores of 20 or lower.

Across his career in completed innings he is dismissed for 20 or lower in 44 per cent of his innings. That figure ‘rockets’ up to 46 per cent in australia. Their plans and execution haven’t stopped him getting ‘in’ or getting to a point where he’s set, anymore than any other attack in any other conditions have. He gets established at the crease in Australia as often as he does anywhere. Maybe you could draw the conclusion that australia has better ‘plan B’s’ than other countries. Maybe they do. I would think that a player with THAT much experience at converting starts to big scores, however, REPEATEDLY failing to do so in 15 tests here, having proven himself in every condition against every level of attack, is battling more than just the opposition, and it isn’t some massive slur against the current Australian attack to say as much.


What does since 1992 have to do with it? For a third of the years since the. Australia were next to unbeatable and boasted an attack to rival the West Indies attack of 75-95.

I’m pretty sure however the recent Ashes tourists from England didn’t have to face the ghosts of Warne and McGrath coming around the wicket while Cummins bowled over it.

 

[Sphynx]

What does since 1992 have to do with it? For a third of the years since the. Australia were next to unbeatable and boasted an attack to rival the West Indies attack of 75-95.

I’m pretty sure however the recent Ashes tourists from England didn’t have to face the ghosts of Warne and McGrath coming around the wicket while Cummins bowled over it.

Because 1992 is 30 years ago this year and marks around the period of readmission for SAF as well as the transition to the more professional modern era. I don't need to go back much further.


For more than a third of those years, we have had a terrible batting lineup (hence the series' 3 x home series losses to SAF, 2 to India and 1 to Eng) and some terrific visiting bowlers still couldn't achieve it.

Again, you are conveniently ignoring the argument.

Post the McGrath/Warne era (Warne actually achieved all of his <20 series in the early 90's) it is 28 vs 4 and that includes the much-vaunted SAF attack in that period as well as the drought breaking English side, as well as arguably India and New Zealands strongest ever test sides.


The statement by the other poster is pretty close to the mark, comparatively, Australia probably does have close to the strongest bowlers in their home conditions in the world.

The series losses then only show the huge gulf in the batting lineups in that time period when you compare the gulf in the home bowling performances vs visiting and is probably a further mark against those travelling bowlers vs their Australian rivals given how weak the Aussie batting has been.

 

[PhatBoy]

For more than a third of those years, we have had a terrible batting lineup (hence the series' 3 x home series losses to SAF, 2 to India and 1 to Eng) and some terrific visiting bowlers still couldn't achieve it.

Again, you are conveniently ignoring the argument.

Post the McGrath/Warne era it is 28 vs 4 and that includes the much-vaunted SAF attack in that period as well as the drought breaking English side, as well as arguably India and New Zealands strongest ever test sides.


The statement by the other poster is pretty close to the mark, comparatively, Australia probably does have close to the strongest bowlers in their home conditions in the world.

The series losses then only show the huge gulf in the batting lineups in those decade's when you compare the home bowling performances and probably a further mark against those travelling bowlers vs their Australian rivals given how weak the Aussie batting has been.

Visiting bowlers are irrelevant.

No one is debating how hard it is for visiting bowlers coming here. It means nothing to how hard it is for batsmen coming here.

The weakness of the Australian batting is completely irrelevant as well.

I showed you figures that show basically twice as many visiting batsmen in the most recent ‘full’ decade (2010-2020) managed to succeed in Australia, compared to just one other example (South Africa). I suspect India might show a similar story but that is a guess.

That is the only relevant number to the argument you are making.

Is it easier to succeed in Australia for a visiting batsman, or is it easier to succeed in SA for a visiting batsman, during that recent period?

It’s not a difficult question to answer, and the facts are there. Australia’s batting quality in that time isn’t contagious or something, so it’s irrelevant to how visiting batsmen have fared here.

You can go with ‘the vibe’ or ‘but what about the 20 years before that’ or whatever you like.

The fact is more batsmen visiting these shores in the previous decade, have succeeded, than what visiting batsmen to AT LEAST one other top tier country have managed.


