Project 3.MP3

The main ideas from this information are: - The IPL franchisees can retain six players from their existing squad, with a maximum of five Indian players and two uncapped players. - Overseas players must register themselves for the big auction, and if they do not, they will be ineligible for the next two years. If they register and do not turn up, they will be banned for the next two years. - A capped Indian player will become uncapped if they have not played for the Indian team for five years. - There is a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of these rules, including concerns about foreign players not performing or being injured, as well as the influence of commercial factors in player selection. - There is also a debate about the salary cap for foreign players and whether it restricts trade. - The criteria for selecting players may not be purely based on cricketing performance, but also on commercial value and entertainment factor. Overall, there are mixed opinions about the Hello and welcome to the Big 3 podcast with Adarsh and Adam. We have a whole host of different topics to discuss today and well, starting off we will discuss about the IPL GC ratifications. First of all good morning Adam. Good morning. Yes, so I list the ratifications as they were announced a few days back. The IPL franchisees can retain a total of six players from their existing squad. It is at the discretion of the IPL franchisees to choose their combination for retentions and RTMs. The retentions can have a maximum of five Indian players and two uncapped players. The auction purse for the franchisees has been set at 120 crore and well, there are a few regulations and the most important one from this announcement is that any overseas player will have to register themselves for the big auction. In case they do not, they will be ineligible for the next two years and if someone registers themselves and does not turn up, then they will be banned for the next two years too and the last rule is that a capped Indian player will become uncapped if the player has not played for five years for the Indian team. What do you make of this? Well, it's really interesting stuff. I think two things stick out for me. Number one, I think from a fan's perspective and a player's perspective, it's actually from a fan's perspective and a player's perspective and an entertainer's perspective, it's actually the right thing because you couldn't have a situation you had maybe with someone like Jason Roy, you don't want people pulling out and there's a lot of players picking and choosing and I know that's their right but there's also the other side of the coin where you want to be able to rely on a certain number of players to play and not to be sabotaged or jeopardised by players continually pulling out and there being no way of actually, no way of kind of, no stick or carrot to get them to play but they were too free to pull out woolly nilly. So that, I think that's an improvement so I'd actually congratulate them on that. The other point is that this could be a move away from boards having control to franchisees having control and that's the other interesting side of this, the emergence of the actual franchise owners taking more control away from the board and kind of acting independently from them. So these measures seem like they're just brought in by franchise owners rather than the actual board itself and I think that's an interesting development too. Yeah, you're correct. I think that the most, like as you've mentioned, the biggest change will be for players like, there have been players like Harry Broke, Jason Roy and so that Australian players as well like Travis Redd and Mitchell Stark. People have registered themselves but not turned up because they didn't get the amount of money they were expecting. Like if someone went for 2 crore, they didn't come, they didn't turn up. Stark has registered himself for 5 years and didn't turn up once. So that, you can imagine like these teams have plannings before the auctions where they, like a player like Mitchell Stark is the core of their team and around that they plan everything and if he does not turn up then that messes up everything. So according to me, this has been a positive move but I didn't like the move where the foreign players are not allowed more than 18 crores of salary or their money is decided by Indian players which I think is a restriction of trade. Although there's a rule in the IPL that says that you can pay the player more than or less than what they have been sold in the auction for but I think this is influencing the rules of trade. What do you think about this? Yeah, I mean whenever people talk about salary caps or wage caps in premiership football, when they suggest it, they always talk about the idea of infringement of trade and I think that's the same here. I'm not massively against it but I wonder legally what the ramifications are. Can you do that or could someone challenge that in the courts? I think you can have an auction but what they have done is, I'll tell you the exact thing, if an Indian player goes for 18 crores then only can a foreign player get 18 crores. So the maximum amount of money an Indian player gets, that's the maximum amount an overseas player can get and after 18 crores, the overseas player won't get anything. That will go to a player welfare fund. So I think that's a bit of a grey line as to what they have done and I don't think it should have been done because they have more than enough money and that gives out the wrong message. Yeah, I mean what do you think, what's the positive side of it, just that that promotes the Indian cricketers I suppose? I think it's nothing more than just a PR move or just trying to, I think they're just really upset. If you saw the discourse after the IPL when Mr. Stark got scold, I didn't understand the outphrase. People were saying Stark does not deserve that money. Okay, maybe he does not do it and does deserve it objectively but he's been paid that, he deserves the money and Anthony in the Premier League receives 100 million dollars but no one's speaking like he should get a 50 million cut. He's got that, he should not recoup that. So I think that's unfair. In the last rule which I mentioned to you, it says that an uncapped Indian player will become, a capped Indian player will become uncapped if he does not represent India for five years. Now this is just for MF Dhoni. So we can consider, we can consider, yes exactly for him. So now he's an uncapped player, alright. We'll discuss, he has not played for India at all. That's really funny. Yeah, go on. You pointed out the good side of this and also the idea of not wanting to be sabotaged by someone putting out at the last minute. Is there any talk about some of the foreign players that come in and don't really play? So they haven't pulled out but they just turn up and they don't do anything. So I remember Archer going there and getting injured. I remember in 2023 Stokes went there. He must have played two games. He stayed right up until the semi-finals or the playoffs and he literally played two or three games and every time I'd put the game on to see him and he'd just be on the bench drinking Red Bull. It's really funny. So I don't know, is there any kind of plans or have they had any plans to try and maximize the utility of these foreign players or is there no way of doing that? Can someone just come along and just sit on the bench and drink Red Bull and get paid money? I guess if they're injured then they can't do anything. They can't force the player to play. They had a stipulation in there which you've mentioned so I'll just say that they will not ban the player if there's a legitimate reason for them not to play if they're injured. But I think there's a bit of a mishap there where the injury reporting will come from the home board. So suppose if Ben Stokes is injured then the ECB will tell the BCCI that he's injured but I think that's a bit grey because the ECB will not want Ben Stokes to go and play for the IPL if there's a World Cup coming up. So I think they should have made an independent group of medical advisors for that. And also is it a new injury because there's guys like Stokes or Archer who continually got these injuries and they sometimes play with them sometimes don't. Does that count as a new injury or do you just start from a clean slate? I wonder how you kind of judge that because some of these players have constantly got like a injury problem and they need a bit of rest and they can play again but the injury is still there really. Yeah so I think that they'll just have an assessment from the host board and if they give the green light then they'll be allowed to play. And I think once