Cricket fred

[Banquo]

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

Fair play - you got me!

I was thinking more rest and rotation for Anderson, rather than replacing on quality. Apart from anything else, I want to see Archer given the new ball and see whether he can do more there, cause we're not getting enough out of him by using him as first change.

Puja

Simon Hughes was writing about Archer and saying its more about him finding his rhythm to get back up to 90+mph, and less experienced rhythm bowlers struggle sometimes to know how to get their form back- he's really inexperienced still. He opened in NZ to little effect, too. In fairness, his return in the last test wasn't too shabby, even if his lackadaisical approach on the 4th morning was irritating. He may also still be a little out of sorts after his breach of the rules.

[Galfon]

Like to see Archer and Curran continue their development, but horses for courses.
..Jordan Cox (19) just passed 150 for Kent in the Bustlin' Bob trophy - already u-19 player, wicky too...

[Big D]

Wouldnt rule Ollie Robinson. There's a reason he was brought into the bubble.

Selectors were concerned about something.

[Big D]

Pop gun Sam? Depends on conditions but I’d rather Wood than another bits and pieces all rounder

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

[Banquo]

Contrary to Beefeater's belief, there's more than sheer physical statistics to international sport. Wood might bowl faster, but Curran's a better bowler. Not to mention the point raised earlier in the thread about a left arm bowler creating more opportunities for the right arm attack by keeping the batsmen from getting in a groove.

Puja

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

[fivepointer]

Nice piece lauding the virtues of Chris Woakes.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... ris-woakes

[Banquo]

Nice piece lauding the virtues of Chris Woakes.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... ris-woakes

Yes, he's great in England, has done better than I'd thought he would.

[fivepointer]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

[Banquo]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

His record overseas is however what has lead to the fourth sentence. He's not had a run in the side because of Broad, Anderson and Stokes, who are all world class, thems the breaks unfortunately, plus his bowling has come on massively at this level in the last 3 years. Not so underrated given his caps and ODI picks.

[Stom]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

Because his stats abroad are so bad.

[Puja]

His stats are really pretty good.
His wickets come at 28.83 and he has a strike rate of 56.91.
For comparison, Anderson is 26.98 with a s/r of 56.49. Broad is 27.80 with a s/r of 56.48
He's very under rated player, who has seldom been given any kind of run in the side.
We are lucky to have him.

Because his stats abroad are so bad.

I think the answer to that is that we've got to learn to accept him for what he is. We have a culture in England (across all sports) of having the First Choice Team, that plays every game they're available for and that dropping someone is a condemnation. Let's start picking horses for courses - if it's Melbourne pitch, take Mark Wood and Archer, if it's a green Manchester pitch with a cloudy sky, pick Woakes and Curran. Same with the batsmen - if there is someone who does a really good job in English or Australian conditions, but can't play subcontinent spin, don't lambast them for not being able to play in all fields - leave them out of that squad and bring them back in for the next set of tests.

Puja

[Big D]

I was mildly pulling your chain, but replacing Anderson with Curran (a handy 4th seamer), even a less than prime Anderson, seems hardly likely to worry Pakistan. Whereas a couple of their batsman have definitely shown a weakness against fast short bowling.
By the way. Wood and Curran's test bowling records are quite similar, but Wood has a much better 1st class record with the ball.

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

[Digby]

His run rate is miserly in all tests, so does the job anyway; like Hoggard, also takes wickets. So you were making the point that they needed a holding bowler like Hoggard or Giles, and they had one. How he was used is another matter, and you now seem to be saying they needed two holding bowlers ; on a serious note, as I said before, the other two seamers are relatively new to test cricket, and as such did pretty well, as did Shah. I think the skipper missed some tricks more than their attack bowled poorly.

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

[Banquo]

It isn't quite as easy a substitution as that though.

Anderson would be replaced by Woakes or Archer with the new ball and the Anderson replacement 2nd change.

Anderson has bowled better than his recent stats suggest but 20 innings is a decent sample size to have 10 innings of no wickets and 4 or so of only 1.

With the news of Stokes heading off I think the point about pace is a good one and probably leads aways from Curran and Robinson.

Reading a bit about Robinson, average of 18 over the last two seasons might merit a go to be fair.

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

Hmmm....

[Big D]

Really ? - though even the reductive comment highlights the drop in overall quality if you made that swap as suggested by Puja ...alongside the point about pace.....

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

Hmmm....