Whether that is BECAUSE of conditions, because of bowlers, because of captaincy, because of whatever - it really doesn’t matter. It proves that, in THAT period at least, 2010-2020, Australian bowlers in Australian conditions WERE NOT the hardest circumstances for travelling batsmen. It’s not open for debate, it’s a mathematical fact.

Maybe that’s changed now. SA aren’t the powerhouse they were then.
Cummins is fit and has put 3-4 years of great form together, there is depth in the attack, Starc is better than he used to be, and we have pink ball tests now.

But across a strong and most importantly RECENT sample size, one which covered two thirds of Joe Root’s cricket in Australia, it wasn’t the case.

 

[Sphynx]

Visiting bowlers are irrelevant.

No one is debating how hard it is for visiting bowlers coming here. It means nothing to how hard it is for batsmen coming here.

The weakness of the Australian batting is completely irrelevant as well.

I showed you figures that show basically twice as many visiting batsmen in the most recent ‘full’ decade (2010-2020) managed to succeed in Australia, compared to just one other example (South Africa). I suspect India might show a similar story but that is a guess.

That is the only relevant number to the argument you are making.

Is it easier to succeed in Australia for a visiting batsman, or is it easier to succeed in SA for a visiting batsman, during that recent period?

It’s not a difficult question to answer, and the facts are there. Australia’s batting quality in that time isn’t contagious or something, so it’s irrelevant to how visiting batsmen have fared here.

You can go with ‘the vibe’ or ‘but what about the 20 years before that’ or whatever you like.

The fact is more batsmen visiting these shores in the previous decade, have succeeded, than what visiting batsmen to AT LEAST one other top tier country have managed.


Whether that is BECAUSE of conditions, because of bowlers, because of captaincy, because of whatever - it really doesn’t matter. It proves that, in THAT period at least, 2010-2020, Australian bowlers in Australian conditions WERE NOT the hardest circumstances for travelling batsmen. It’s not open for debate, it’s a mathematical fact.

Maybe that’s changed now. SA aren’t the powerhouse they were then.
Cummins is fit and has put 3-4 years of great form together, there is depth in the attack, Starc is better than he used to be, and we have pink ball tests now.

But across a strong and most importantly RECENT sample size, one which covered two thirds of Joe Root’s cricket in Australia, it wasn’t the case.

You are missing the point. Sorry.

You are comparing two different countries, two different sets of conditions, two differents sets of pitches.

Of course it's harder to bat in SAF, because they have more bowler friendly pitches. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with attack vs attack though, does it?

These were the two quotes:

Australian bowlers at home are the best in the world and put that on pitches are now aday pretty sporting.

Disagree.

Australian attack aren't good everywhere for one, there extremely good at home though, only location you'd call them world class atm.

The statement was about the strength of bowlers in their home conditions.

Comparitively Australian bowlers are MUCH stronger (6-10x better) than visiting bowlers across a 30 year period, even in the last 15 years, it's 6-7x stronger.


Are SAF 6-10x better than visiting bowlers in SAF conditions? In the last 3 years alone we've seen Shardul Thakur, Mark Wood and Vishwa Fernando go there and look like world beaters.

Broads had 2 POTS style performances there

Mitchell Johnson had a series there that rivals anyone in history.

Cummins has an all time record there.

That's just the last decade alone.

etc etc. Invariably there's usually a travelling bowler that is able to use the conditions to be as equally devastating as the home bowlers.

That has very rarely happened in Aus, the only time recently (30 years recently) is Abbott and Bumrah and prior to that Donald and Akram really. Bresnan and Bracewell achieved it statistically, but didn't meet the eye test of a travelling destroyer.

 

[PhatBoy]

You are missing the point. Sorry.

You are comparing two different countries, two different sets of conditions, two differents sets of pitches.

Of course it's harder to bat in SAF, because they have more bowler friendly pitches. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with attack vs attack though, does it?

These were the two quotes:







The statement was about the strength of bowlers in their home conditions.

Comparitively Australian bowlers are MUCH stronger (6-10x better) than visiting bowlers across a 30 year period, even in the last 15 years, it's 6-7x stronger.