they come to the IPL if they are not a judged fit then they'll get the money. That's not an issue I think. When you're injured you get your money and when you're dropped you don't. I think it's something like that in the IPL. I see. So what was the criteria for picking? For some of these players you wonder are they picked for reasons other than just the cricket performance? Because say Stokes at his best would be great in the IPL but you know Stokes in recent years has been suffering from injuries, doesn't bowl as much now. So in a way objectively Seamus Ince would be better than Ben Stokes in the IPL. He would score more runs. Obviously. But he's not a big name. So is it almost just like having a film star over or having Hulk Hogan or Shawn Michaels in wrestling? Even if they're not doing anything it's just great to see them there. And do they take that into account? Do they make money from merchandise maybe and things like that? Yeah you've hit the nail on the head because if you see Mitchell Stark he went for 24 CR. I'll just give his example for now. People were saying that Stark is very unpredictable and he does not perform regularly. He's a six foot eight Australian, he's white and he's muscular. So it's not just a cricketing buy. It's a commercial he contributes to the Kolkata Knight Riders brand and the IPL brand. When you see a big fast bowler running in from Australia that gets the viewership going. So I think it was just as much as a commercial buy as it was a cricketing pick. So I completely agree with you. There are a lot of people who don't get in the teams. Like if you see RCB, it's nothing but a player management company. I don't know if you know the names there. They just sign a bunch of superstars and get them endorsement deals. So I think as the IPL is touted to be, it is an entertainment product. It's not a cricketing product. So I think you were spot on there with that. Because there were some players, David Millan, his T20 record I think at one stage was the best of all time. You know with those ratings they do. He had the best rating in international T20 cricket. I don't know like as a percentage or whatever. I can't see any franchises preferring him to Stokes. It's a bit funny because he's like less of a name. But if you just were looking at Ron, you would pick him, wouldn't you? Yeah, you would. But that's the thing. They have just made it a media thing. The Bollywood fusion and that's why you cannot have that. So now in the same regard, I think there's a big change that's coming in the cricketing world where the BCCI is losing some of its power to the franchise owners. If you see over the years, they have been the controlling power. They dictate everything that happens in cricket. But now that people like Mukesh Ambani, like the GMR group which just bought Hampshire in counter cricket and well there is Shah Rukh Khan and there are a few other people, the Rajasthan group and the Sunrisers. They have a lot of franchises bought everywhere and when they have so much control over the cricketing calendar, how it's shaped, where people want, they control the supply and the demand basically. And when you control that, then the BCCI will definitely lose some of its powers and I think this could be a positive move because I think that businessmen are better at controlling sport than greedy politicians. What do you think? Yeah, yeah, they are. They definitely are and they can definitely promote things better. I suppose the only problem is it could lead to further sidelining of international cricket. So when they are talking about, using the English example, private investment in the 100. If private investors take charge, they will run it much better obviously. But they might run it in a way where it's detrimental to not only the domestic game but also to the international summer. So it's almost like what they are doing now where England aren't playing India in August next year. Last year we didn't play Australia in August. So you have a great month like August where the kids are off from school and there is no, the kind of, the stellar test matches aren't being played then. I fear more of that with private investments where good international games won't be protected in the way, they are not necessarily protected now but even less so when there's private investments involved. Yeah, you're correct on that and I think that stems from basically the messed up cricketing calendar that we have. Well, if you do not have a structure then they are going to take up the prime months because they are the only things which are available. I think there was a very valid point made yesterday that the Lancashire group, the Lancashire team, the Oval and Mill, no not the Oval, Manchester Originals, is it something like that? Yeah, that's sponsored by McCoys. So the Glazers are trying to buy the Manchester Originals because that apparently connects to Old Trafford and Sir Jim Ratcliffe has bought the Man U team. So they want some sort of connection back to the old Old Trafford and I think there's some sort of linkage going on in there. Because I think the Glazers own a franchise in Dubai don't they or somewhere like that? Yes, the Desert Pipers. Yeah, the Desert Pipers. So it would make sense. I think that I heard that they actually do attend those games and they might watch the whole thing as well. It's not like they just turn up for five minutes or something. So they seem interested in it. Yeah, yeah, they were interested in it. But well, you're correct. Unless there's a proper cricketing calendar in place, cricket cannot exist like it is currently or it has been. With that said, I think we can move on perfectly to our next topic, which is on the World Test Championship and a cricketing window. So I have a window which I have thought of, which I think should be implemented. It basically goes like this that you will have an ODI or T20 World Cup every two years. That essentially means that you will have one of them running every four years. And there will be a qualifier in between the years. And in a World Cup year, there will be four months of Test cricket and six months of franchise cricket. So franchise cricket will run for six months every year. In a non-World Cup year, Test cricket will be for five months and in a World Cup year for four months. So now that's sorted out. For World Test Championship, it will run for four years, not two years because I think that's not long enough. A four-year cycle with three divisions and the first division will have India, England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. Is that six? Yeah, or England, Australia, India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan as well maybe? Yeah, Pakistan. For South Africa? Yeah, I think I said South Africa. India. Okay, yeah. So maybe it's India, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka. Yeah, you've got six. And then the next one will be Bangladesh, West Indies, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Ireland. Yeah. And the third division will be, third division can make themselves up. It's basically Scotland, Netherlands, India, USA, Nepal and Namibia. And there will be a structure beneath this, like a semicircle structure through which people, all countries can get up above. And for all of this to happen, I suggest eradicating Test status because I think it's just a private boys club tag and it should not exist for now. And all of this will be accompanied by a promotion relegation system because otherwise it's just a closed book and closed library no one can enter in. And well, you'll have equal number of home and away games and you'll have three or five match series. So it runs like that and then the final will be played in a five match series in differing suppose the first test will be in Melbourne, second in Lodz, third in Johannesburg, fourth in Kolkata and fifth in Jamaica. So that's my entire proposal. I'll tell the benefits what but what do you think of it? I think it's a good idea. I think broadly, that is the way forward. The one thing is, it's interesting that you'd abolish test status. That's a very kind of radical change. So rather than just giving Scotland, Holland, Nepal, USA test status, you just abolish it and you just abolish it. So no one's got test status in a way. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. That's really radical. But that would be interesting. There's countries like the USA and Canada that have a lot of potential. For example, the USA in the T20 World Cup, they were very good. I know they had a lot of kind of people who were playing for the Indian on the 19th side or the 21st side. But that's America. America is a country that has always prided itself on immigration. So that's not like a contradiction for America. And I think them in Canada have got like a higher ceiling than maybe Namibia. So if Namibia changes, I think it'd be less cricket orientated, whereas I think America and Canada can grow more into cricket. So it would be great to get those two involved. And within a few years, they could get promoted and then promoted again. That wouldn't shock me. So I think that's really good. It's good that it's not a closed shop. I suppose the other question it raises, there are some kind of marquee series that might not happen. So if England were in a different division to Australia, would you still have the Ashes? Could that be played on the side? Or the only test cricket that's being played, would this three division structure be the only test cricket played? Or could England still play the Ashes? Or if India were in a different division to Australia, still play the BTT? And if ever the government agreed, could India still play Pakistan if they were in different divisions in a separate series? Or would it have to be within this league and not a series? I think it would have to be within this league, because otherwise it's just a farce. Because in football, Italy didn't qualify for the World Cup, I think. So they didn't just force them into the World Cup for the sake of it. Yeah. So I think you do not have the Ashes, but I do not see it being a real possibility that England go down unless, unless basketball carries for five more years than that. We may just go to semi-pro, but we'll not entertain that right now. I think that's not a possibility for now. But if in case that does happen, we'll just not have the Ashes for two years, I guess. Okay. So, and then this other kind of series. So maybe, I don't know, maybe say Sri Lanka are in the first division, but England make more money playing the West Indies or Pakistan, say, who are in the second division. Would a board be annoyed that, you know, we get more money from getting the West Indies or Pakistan over, dealership-wise, ticket sales-wise than we do with Sri Lanka? Would they feel aggrieved? Would that be like an obstacle? I think that there's a solution for this, which I forgot to mention that there will be a two-month or one-month Champions League running in the franchise cricket window, and that will be used to subsidize Test cricket. So, yeah, that money, that will generate billions of dollars in money. So that will be more than enough for cricket to survive Test cricket. So that will be used to subsidize Test cricket and well, football games are played, so they do not see which games are most profitable and just make Israel and Palestine play in the group. They do not do that. That's in conflict. So I think that should not happen and the money generated from the Champions League will be enough to subsidize it. And there will be a time after sustained periods of marketing and when the audience gets involved, then you won't need to subsidize it again. And after that, I think it can take care of itself. Yeah, that would definitely be the way forward. Do you think there's any will or desire for this to happen from like the ICC or the boards? Well, yeah, that's a very important thing for this too. But for why this hasn't happened yet, because the current cricketing calendar as it exists, it is chaotic and no one knows when to watch anything. So we both know that if it's structured, then there'll be a lot of benefits people are going to be able to know when things are happening. Cricket will have a have a rebirth. But why this won't happen is because when there's a lot of chaos, then people are able to well, get away with stuff. They're not they're not held accountable for things which they should be like, for example, the BCC or the ICC, they should be held accountable for what? Zimbabwe and Ireland? When was the last time Zimbabwe played India in a test match? Do you remember the last time they played India in a test match? I remember them playing them in 2005. They must have gone beforehand, but that's the last one I remember. They haven't played since then. It's a fast system structure right now. It does not work. And unless there's a cricketing calendar where people can pinpoint where the faults are, it just won't work. And and I've also when they play side by side, they've now got into this habit, the biggest side of reducing the days to four days. You would have noticed that as well. But when we play Ireland, we just make it a four day test. When South Africa plays in Zimbabwe, it's a four day test. And next year, when England plays in Zimbabwe, it's a four day test. It's a bit weird. It still counts as a test. But they just, it's strange that you can have a five day test and a four day test and it still counts as a test. It's not like a standardised number of days. But I don't know. Do you think that's a bit strange? Yeah, I think it's a bit strange. I would I would have five day test matches standardised because because it's very confusing, right? You do not want a new viewer to be more confused than you already are. You know, I didn't know that if the game rains for the first two days, then you have then the follow on changes from 200 to 100. I did not know that. Did you It's already very confusing. And if you make it different, then it just does not work. And I think there were a few changes that you suggested in the last podcast as well, like, like playing on with a little bit of rain and playing. Because it's not dangerous anymore. You're not playing on uncovered wickets. They are batting paradises most of the time. Just use a pink ball and get on with it. Yeah, definitely. And do you think it's a bit kind of half-assed in a way where they, they say, yeah, we want to encourage new teams to play. So they decide to play Zimbabwe or Ireland or someone, but then they won't give them the full five days. They just give them four days as like a warm up to it to another series. And it's kind of over before you've even known it. And that's it. And you know, they haven't put any effort into really, they've just gone, they've given them a four day match, smashed them in three days. And that's it. Yeah, it's a bit of PR work, right? Yeah. You'll see everyone in the cricket fraternity is saying the same thing. That's cricket and cricket needs to be safe. But the people who actually need to do something, they won't do anything. They'll just smash their own pockets and then leave. I just, everyone says the same thing. People in Sky, people in Starsports, people in Fox, they say the same thing, but nothing actually comes to fruition. And I, and I was listening to a podcast yesterday and I think Nasser Hussain was on there and, and they were talking about the Lalit Modi tweets and all that. And he was confronted with it and, and he just didn't say anything. He defended the 100 and I was like, what? Why? And Atherton was there as well, I think. And I expected Atherton to well, say things against it. But I guess Sky is a big investor in the 100 and they aren't allowed or something. But I just, I just don't like that there is a lot of gatekeeping and censorship. That just isn't an, isn't a healthy environment. No, not at all. I mean, the 100 is a great example of it, but there are other ones. But someone like Mike Atherton is so good at analyzing things, so good at analyzing cricket, a really good brain. And he's really almost dispassionate in the way he analyzes things and not biased in any way. But even he has to kind of, yeah, turn off his kind of analytical brain when it comes to the 100. And just almost, you have to switch off that side of his brain because I suppose, I don't know if they formally told him and Hussain not to say anything bad about it, but they obviously are intelligent enough to realize that if Sky are promoting it, they can't go on there and snag it off because it is like Turkey's logic for Christmas. No, no, they are. I think they are told these things because I saw an interview recently and a commentator said that, well, what happens is you have the director on your ear. And so if you say anything, then the director will immediately like cut your mic off and tell you what to do then. So there's a bit of overcompensation there. So you do not want to even get to the, get near where the line is. So I think they should sit in that process and do not reach where they should. But I think for someone like Sky and for my staff at NASA Hussain, they should be able to do these things because in India, well, if you see the BCCI com box, then they are just praising the BCCI. They won't call anything out. So it's refreshing to watch the Sky thing, but it's biased as well. And also, the jury is out on fastball. You can agree or disagree, but Sky definitely took a very pro fastball position. And it