In the purely hypothetical scenario above in 10 of the last 20 innings Woakes and Curran would have to yield an additional 1 wicket above Woakes current output. Curran has only gone wicketless in England twice in his short career.

This isn't Anderson v Curran/Wood/AN Other and who is the better bowler over their career. That's clearly Anderson.

England need to take 20 wickets, and just now they have a new ball bowler regularly picking up 0 wickets in an innings.

That being said let's hope Anderson rips through them if selected.

[Banquo]

I had talked myself out of Curran and into Wood by the end of my post.

But even then on recent evidence it isn't a stretch to say Woakes and Curran would yield more wickets than Anderson and Woakes.

Hmmm....

In the purely hypothetical scenario above in 10 of the last 20 innings Woakes and Curran would have to yield an additional 1 wicket above Woakes current output. Curran has only gone wicketless in England twice in his short career.

This isn't Anderson v Curran/Wood/AN Other and who is the better bowler over their career. That's clearly Anderson.

England need to take 20 wickets, and just now they have a new ball bowler regularly picking up 0 wickets in an innings.

That being said let's hope Anderson rips through them if selected.

Fair enough , I just go back to what would Pakistan prefer.

[Banquo]

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

Its quite simple- you said Pakistan need a holding bowler, and in Abbas they have one, in my opinion. He bowls a slightly fuller length with the new ball, and pulls it back very slightly when without the new ball. Hoggy was terrific, and could attack as well as hold.

[Digby]

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

Its quite simple- you said Pakistan need a holding bowler, and in Abbas they have one, in my opinion. He bowls a slightly fuller length with the new ball, and pulls it back very slightly when without the new ball. Hoggy was terrific, and could attack as well as hold.

I think I started by saying they have a group of seamers who look to hunt wickets, and what they'd have given for a Hoggard or a Giles. Abbas is a very good bowler, but he's pitching well up for a bowler who pulls it back on the 2nd and 3rd spell looking at his pitch maps, maybe given his speed his numbers of genuine short balls is so much lower it skews how one should look at his pitch maps. Nonetheless I think I also started by noting how you go about being defensive matters, and more attacking bowling with defensive fields is a harder system to make work than more containing bowling to attacking fields.

Interesting that Glenn was happy to talk about defensive bowling back in the day at Wuss because on our seamer friendly pitch he was averaging 9 runs a wicket so it felt like out and out attack from the stands

[Banquo]

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

Its quite simple- you said Pakistan need a holding bowler, and in Abbas they have one, in my opinion. He bowls a slightly fuller length with the new ball, and pulls it back very slightly when without the new ball. Hoggy was terrific, and could attack as well as hold.

I think I started by saying they have a group of seamers who look to hunt wickets, and what they'd have given for a Hoggard or a Giles. Abbas is a very good bowler, but he's pitching well up for a bowler who pulls it back on the 2nd and 3rd spell looking at his pitch maps, maybe given his speed his numbers of genuine short balls is so much lower it skews how one should look at his pitch maps. Nonetheless I think I also started by noting how you go about being defensive matters, and more attacking bowling with defensive fields is a harder system to make work than more containing bowling to attacking fields.

Interesting that Glenn was happy to talk about defensive bowling back in the day at Wuss because on our seamer friendly pitch he was averaging 9 runs a wicket so it felt like out and out attack from the stands

So you still say Abbas is not a holding bowler despite his miserly economy rate? And again, by pulling his length back I meant he goes from occasionally potentially driveable length with the new ball, to a classic hit the top stump length without it, a la McGrath but about 5-7 mph slower and a little less tall (possibly). Are you saying a holding bowler should be bowling short of a good length? Because whatever way Abbas does it, he has a remarkably low economy rate.....

[Digby]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

[Banquo]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

[Digby]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

I don't discount an economy rate can go up or down for holding or attacking bowling depending on how good the bowling is, just how the bowler is trying to structure their approach determines the type of bowling it is for me. And that before considering how one sets a field to support the bowler's intent. And also before you think about whether the batter is looking to come forwards or getting pushed back with nothing to really interest them unless they can play on the up

At times we barely scored any runs of Shane Warne because we struggled to read him and were so worried about getting out, but that doesn't mean Warne was bowling as a holding bowler to the likes of Robin Smith and Graeme Hick.