Are SAF 6-10x better than visiting bowlers in SAF conditions? In the last 3 years alone we've seen Shardul Thakur, Mark Wood and Vishwa Fernando go there and look like world beaters.

Australia’s attack at home for most of the last 12 years have not been as good as South African attack at home, England’s attack at home, and India’s attack at home.

Sorted.

South Africa were unbeaten anywhere from 2010-2015 so yeah, not sure it was just their home conditions that made their bowlers so formidable for most of that decade.

Australia’s bowlers, at home, during that decade, we’re not the best in the world and there is no argument you can mount to say they were, try as you might.

End of discussion, and I have no idea why the notion intrigued you so much in the first place.

 

[PhatBoy]

That’s a truly bizarre notion: that a team can have ‘the best bowlers in the world at home’ but dismiss a group of bowlers as being better numbers-wise ‘because their home conditions are friendlier.’

Once you’re in I would say Australia’s batting conditions are the friendliest in the world. It wouldn’t stop me from saying, because I genuinely believe it, that Australia’s batsmen are the best batsmen in home conditions in the world. They are the best precisely because they’re the best at taking advantage of what’s on offer to them. Same as Philander was the best at taking what was on offer to him in SA

 

[Sphynx]

Australia’s attack at home for most of the last 12 years have not been as good as South African attack at home, England’s attack at home, and India’s attack at home.

Sorted.

South Africa were unbeaten anywhere from 2010-2015 so yeah, not sure it was just their home conditions that made their bowlers so formidable for most of that decade.

Australia’s bowlers, at home, during that decade, we’re not the best in the world and there is no argument you can mount to say they were, try as you might.

End of discussion, and I have no idea why the notion intrigued you so much in the first place.

Prove it please. I don't think you possibly can.

There's no point comparing an Australian bowler, bowling on Melbourne vs someone bowling on Wanderers and Headingly if that's what you are about to do.

You have to compare attack vs attack in the same conditons.

Sorted.

"South Africa were unbeaten anywhere from 2010-2015 so yeah, not sure it was just their home conditions that made their bowlers so formidable for most of that decade."

Yeah, their batting? Their bowling on tour? A topic completely irrelevant to the above argument.

 

[Sphynx]

That’s a truly bizarre notion: that a team can have ‘the best bowlers in the world at home’ but dismiss a group of bowlers as being better numbers-wise ‘because their home conditions are friendlier.’

Once you’re in I would say Australia’s batting conditions are the friendliest in the world. It wouldn’t stop me from saying, because I genuinely believe it, that Australia’s batsmen are the best batsmen in home conditions in the world. They are the best precisely because they’re the best at taking advantage of what’s on offer to them. Same as Philander was the best at taking what was on offer to him in SA

They can have the best bowlers in the world and I'm not dismissing them at all.

But surely you see the advantage of comparing attacks, in the same series, on the same pitches, against the same opponents vs different opponents, on different pitches, in different countries, at different times?


Australia's bowlers outperform South Africa's and Englands at home when compared to the travelling rival attacks.

This isn't even up for debate, I've proven it to you.

India will be much closer, but without going through the series, I wouldn't be surprised if Australia still remains ontop there either. The Steven O'Keeffe effect is in full force there. Indians just bat a hell of a lot better in their home conditions than their rivals do.


Australia is probably close to the hardest country in the world to take wickets in and Australia's bowlers are obviously clearly the best in the hardest, (all be it unique) bowling conditions.

It's a pretty simple concept.


As I said, someone like Bumrah achieving what he did, is rarer than just about any cricketing statistic getting around in the last few decades,

Probably the equivalent of a triple century in England or a SAF greentop.

 

[PhatBoy]

Prove it please. I don't think you possibly can.

There's no point comparing an Australian bowler, bowling on Melbourne vs someone bowling on Wanderers and Headingly if that's what you are about to do.

You have to compare attack vs attack in the same conditons.

Sorted.

"South Africa were unbeaten anywhere from 2010-2015 so yeah, not sure it was just their home conditions that made their bowlers so formidable for most of that decade."

Yeah, their batting? Their bowling on tour? A topic completely irrelevant to the above argument.

I already have.