seemed like that was almost like a broadcasting company. America has to be pro Republican or pro Democrat. And that's the line they take. It's almost like Sky had a line that we are like a pro fastball line organization almost. And we're just always going to kind of dig it up and not be as critical. And I don't know what the reason is because they're not, I don't think they're doing it for sinister reasons or something, but it's almost like they have an editorial line where you think in the past people would just speak as they signed and just give their own views. That's an interesting development. Yeah, I think cricket has changed in that way that people are trying to censor things a lot more than before. Do you even notice that on things like, what is it, the Wisdom podcast? Yeah. There's a guy, what's his name? Is it Walker? Is it Phil Walker, I think. And you can sense that he wants to kind of say more, but he seems a bit frustrated. Do you ever sense that? Well, there was once a topic about Lawrence Oakley and the batting, and he just said, he almost said, I don't agree with it. And he didn't want to continue or elaborate on what he said. He just seemed a bit disenfranchised. And then when they talked about the hundred, he's almost like, yeah, I don't really like it, but no, it's going to raise loads of money. Almost like he has to have that bit, you know, it's going to raise money for the English game. And I feel like almost again, people are told to have a line and they can't fully express themselves or they're just a bit fed up with it and a bit disenfranchised with the way cricket's going anyway. And it means they just come across as a bit more disillusioned. Yeah, I think they are bogged down because I'll tell you an incident, Harsha Oakley was commentating on the 2014 India T20 World Cup. So in that period, he, you know, he's an unbiased commentator and he won't be a cheerleader. So there was a period where I think Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh, do you remember the final against Sri Lanka? So both of them were playing very slowly and that led to us not getting to a good total at the end. So Harsha Oakley just said, that's unacceptable and they need to bat better because Kohli was batting freely. And he said and after that Amitabh Bachchan tweeted, I think you know Amitabh Bachchan. So he tweeted on Twitter, he's a famous Indian celebrity, he tweeted there that our commentators do not even praise their own team. And after that, Dhoni retweeted that. So and after that, what happened was Harsha Oakley was removed from the Indian commentary team. Yeah, that's what we're talking about really, isn't it? There's like an editorial line. Yeah. So that's, that's a big thing and they cannot cross it and so they overcompensate in that process. I think, I think that we should get into reviewing the India versus Bangladesh series that has happened recently now. Well, the first test was Bangladesh looked promising on the back of the Pakistan series in the first day at least. Well, they got Virat Kohli with a pitch and Rohit Sharma and pitch was doing all sorts. Then Ashwin and Jadeja came in and from the second day on, it was like, how it has been for all the teams coming into India for the past 10 years, just doom and gloom. They capitulated and, and well, the story continued on till Kanpur and all of their energy was gone and India played really well in the second test, I think. Well, Rohit Sharma and Gautam Gambhir, gamble as they're calling it. It was good. I think that, well, taking the initiative and scoring at what 8.8 and over, that was pretty good. But I'm, I'm a bit disappointed that Virat Kohli couldn't, did you see the second innings of the first test where he had an inside edge and he got a judge Delby W, a massive inside edge, but he did not review it. I heard about it, but I didn't see it with my own eyes. I just like read the feed about it. But what's what he just, he didn't realize then that he got the edge. Yeah. He, he just wasn't concerned. He, he went to Shuman Gill. He asked, was I struck in front? And Shuman Gill actually said to him that review it. He was like, nah, nevermind. I'm out anyway. He was just down and he wanted to get out of the pitch, I think. And that was a bit disappointing as a, as a Virat fan and just seeing him go like that. But yeah, I just, and in, in a general Indian cricket sense, I think, uh, well, India did what India does. Bhoombra did what Bhoombra does. And, and we did well. Yashaswi Jaiswal again is proving to what a talent he is. And he'll be really exciting two months, one month down the line and down and down. He, um, he learned a lot from Dhaka, didn't he? Yeah. Well, he's just back. So what do you, what do you think of this as a whole? Well, I thought, um, the first test was interesting because Bangladesh had come up with that 2-0 win in Pakistan. So they, they were kind of as competent as it had ever been, really. Um, had that great start, like you say, and it underlines how, how good and how important Jadeja and Ashwin are. Ashwin, who isn't even considered an all-rounder really, has six test entries now. That's more than, than Dockett. It might be more the same as Pope. Um, it's, it's more than Crawley. I know he's played more games, but he, he's very reliable with the very reliable in tricky situations. Even in that, um, T20 World Cup in 22, he had a cool head against Pakistan in that game. He's, I think he's, he's got an exceptional temperament. He's, he's such a, he's good and very reliable. Jadeja the same. Um, and they're like an old raincoat that never lets you down, really. You could just trust them completely. And what would be kind of terrifying is if, if, uh, Hardy came back, you could have, um, Jadeja and Ashwin at eight and nine and have a really amazing batting lineup. That would be kind of almost impossible to get out. Um, that would be amazing. And also the other, we knew that Berman was going to go, well, you know, he's, uh, he's a great player. Um, the second test was interesting from the standpoint of Indian Rwanda lot. They could have just closed the series off, um, like a more conservative coach. I don't know someone like, I don't know, uh, a good one, like Duncan Fletcher, but more conservative, but it just hit the Rwanda lot. Uh, don't do anything silly and, um, you know, we'll win the series, but there was still that desire to win the second test. And, um, that the scoring at 8.8 is amazing in a, in a test match. I just wonder if Bangladesh, um, kind of not underestimated India, but just thought the game was a draw and they weren't really fully tuned in. Um, do you know what I mean? They just, it's kind of assumed to themselves as a draw and their minds weren't fully focused. Do you think that's the case? Yeah. Yeah. You're correct. They didn't, they didn't come prepared and they didn't adapt at the moment. So it was more like, I think reminiscent of the England versus New Zealand last summer in Nottingham where Stoltz was playing that game. He just came in and they were bowling at a level and England was smacking them out of the park. And I think that's what today, uh, yesterday, uh, no, during the game, all these guys were getting carted around the park and they didn't change. Just full of ideas. You can play D20 cricket. You do play D20 cricket. Just full of ideas. I think you're correct in that they didn't prepare enough and they were just lost, lost for hope when, when India went after them. I think, I think this is where, not, not in this topic, but I think last fall can be, there was something to credit about it because the first test or the first day, I think Tom Hartley was bowling to Yashashree Jaiswal and he just pounced on Hartley and hit him a lot, I think. But Stoltz didn't get him off and I think that was a good decision for all the bad things they do. Bad display and didn't, didn't let his guard down, which I think further in the test, as we saw that Hartley got seven, seven wickets and all that, I think having a good environment where you believe in yourself, that's key to winning test matches and Bangladesh should have that. It is, I suppose, I remember Steve Waugh saying in the early 2000s that his team played so, scored so quickly for those days, like three point something and over, that he didn't, that he could actually eliminate the fifth day from a test and just have four day tests because of, if everyone kind of evolved like his Australia side had evolved, there'd be no need for five days. Obviously, if everyone's going at eight point eight and over, you could actually just have four day tests, didn't you? Yeah. Obviously, there's weather that could have been, but it could, it would be interesting. Obviously, that was a special circumstance, but