I'm not insisting Pakistan change their approach, again it makes them an exciting team. I just think if they had the option and discipline to at times switch to a more containing style it'd help them, and none of their seamers really does that, and two leggies will struggle even if they tried. Whether they have a different seamer of finger spinner who can do a job coming in for Shadab I don't know, but those googlies weren't enough of a variant to the leg-breaks Yasir was sending down. I'll also concede singles drive me faintly potty (or pottier) because I hate letting batsman get through for cheap runs, and 5 men on the boundary is such a killer to stop cheap runs

[Puja]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

I don't discount an economy rate can go up or down for holding or attacking bowling depending on how good the bowling is, just how the bowler is trying to structure their approach determines the type of bowling it is for me. And that before considering how one sets a field to support the bowler's intent. And also before you think about whether the batter is looking to come forwards or getting pushed back with nothing to really interest them unless they can play on the up

At times we barely scored any runs of Shane Warne because we struggled to read him and were so worried about getting out, but that doesn't mean Warne was bowling as a holding bowler to the likes of Robin Smith and Graeme Hick.

I'm not insisting Pakistan change their approach, again it makes them an exciting team. I just think if they had the option and discipline to at times switch to a more containing style it'd help them, and none of their seamers really does that, and two leggies will struggle even if they tried. Whether they have a different seamer of finger spinner who can do a job coming in for Shadab I don't know, but those googlies weren't enough of a variant to the leg-breaks Yasir was sending down. I'll also concede singles drive me faintly potty (or pottier) because I hate letting batsman get through for cheap runs, and 5 men on the boundary is such a killer to stop cheap runs

I'm gonna have to agree with Banquo here - holding bowling is surely doing whatever keeps a team from scoring and ties down an end for a good long number of overs. A lot of holding bowlers do go back of a length, but I don't think you can't be defined as a holding bowler if you bowl differently while still keeping a miserly economy and frustrating the batsmen.

Puja

[Banquo]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

I don't discount an economy rate can go up or down for holding or attacking bowling depending on how good the bowling is, just how the bowler is trying to structure their approach determines the type of bowling it is for me. And that before considering how one sets a field to support the bowler's intent. And also before you think about whether the batter is looking to come forwards or getting pushed back with nothing to really interest them unless they can play on the up

At times we barely scored any runs of Shane Warne because we struggled to read him and were so worried about getting out, but that doesn't mean Warne was bowling as a holding bowler to the likes of Robin Smith and Graeme Hick.

I'm not insisting Pakistan change their approach, again it makes them an exciting team. I just think if they had the option and discipline to at times switch to a more containing style it'd help them, and none of their seamers really does that, and two leggies will struggle even if they tried. Whether they have a different seamer of finger spinner who can do a job coming in for Shadab I don't know, but those googlies weren't enough of a variant to the leg-breaks Yasir was sending down. I'll also concede singles drive me faintly potty (or pottier) because I hate letting batsman get through for cheap runs, and 5 men on the boundary is such a killer to stop cheap runs

I think we are talking about a different bowler if you are trying to draw a comparison with Warne! Warne was clearly an attacking bowler the majority of the time, and I agree that the fear of him was what led to economy, plus he was very accurate and rarely bowled a bad ball.

My point remains simple, when Azhar Ali was trying to get some control over the scoring, albeit a little late, he turned to Abbas; and Abbas performed exactly the sort of role that you seemed to be saying was needed. He bowled a length that is the very length you describe, not quite back foot, not quite front foot. When he takes the new ball, he has a slightly more attacking field and gets a bit more movement, but seam rather than swing and bit of bounce from only a marginally fuller length; you seem to have him pegged as an attacking swing bowler, and he isn't. He bowls like lower paced McGrath for me- attacks the top of off stump, but less effective with an old ball when he slips into holding mode imo.

Anyway, from previous experience, you won't be changing your mind, so we will have to disagree.

Must have been great to see McGrath at Wuss; when I worked there the stars were Glenn Turner with Basil D'oliveira still just about playing . Jim Cumbes, John Inchmore and Paul Pridgeon were the seamers , and Duncan Fearnley and Tom Graveney were regulars in the members bar where I worked- lovely summers there!

[Digby]

It was awesome having McGrath at Wuss, and those memories help assuage time spent watching Ahktar.

Pakistan did mange some restriction to the run flow against England, but didn't do it pushing the batters back, and didn't do it with a field cutting off the singles. Also part of the run saving might have been England moving from having a hit and a hope to thinking the win was on and not wanting to throw away a surprise chance for a win.