Batting averages for visiting batsmen in SA were lower than visiting batsmen in Australia.

If you’re that determined to be proven incorrect though I can tell you that during the 2010-2020 period visiting batsmen in SA scored 20,302 runs at an average of 23.09

Visiting batsmen in Australia scored 27,219 runs at an average of 31.21.

You can argue the vibe all you want.

What you can’t argue is maths.

Australia’s bowlers during that period, when at home, did not out perform South Africa’s during the same time, when they bowled at home.

 

[corbies]

South Africa were unbeaten anywhere from 2010-2015 so yeah, not sure it was just their home conditions that made their bowlers so formidable for most of that decade.

Australia beat them 2-1 in 2014.

 

[PhatBoy]

Australia beat them 2-1 in 2014.

Away I meant, my bad.
It was actually 06-15 but the first four years of that don’t come under the parameters of the time being discussed

 

[PhatBoy]

On the match itself - wow, what a stunning assault from Bairstow and Stokes.
I thought having Stokes in charge and McCullum coaching would lead to a change in attitude and approach but THAT big a change?

This reinforces why I can’t believe they ever put Bairstow on the scrap heap in the first place.

If you don’t have 5 world class batsmen to fill the spots above Stokes, that’s fine - it’s rare for most teams to have 5 entrenched world class players at any one time. But if one of the guys vying for a spot is capable of the play that Bairstow clearly is and always has been, they’re mad not to use him.

There have been lots of teams throughout the last 30 years who maybe don’t have a world class line up, 11 cut and dried test class players, but they can maximise what top level talent they DO have, to become good or at least dangerous sides.

England, for now anyway, have Anderson, Broad is fading but he’s still ok, Foakes I think is a world class keeper-batsman (if not quite world class as a batsman keeper), Stokes, Root and Bairstow. More than half their side are what I’d consider GOOD or better test players, and in Anderson, Root, Stokes and Bairstow I believe they have four match winners.

That to me is a much much better looking side than Root, Stokes, and Anderson with a combination of 8 other plodders or guys who quite simply aren’t good enough.
As the commentators said last night, most of their fans would rather see them play attacking positive cricket and lose than see what they were shown in the Ashes and the West Indies.

 

[NYRB]

One thing is evident , if anything was to go by this series might be a huge change in mindset under McCullum.

McCullum was an aggressive, attacking player and I can very much see him telling that to the top 7 of that lineup to play with flair and chase results then meander for draws.

Fair play to England..it was phenomenally sustained aggression but it was a belter to bat on,fast outfield,smallish ground and Boult aside(and even he came in for some stick) the bowling didn't really trouble the batsmen

what i would like to see proof of and this is true of basically all the top test sides,is,had the onslaught been stopped in its tracks by a couple of of quick wkts falling ,could the side have 'dug in' to attritionally save the game?

if they are capable of so doing it bodes well but remain to be convinced

it was an exhilirating game re runs scored but not enough in the pitch for the bowlers imho

 

[PhatBoy]

One thing is evident , if anything was to go by this series might be a huge change in mindset under McCullum.

McCullum was an aggressive, attacking player and I can very much see him telling that to the top 7 of that lineup to play with flair and chase results then meander for draws.

Fair play to England..it was phenomenally sustained aggression but it was a belter to bat on,fast outfield,smallish ground and Boult aside(and even he came in for some stick) the bowling didn't really trouble the batsmen

what i would like to see proof of and this is true of basically all the top test sides,is,had the onslaught been stopped in its tracks by a couple of of quick wkts falling ,could the side have 'dug in' to attritionally save the game?

if they are capable of so doing it bodes well but remain to be convinced

it was an exhilirating game re runs scored but not enough in the pitch for the bowlers imho

Oh without a doubt and the mark of a genuinely good side rather than just a dangerous one (I’m looking at you, many editions of Pakistan in the last 30 years) is a side that is adaptable.

West Indies probably didn’t really have to be during their golden era as their bowling relentlessness pretty much ensured that their batting could be as reckless as it wanted, as long as 1-2 players got SOMETHING on the board they were in the game. Their tail was good too.