will teams continually go for a higher run rate? I'm not sure they will, but if they did, that would actually change the face of cricket. Yeah, yeah. Yes. So, I think that we have discussed India versus Bangladesh now. There was another series happening in this period that was New Zealand versus Bangladesh series and well, sorry, New Zealand versus Sri Lanka, what am I saying? So, yeah, New Zealand versus Sri Lanka and they, New Zealand got rolled over in the two tests, much like Bangladesh and India and it showed a bit of promise in the first test or, yeah, and Ratan Ravindra was a bit, Ratan Ravindra was good, but apart from that, I think they didn't turn up and Glenn Phillips played a bit, but the pitch and goal, I think was turning a lot and it needs, I think that if you want to have a fair contest in test cricket, either you have to have a place where both the teams can have equal amounts of preparation. Obviously, the home team will be better prepared, but you can have a situation where the away team comes in, say, one and a half months before the series and then they are able to be better prepared for the series or just prepare more sporting wickets because no one wants to watch an uneven contest. Anyways, I think it was a decent series and Sri Lanka are in with a good chance of making the World Test Championship final. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, with Shastri and Sri Lanka, I think it's just a shame that some of their batsmen are quite old because their batting lineup is very good. Even when they came to England, I think everyone there averaged 40 plus. Kamadou Mendes, if I don't want to jinx him, but looks like he could be like a genuinely world-class player and it's like one of the stars of the next few years. Their attack is decent, but they're a decent side, Sri Lanka. I think it might be difficult to get to that World Test Championship final still because they've got Australia and South Africa in South Africa, so that's a tricky one, but they've got a good chance. I think with New Zealand, they kind of peaked during that time that they won the World Test Championship, I think, and as a side, test-wise, anyway, they've been kind of on the way down. But it's like one of these tours from hell in a way that their first game against Afghanistan was rained off entirely so they had no practice, and then go to Sri Lanka, lose 2-0, and then they got India for three tests. You can see the wheels coming off it. The captain, Saudi, has resigned. They'll have Nick Latham as the new captain, so all these things happening. You get the feeling that if they lost the first couple of tests in India, all the first tests, it would just continue to go in a downward spiral. That first test in Sri Lanka was tight. I think New Zealand had a first-innings lead, and even up until the last day, there was a chance that they could win it. But the second test, they were just smashed, really, and Williams had got out twice in a day, didn't he? That was interesting. Yeah. Yeah, I think they just got rolled over, and when you bring up the Afghanistan test, and I think let's go back to the Kanpur test as well. I think Noida and Kanpur, both of those should not be used for international cricket till they are ready and have proper systems in place. I don't think you came for the England series to India, but even in Hyderabad, the English fans, the washroom was like it was drained, and there was no proper service. It wasn't clean and tidy. So I think as the richest cricket board, what message will it send if you do not have proper facilities for touring teams? So I think that's a bit of an issue, although I have to say that Noida was blacklisted before the match, and Afghanistan chose it specifically. They were given a better stadium, but they chose Noida. So it's a bit of a grey line there. But with Kanpur, it was completely the BCCI's fault. And I'll tell you why they picked Kanpur, because Rajiv Shukla, he's the BCCI's vice president, and he's been the vice president for around 50 years now. So yeah, he's a member of Congress here, and he decides it's his home state, and he wants to promote cricket and get some PR for himself. That's why he wants to have test matches there. No one's not saying that you don't have test matches there, just improve the facilities. Same with Noida. And well, we were talking about the New Zealand and Sri Lanka series, I think Kane Williamson, he was in the Fab Four discussion, and I think he was the best in the 2021 period, him and Joel, just keep propped up, everyone else. Smith and Foley just went behind in the conversation. I think Ross Taylor, Williamson, and Bould, Demsauji, Wagner was there. These guys, these guys combined to form a real good force in that period. And then they've got Conway as well, when he qualified. Yeah, he made them even better. He scored a double century against England, from what I remember, in his first year. So yeah, they had a really good lineup back then. And now it just seems to be falling off. And well, the Sri Lanka series might be a trailer for what comes next as we move on to the India versus New Zealand series, which is coming up from the 16th of October. The first test is in Swami. And I think as you've correctly mentioned earlier, that it's been a horror tour of Asia for them. And I think it might continue that way in India as well. Because, well, I do see them preparing, India preparing, well sporting wickets and green wickets in the Swami. But I really don't see a place where New Zealand compete. But I'm sure that they'll do better than Bangladesh in some ways. What do you think? Yeah, I felt that they'll definitely do better than Bangladesh in that second test. And you won't get them switching off in a way Bangladesh did. But I think it will still be 3-0 on this. I think whatever conditions, India have got that luxury now, whether it's a spinny wicket or a seamy wicket, they're better than New Zealand. So there's no pitch they can prepare where New Zealand have an advantage. And actually, if they prepared a really kind of turning, ragging pitch, that might actually help New Zealand more than them because it takes the skill out of it. Any spinner can get some purchase off it. If it's a kind of normal pitch, India should win. The new player, O'Rourke, is an interesting one for New Zealand, the fast bowler. He's actually born in England and played for New Zealand. It's like the reverse of how it normally is. He's normally born in New Zealand and played for England. That's quite funny. But he seems like a good prospect. But I don't know. It's going to be very difficult for him against that batting line-up, isn't it? But he does seem a good prospect and maybe you would be asking too much for him. Ken Phillips with an occasional spin might be dangerous, depending on how to watch his turn. He's also a good batsman and an excellent fielder. So he's someone who is always good to kind of watch out for. But I just think India is too strong at home anyway. And they're too strong for this New Zealand side. Yeah, New Zealand's a really interesting one, you know, because the only team that went away with a draw, like the last time New Zealand came to India, it was a two test series and they got 1-0. So India won 1-0. And the second test, Jas Patel and who was it with him? I think it was William Somerville. Both of them played out 15 overs. Like I think it was reminiscent of the Panisar and Anderson games. They just blocked out the last 15 overs. And it was really like it was heart-wrenching as a fan for me. So I think if New Zealand can walk away with a 2-0 result or somehow just get one draw in there or one bin in there, that would be huge for them. It's interesting in a sense that on these tours, they would have played six tests, two in Sri Lanka, one in Afghanistan, three India. But at home, they're only playing three tests in their summer. They're just playing them for three tests and the rest are just ODIs and T20s. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, they're not playing many tests really. Oh, that's a bit of a shocker. But I don't really know why because didn't they sell out all of their tickets for the England series? Yeah. I wonder if that was the reason though in a sense that there was only three tests to sell. Okay, that might be it then. But yeah, I think New Zealand as a prospect now, is Trent Boult coming to India for New Zealand? I don't think he is. No, I didn't think so. Yeah, so he has given up his contract. I think they might... Did Williamson kind of give up a contract or take a different type of contract as well? No, I don't think he's given up his contract. Or did he turn down a longer one? There was something about that. Maybe that was it. He was offered a three-year contract, I think, for one-year one or something like that. Yeah. You mentioned Willer Oorke. I think he's a good prospect. But India is not a good place for debuts or new players. So I think he might do decently, but I don't see him blowing apart the charts there. He'll get Virat Kohli. You can write it down right now. That first test, Virat Kohli edges it to second strip, Willer Oorke. Virat loves giving away his wickets to new bowlers. So that will definitely happen. You mentioned Glenn Phillips. He's a wicket-keeper. And as much as I like Glenn Phillips, he's not a proper off-spinner. And if he's your lead spinner and he's your threatening spinner, then I'm sorry, you cannot win in India. You cannot even try to win in India. I suppose he's a very modern player in a sense. He can do everything. He's very fit, an excellent fielder. He has kept the ball a long way. He can chip in with doing off-spinning if you want. He's a very modern player, isn't he, in that sense? Yeah, you're correct. But if you come to the subcontinent for a test match, you want a proper spinner, right? I understand that he's a very good player and all that. But at the end of the day, he's just a bits and pieces, a really good bits and pieces player. Whereas if you want someone like, say, Daniel Vittori, who could chop the ball at one spot for all that time. And he could bat as well. And he was a really good tactician for New Zealand. So that's something as well. Who else do they have as spinners? I think Ajaz Patel is there. He picked up 10 wickets in an innings last time in India. And there's this guy, Mitchell Santner is there. I don't know. I think Ravindra may bowl a bit of spin, but I don't think that they have any other spinners. So basically, two proper spinners. Santner is not an out-and-out spinner again. I think Santner would not be picked if he were worse with the bat. I think a lot of the reason that he's picked is because of his batting skill. A bit like when England used to pick Don Bess. They think he wouldn't get there if he was like a No. 11 batsman. Santner's like an all-rounder, basically, isn't he? And he can score 100. Yeah, Bess is an interesting one. I remember in the 2021 series, in the first test, he picked up four wickets in an innings, I remember. He was really good. And in the last of the three tests, he got smacked around everywhere. Yeah, he seemed to lose confidence as the tour went on and never played against England. Yeah, that's the thing. But I think Bess was more of a bowler than a batter. With Santner, he's more of an all-rounder. So it's a bit different there. So overall, I think if Kane Williamson turns up, there's a chance they compete. But otherwise, it's going to be a meek show as it has been in India for two years. So I think that there's another series coming up right now. England versus Pakistan, the big one for now. And this team has been announced. So the golfers are at it again. And Ben Stokes, in playing Ollie Pope, the lead golf player who played in the PGA recently, he was in England for the test match. How does it feel having a golfer play for your test? Yeah, I wanted to get Nick Saldo, but then we've got Ollie Pope. But I think it's amazing when you look at it. I know we're joking, but it is a bit chilling in a sense where you think, if they could, and most of these players do actually prefer golf to cricket, it's quite funny. You think, why am I watching this if they prefer golf to cricket themselves? Because I remember that Ollie Pope, the ECB, I think, sanctioned resting him for the last couple of county games of the season. So I don't know if it was his decision or the ECB. But rather than go to the Oval to watch Surrey win the league, his county, he's been there all his life, he chose to play a Pro-Am golf game. And you just think, wow, when England prepared for the Ashes last year, they prepared by playing golf in Scotland. And so you really get the impression that if they could, they'd just be playing golf. Jimmy Anderson, who's a bowling coach, has actually delayed his arrival at Pakistan to play at St. Andrews. I think he's playing with Michael Vaughan in the golf tournament. So it's really amazing that people might think it's like a gripping say, or like a kind of jibe. But they do give a real impression of a team that prefers golf. And I wonder if he would do a proper survey, like an anonymous survey with the players, what percentage would say they prefer playing golf to playing cricket? It seems like it would be the majority. But it would be good to get that survey going. Yeah, you're correct on that. I think most countries play golf. It's not just limited to England. Australia too does. But the problem is, like you've said, it seems like the priority is golf and cricket. Cricket is a second thing, like if you have time, I'll play cricket, something like that. It's like if a lot of people go to work, and then they go to work, and then when they get home from work, their enjoyment is watching cricket. Whereas the cricketers, or the England cricketers more specifically, it seems like the cricket is their work. Once they get the financial remuneration from playing cricket, they then spend it on what they really do like, which is golf. It's a funny thing for a fan really to compute. Yeah, and even if they want to play golf, I think they could do it in a better way. Just not go on and play in a publicized tournament. If you want to play golf, go to a private golf course and play with your friends. Don't get it on the media. You know that there's an outrage, you're inviting outrage. Because when you put it out everywhere, then you're just saying that we don't care about the fans, like Harry Brooks. And well, at the end of the day, it's the English fan which is paying you. So if you're going to act nonchalant, and I get trying to be nonchalant and trying to build an environment where people are stress free and all that. But it just gives out the wrong message. It just feels as if you do not care about the sport at all. And also, if they're trying to promote the sport, if they're saying we're trying to say test cricket, or we're bringing in the Honda to bring a new base into cricket, a new fan base. But at the same time, they're saying, well, actually, what we like best is golf. So it's a weird, weird message, isn't it? Yeah. It's all a bit messed up with them. Like, we alluded to in the last podcast, they just speak of the ashes and do not speak of other tours. And that that is counterintuitive to what their message was. And so that's, that's a bit like, you do not understand what they try to do. It's just basketball. You go along with basketball. That's the basketball way of doing things. They seem to be like, treating this very lightly. I mean, they've only just kind of turned up this week for a game that starts on Monday. And the bowling coach isn't even there. They didn't know whether the coach was going to be fit or not. That's a slightly picked a bit peculiar. I wonder if they're testing Pakistan a bit lightly. Yeah, I think that might be because getting into that series, I think Pakistan has been down and out. And it's not a secret that Pakistan has been very bad for the past two years. They have lost 10 tests, the last 10 tests lost at home. That's an abysmal record, let's be honest, because yeah, one for 1355 days and at home, the last win was against South Africa in 2021. They do not know what combination works for them. Their lead basis, I think Shaheen Shah three days injured and all of that. So I think that England may be underestimating them. But I think a Pakistan which is cornered, they have, they have the ability to bounce back. And yes, they are the mercurial, they are the epitome of what mercurial stands for. They can be completely down in the trenches one day and be the king of the world another day. So I think that's amazing. England might encounter one day, one good day of Pakistan cricket, and they might just be blown over in that day and they might not be prepared for it. And I think that's a real possibility. And I think it should happen honestly, I think they deserve to be a little humbled if that's the correct word. And also, I wonder why they are so confident because if you actually look at 11, it doesn't look that great, really, the England 11. You've got Crawley just come back from injury with Dockett, those two hardly ever make centuries, Pope at three struggles against He's also not a particularly good captain either. Roots obviously world class. Brooke should be doing better than he is at the moment. So hopefully you can bank on him. His first tour as a keeper, and it's a bit different keeping in Asia than it is in England. And you've got Wokes at seven, who I don't think is a number seven. We talked to Ashwin, who's a number eight sprinter, he's got six test centuries. Wokes at seven only has one in 50-odd tests. So I don't know if he's a number seven. Also, he is very rarely, which it's abroad, he's really a specialist in England, in English conditions, but with the English ball, not with a kookaburra abroad. So it's strange that he's at the age of 35 and a half or whatever, all of a sudden they thought, well, he's gonna magically become a good bowler overseas. That's a bit bizarre to me. Kass is okay. Atkinson's a prospect. And then Leitch and Bashir, doesn't suggest to me that it's a team that can go in overconfident. It doesn't seem to me like, I don't think many of those players are getting to other sides in the world. I don't think Shemantha would have many of those players, for instance. I think it's almost like they've got a kind of dysmorphic view of the team, that it's better than it actually really is. I don't know why it is. I don't know if it's arrogance or just a team spirit or a positive way of looking at things. But it's a much weaker side, I think, than they realize. Yeah, yeah, you're correct. I think the last time around, they had Anderson or Austin and Wood. So three of them were right on the money. And in Pakistan, Pakistani wickets, you have reverse swing. That's the only thing you have to work with. And they were brilliant that time. I was watching it, I remember. And well, they were outperforming. They were somewhere near what you'd imagine, well, Waqar and Waseem. Not yes, well, but maybe it's a half of that. But I just clearly see how Bryden Kass and sort of disrespect to Bryden Kass because, but he's just not experienced enough in those positions. Atkins, and as you've rightly pointed out, I don't think Vox is a number seven. And it might get exposed, it might well get exposed. Has Ben Duckett been to Pakistan? Was he there last time? Yeah, last time he actually got 100 in that first test, when he was at Robbindy. Yeah, when they had like 500 in a day. That was like his return to test cricket. Oh, I do not actually remember whether he was there or not. I think I was too caught up with the Yashashree Jaiswal coach thing that I, everything failed it about Duckett before that. Yeah, I think there's a omission that I didn't really like. I thought they should have picked Ben Forks. I think he's a good addition. He'd be a good addition for this series because I think his glove work had been really nice in India. I think I see where they come from. They want to have a batter more than a keeper. They do not want a specialist keeper. But I think Forks would be suited to Pakistani and Asian conditions overall. He went there last time round. There was an illness in the camp. And he didn't play in the first couple of tests, but played in the third one and got a 50. So a good sign. And the first two tests they had Pope keeping. And obviously, because he's not a proper keeper, he wasn't as comfortable. But it seems like they don't see the keeper as a specialist position really. I think they just see maybe because Brendan McCollum himself was a kind of a batsman keeper rather than a keeper batsman. That's how he sees it. Do you think that's the case? Yeah, I think I think they do not really mind about the wicket keeping skills. They just care about how much runs you can how many runs you can score. So yeah. And the strike rate as well. Yeah, because I think you know, for India. Yeah, he was a really good keeper. I think he's the best wicket keeper of the 21st century. It's a stretch. But personally, it was that but they played Rishabh Pant. So I think that's the same thing with England where they do not really mind if there's the odd drop catch, if they make more runs for them. So that's their perspective. What do you make of Jack Leach and Shoaib Bashir? I think they did a good move bringing back Leach because honestly, he's really good in India and snubbing was wrong, honestly, because and Hartley as well. I don't see Hartley in the 15. So that's shocking to me. It's really weird because they picked Hartley for India because of the trajectory of his arm basically. And he actually did well. So he's actually a successful kind of left field pick. And then they haven't picked him since. You think, well, why is that? Because the other good thing about him was he could actually bat as well. So he did bring more. At this current time, he was getting you the same results as Bashir or more and score you more runs. But I think they just thought, again, planning for the Ashes, that they thought Bashir was a better bet or he would be in like a year and a half time. And that's why they did it. But right now, right this present moment, Leach is England's best spinner. But they just wanted to kind of build for the future and the summer just gone. So they picked Bashir. But Leach will get the most wickets, I think, in this series for England. Yeah, there was a very nice comment in your Twitter account. Someone said they should rename them to Rebuilding11. And that was really funny. They are repeating every time in all formats. So I think there was another guy like Liam Dawson. He could be picked. He should be picked, I think, because he's performing really well. And just on merit, he gets into the English side. But I don't know why they don't pick him. There's something up there, I think, because he was the best option because they like players who've got another strength in their bow. He's an excellent fielder and he's an all-rounder as well. And he gets wickets. And even though he's got a bit older now, he's actually kind of like in his prime. And when Leach got injured before the Ashes last year, he was probably the best option to pick. But they went to Monelli. That was enough. Monelli is a talented player, just because he hadn't played four-day cricket in a number of years. So he wasn't kind of matched fit. And he got injured during the first test. And Dawson would have been a better bet. Dawson could also have been selected in the squad for the T20 World Cup. That's just gone. They ignored him there. And he definitely should have been on the plane to India. And I just wonder if he kind of wanted assurances because he didn't want to be messed around. He didn't want to come out carrying the drinks when he could be playing in a franchise league and getting money that way because he's not contracted. So I wondered how much was him and how much was them. And did they say to him, you're coming, but we can't guarantee you a starting spot. And he thought, well, I could be playing in one of these franchise leagues. But he plays in the PSL a lot, doesn't he? He could be making money in the franchise league. Or is it just a personality thing? I don't know if Key or Brendan McCollum are big fans of it. I don't know what it is. But you would think on there that this guy deserves to be in the side. Yeah, I think it's more of the personality bit because honestly, if you wanted to hand him over another contract, it's not a big deal. You can hand him over a three-year contract. They have been handing them out like pie is a candy shop. So that's not a big thing. I just think that he does not fit into the culture which they are prescribing right now or something like that. But that's just ridiculous, isn't it? Like, if you've got a good player, you do not keep him out of the XI. You stick the best player for the situation. It's interesting you say that, because McCollum had this policy at New Zealand. He called it a no dickheads policy. I don't know if you read that somewhere. And where he wouldn't allow people he perceived as dickheads into the side, even if they might be as good as the players they had or better. Now, I don't think Liam Dawson is a dickhead in inverted commas. But maybe there's part of his personality that Brendan McCollum doesn't like or rubbed him up the wrong way. I don't know. That's the only kind of thinking. That's the only kind of possible explanation, really. Maybe he's not his type of bloke. There's a part of his character he doesn't like for some reason. Or he's not one of the guys. I don't know. I'm only speculating. We have to speculate, because it doesn't make any sense from a cricket perspective. And that's why we're speculating like this. It's not like hurdle gossip. It's very peculiar that one of the most suitable players isn't picked. You have to ask what the reasons are. Yeah, yeah, I think you're right there. I think it's just it's just that thing. They have a personality thing, which if he does not fit, then he will not be picked. I think Rob Key was there. I think there was an interview where Nass, Atherton and him and Skin Ward, they were all together. And Mark Butcher was there. I think it was just two months ago. And he