But Australia, first through Border and Boon then Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ian Healy from 95-2000, had players who could dig in. Again after that when they really peaked through to 2005 they probably didn’t NEED grafters at all as they just churned through opponents so relentlessly - though India 2001 probably showed they could do with some limpets at the crease.

SA were a good mix, they had genuine grafters like Kallis and before they really peaked, Kirsten, and maybe the hallmark of guys like AB, Amla and Faf were that they were versatile, could attack when needed, defend when needed.

The better Pakistan sides of the last decade were similar though they probably lacked a little bit of aggression, they erred towards graft more than positivity.

Essentially it’s great to have that in your armour or better still, to not even need it because your plan A works so well.

England dont have a grafting fallback really that could shut up shop for a day outside of Root and maybe Stokes at the moment.

But if they’re a threat to win at least it poses some headaches for the opposition

 

[corbies]

It is now up to other countries to react to England's approach when playing them. How can they use England's new attacking approach against them?

 

[Sphynx]

On the match itself - wow, what a stunning assault from Bairstow and Stokes.
I thought having Stokes in charge and McCullum coaching would lead to a change in attitude and approach but THAT big a change?

This reinforces why I can’t believe they ever put Bairstow on the scrap heap in the first place.

If you don’t have 5 world class batsmen to fill the spots above Stokes, that’s fine - it’s rare for most teams to have 5 entrenched world class players at any one time. But if one of the guys vying for a spot is capable of the play that Bairstow clearly is and always has been, they’re mad not to use him.

There have been lots of teams throughout the last 30 years who maybe don’t have a world class line up, 11 cut and dried test class players, but they can maximise what top level talent they DO have, to become good or at least dangerous sides.

England, for now anyway, have Anderson, Broad is fading but he’s still ok, Foakes I think is a world class keeper-batsman (if not quite world class as a batsman keeper), Stokes, Root and Bairstow. More than half their side are what I’d consider GOOD or better test players, and in Anderson, Root, Stokes and Bairstow I believe they have four match winners.

That to me is a much much better looking side than Root, Stokes, and Anderson with a combination of 8 other plodders or guys who quite simply aren’t good enough.
As the commentators said last night, most of their fans would rather see them play attacking positive cricket and lose than see what they were shown in the Ashes and the West Indies.

I think I will wait a little longer before declaring Foakes a world class keeper batsman. After a ton in his first test innings, he's notched up 2 x 50's since, with one of those coming in this test match.


I'm more interested in where this leaves NZ.

Been rinsed by a side who had won 1-17 coming into this series, lost 3 of their last 4 away series, with a draw to Sri Lanka prior to that and a home drawn series with Bangladesh.

You'd think they are now no chance to defend their title.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think I will wait a little longer before declaring Foakes a world class keeper batsman. After a ton in his first test innings, he's notched up 2 x 50's since, with one coming in this test match.


I'm more interested in where this leaves NZ.

Been rinsed by a side who had won 1-17 coming into this series, lost 3 of their last 4 away series, with a draw to Sri Lanka prior to that.

I was more leaning towards his keeping. He’s generally very good with the gloves and considering the problems they had when Bairstow and Buttler were swapping duties behind the stumps, Foakes is someone they can bank on to a degree.

New Zealand have been desperately underwhelming.

They got seduced by one great Matt Henry spell at home over summer - picking him over Wagner is criminal IMO.

I can forgive this game a little bit with Jameson being hurt - logically he’d have been the hardest player for England to attack and they really missed him but their two spearheads are experienced enough to have been better. Southee had a wretched match, he just couldn’t get it on the spot.

From the side that got them to the top they were without Williamson, Taylor, de Grandhomme in this match - obviously Taylor ain’t coming back and he was being carried towards the end.

I think they have undone a lot of their good work from a lengthy period of time, in a matter of about 6 months to be honest.

 

[Sphynx]

I was more leaning towards his keeping. He’s generally very good with the gloves and considering the problems they had when Bairstow and Buttler were swapping duties behind the stumps, Foakes is someone they can bank on to a degree.

New Zealand have been desperately underwhelming.

They got seduced by one great Matt Henry spell at home over summer - picking him over Wagner is criminal IMO.