was just discussing what goes on behind the scenes. And he just said that we have a way of doing things. And if someone doesn't get into our level, then he does not. But yeah, that's just wrong, in my opinion. Jumping on to the Pakistan squad. I'll list the squad out for you. Shahan Masood, Saud Saqeel, Aamir Jamal, Abdullah Shafiq, Abrar Ahmed, Babar Azam, Mir Hamza, Mohammad Huraira, Mohammad Rizwan, Naseem Shah, Noman Ali, Saeem Ayub, Salman Ali Agha, Sarfaraz Ahmed, Shaheen Shafri. Some of those players on paper at least are better than the ones that England have got in their XI. Yeah. Now, they're in bad form for whatever reason, or they haven't been organised. But whatever the reason is, the whiteboard team, it seems like Babar Azam keeps getting sacked and rehired. And there's a lot of kind of, it seems a bit ad hoc and all over the place. But there is talent there. I mean, Masood, I've seen him play for Yorkshire. I saw him play this year against Middlesex at Lourdes. He's not a bad player. Rizwan is obviously a world-class player. Babar Azam was amazing a few years ago. I don't know why. I think, were you saying that he had a technical change in his batting that made him worse now? Or is that what you think happened? Because he was brilliant a few years ago. Yeah, yeah. Babar Azam had a change where he closed himself off. He used to play a very open batter and then he went tight on. Or something like that. He couldn't access the ball which was in his leg stump. So he got bowled on LBW a lot. And I think Jared Kimball, the cricketing goat, he pointed it out to him. And as the story goes, he scored a century in the Champions Cup. It's another Pakistan cricket special to have a 50-over ODI title before a marquee series. I think all Pakistan fans will just be breaking their TV screens because of that. I'm catering to the stereotype. But I'm sorry if this offended someone. But that was ridiculous to have a Champions Cup running before a marquee series. I heard that. I heard that because they're prioritizing the ICC trophy. Like I'd say have it after the England series. Yeah. So they paid around $500,000 to each mentor. Can you imagine? They paid $500,000 to a mentor. So that's $2.5 million. Half of their broadcasting revenue goes to the mentor. So they say there's two things their own way. It's the Pakistan way, I guess. And they have prepared, I think, I saw the first test. It's a green strip. I expect the grass to be trimmed down a bit. I think that they'll just follow what they did with Bangladesh. They'll prepare a green strip and hope the toss goes their way. But it's weird that we picked two spinners. So if it is green, I don't know why we've done that. Because I think that it isn't green for long. It seems for the first day and then after that, it goes placid. So definitely win the toss and ball. Yeah, definitely win the toss and ball. It's the best thing to do. I think in the Pakistan squad, their spinners are Noman Ali and there's one more guy, Zakir Mohammed or someone like that. I don't know how he bowls or something like that. But Noman Ali was not good. I think we discussed about him yesterday where he went for a lot of runs and didn't pick up a wicket. He's a bit bored and all that. In their fast bowling stocks, they have Shaheen Shah, Fidi and Naseem Shah. What's happened to Fidi? Because he was really good. Yeah, he was really good. And he got a hamstring injury last year. After that, he's dropped down 20 kilometers in pace and he cannot get the swing he used to, the lateral movement which he was so lethal with. I just don't like that because it was so good watching Shaheen Shah, Fidi and Naseem Shah in the 2021 T20. I think he saw that game against India in Dubai. He was unplayable at that moment. He bowled 150 clicks, swinging it around both sides and all that. And in the following one, he got injured in the final, didn't he? It's quite helpful to him. And certainly he's only a good speller that he pulled up after getting injured fielding. He looked really good in that tournament as well. He was bowled 200 overs by Pakistan this year. I just don't think that you play a fast bowler that much. There needs to be workload management for him. And he was asked this question recently in a podcast where he was said that why don't you skip some franchise leagues or use bilateral. So he was like, well, Vakim and Bhakar used to bowl hundreds of overs every month. So I will also do that. I think it was coming from him. It was a comment that was forced on him to say. Because no fast bowler plays that many amount of games. No, no, no, no. And I think I remember he was playing for the Welsh Hula Hoops in the 100s. And I think he might have left to join the Canadian League or he was going to join the Canadian League. I don't know if he did in the end. So he does play a lot of franchise cricket. Yeah, he does play a lot of franchise cricket and he and he plays in every single bilateral series. He does not care if it's played against Zimbabwe or Kenya. And it's not his fault. I think it's the PCB which compels him to play all of that. And that's just wrong. They have, they change coaches every single day. And the chairman is not constant. They are focusing on the champion's trophy. Well, I'll be honest, I don't see it happening completely in Pakistan. It is probably at B or higher importance where the rest gets carried out in Pakistan and India goes to play in the UAE. So there's a lot of happening in Pakistan cricket all the time. Like it has been, it's been around for a long time. And I think their coach is Jason Gillespie this time. Did you find it strange because they split the coaches as well. And they had Kirsten as the white ball coach and Gillespie as a test coach. Obviously Kirsten has done one in both in his career. But I think Kirsten is a much better manager than Gillespie myself. Do you? Yeah, yeah. I think Kirsten's a better man, but they had some sort of complex, they wanted to do it for the sake of it. They separate. So I think with Kirsten, he's like, he's been there and done it as a coach. He won the World Cup with India, didn't he? He was great in South Africa as a coach and obviously was a good player with Gillespie. I think he might be a bit overhyped. He did okay in county cricket as a coach. And that's about it. He's one of these guys who likes to make a lot of statements about his political views. I think he's a vegan. He sometimes talks about having Aboriginal ancestors and being proud of that when he's playing for Australia. But if you're just looking purely at his output as a coach, I don't know if it was the right decision for Pakistan to appoint him, but I don't think he's, I don't think he's maybe of that calibre to be high enough calibre to be Pakistan coach myself. Yeah, I think it was just a decision like, whatever feels the best. Mohsin Naqvi did it. He just went and thought, I'll pick this guy. And he didn't see anything. And they offered like $1.5 million to them just as a PR exercise. I just think that you're correct, they should have picked someone better. They could have picked someone from Pakistan, Basimov, Bakari, but they chose Gillespie. And then we'll see how he fares against England. He didn't fare really well against Bangladesh. What are your picks for the series? Best run scorer and who wins the series and what score length and most wickets? Okay, top one scorer for England, I think Ruth. Pakistan, I might go for Rizwan. Wicket taker, Leitch. Pakistan, I might go Abra actually. And then the scoreline, I think it's going to be maybe England 2-1. Josh, I think it's going to be a 2-1 scoreline. And there's going to be three tight games and someone's going to win 2-1 or just go England. What about you? Yeah, I think that the highest run scorer from England will be Jamie Smith. It's a bold call, but I think Jamie Smith will be the highest run scorer for England. And for Pakistan, I think it will be Babar Azam. I think he'll find a new ray of form. And the highest wicket taker from England, I think will be Jack Leitch. And from Pakistan, I fancy from Naseem Shah. I think he's going to play a good part in that series. And I think the scoreline will be 1-1. Oh, 1-1, wow. You think there's going to be a draw even though it better takes them? Yeah, I think they cannot avoid a draw. I think there'll be a draw in Multan or Rawalpindi. Yeah. So I think those are the predictions. And I think we have covered enough on this podcast now. We've had a good time and I think we've covered all the topics as of now. So we'll see you next week on the next week's podcast. And if you have any questions, just leave them in the comment section. I think we've answered all of them in the way we did. Yeah, we've covered them all in this show.