I can forgive this game a little bit with Jameson being hurt - logically he’d have been the hardest player for England to attack and they really missed him but their two spearheads are experienced enough to have been better. Southee had a wretched match, he just couldn’t get it on the spot.

From the side that got them to the top they were without Williamson, Taylor, de Grandhomme in this match - obviously Taylor ain’t coming back and he was being carried towards the end.

I think they have undone a lot of their good work from a lengthy period of time, in a matter of about 6 months to be honest.

They haven't announced the final venue yet, but why do I think it could end up being Aus vs SAF in Mumbai or something?

Hopefully common sense prevails and they announce the final towards the end of the fixtures each time, factoring in a neutral venue and a venue suited to the two sides.

England or NZ would be good.

TBH, I wouldn't even mind playing it in South Africa, even if South Africa were in it.

I think if it was India vs South Africa, somewhere like Adelaide or Sydney makes complete sense. A bit for everyone.

 

[PhatBoy]

They haven't announced the final venue yet, but why do I think it could end up being Aus vs SAF in Mumbai or something?

Hopefully common sense prevails and they announce the final towards the end of the fixtures each time, factoring in a neutral venue and a venue suited to the two sides.

England or NZ would be good.

TBH, I wouldn't even mind playing it in South Africa, even if South Africa were in it.

I think if it was India vs South Africa, somewhere like Adelaide or Sydney makes complete sense. A bit for everyone.

I think most neutral spectators would probably agree that from a viewing perspective SA is the best place in the world for test cricket - and that’s not factoring in the wandering lenses of the cameramen. It’s fast, it’s intense, it’s a test of batsmen but also of bowlers because games in SA can actually get away from an attack really quickly if the opposition start to get momentum.

I have no issue if they played it in India or SL or WI or wherever: each place presents different challenges to different sides and they all have merit but by far my choice from a taste point of view would be SA regardless of who is playing.

 

[Sphynx]

I think most neutral spectators would probably agree that from a viewing perspective SA is the best place in the world for test cricket - and that’s not factoring in the wandering lenses of the cameramen. It’s fast, it’s intense, it’s a test of batsmen but also of bowlers because games in SA can actually get away from an attack really quickly if the opposition start to get momentum.

I have no issue if they played it in India or SL or WI or wherever: each place presents different challenges to different sides and they all have merit but by far my choice from a taste point of view would be SA regardless of who is playing.

I probably enjoy cricket in the North of England slightly more than SAF, but not by much.

I have no issue with India or SL or WI as venues, but you have the opportunity to tailor the conditions to the contest when you know who is likely going to be in it.

There's no use having a test championship final in Mumbai between South Africa and Australia if they've gotten their way there on the back of 2 fast bowling batteries.



A Test Championship final in the WI or SL between India and Pakistan as an example, would be great.

Just as a final between Aus and SAF at Headingly would.

 

[PhatBoy]

I probably enjoy cricket in the North of England slightly more than SAF, but not by much.

I have no issue with India or SL or WI as venues, but you have the opportunity to tailor the conditions to the contest when you know who is likely going to be in it.

There's no use having a test championship final in Mumbai between South Africa and Australia if they've gotten their way there on the back of 2 fast bowling batteries.



A Test Championship final in the WI or SL between India and Pakistan as an example, would be great.

Just as a final between Aus and SAF at Headingly would.

All very fair points

 

[HODGEYROAD]

England have somewhat surprised me this series, didn't expect them to bat as well as they have.

NZ well what can you say, awful defence of a world test championship, although I've always thought India and Australia were marginally stronger sides even when the Kiwis won in 2021.

 

[PhatBoy]

England have somewhat surprised me this series, didn't expect them to bat as well as they have.

NZ well what can you say, awful defence of a world test championship, although I've always thought India and Australia were marginally stronger sides even when the Kiwis won in 2021.

I think most people did, they had a more solid body of work over a longer period but I guess that’s what a one year tournament is for, they ticked the boxes. Incredibly disappointing last period for them though that’s for sure, they don’t have a lot of players who can really say they held up their end of the bargain during the title defence