Ian disagrees:
England are presentable at home but poor abroad, and their home strength is under threat
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ashe ... at-1295036
"There is no doubt England are a presentable home side, but given their travelling record under Joe Root's captaincy, they struggle to be considered a top-level nation. This was obvious in India, where England badly lost the series 3-1, and in Australia they are in danger of losing nine of the ten Tests Root will have led in by the end of this series.
Even in England, Root's lack of inspiration as a leader is starting to show. Albeit in some trying times, because of the pandemic, England are starting to lose their reputation as a team that is difficult to beat at home. It's incorrect to make Root culpable, as he is easily England's best batter, but he has to accept some of the blame. He has never been a leader of substance and virtually gained the job because there was no other candidate and it was hoped he would grow into the job.
It has become patently clear Root is not the man for the task if England want to be recognised as a tough team to beat in all circumstances."
Greg Chappell says...
Greg praises Warner but does talk about ball tampering and Broad:
'David will never live down the “Sandpaper Gate” incident. That scar on Australian cricket needs to be owned by a lot more people than Warner and Bancroft.
...
Stuart Broad has been one of the few bowlers to make Warner his bunny, dismissing him 17 times in 29 meetings. It is remarkable he has reduced a player of David’s damaging abilities to an impotent return of an 8.33 average.
Broad bowling around the wicket was Warner’s kryptonite. The angle, allied with the length that Broad was disciplined enough to maintain for long spells (sometimes, not so long!) was what did Davey in.
The angle from around the wicket always threatened Davey’s stumps, and the length was akin to putting handcuffs on him as it took away his ability to make room for himself to punish Broad square of the wicket. The length was not full enough for Davey to hit him down the ground without considerable risk. I got the impression that Warner knew what was in store for him and argued with himself as to whether he try to out-wait Broad or try to knock him off his length. He regularly lost those arguments and meekly succumbed to a catch behind the wicket or from dragging one on to his stumps.
...
... I hope that David’s harshest critics acknowledge his talent and contribution and forgive his human frailties. Martin Luther King said: “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a constant attitude.”'
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 5eua4.html
But Greg ignores Warner's atrocious Test batting record overseas his whole career!
And MLK?!?!
(Is this what Greg quotes when kiwis heckle him about underarm bowling? 
)
'David will never live down the “Sandpaper Gate” incident. That scar on Australian cricket needs to be owned by a lot more people than Warner and Bancroft.
...
Stuart Broad has been one of the few bowlers to make Warner his bunny, dismissing him 17 times in 29 meetings. It is remarkable he has reduced a player of David’s damaging abilities to an impotent return of an 8.33 average.
Broad bowling around the wicket was Warner’s kryptonite. The angle, allied with the length that Broad was disciplined enough to maintain for long spells (sometimes, not so long!) was what did Davey in.
The angle from around the wicket always threatened Davey’s stumps, and the length was akin to putting handcuffs on him as it took away his ability to make room for himself to punish Broad square of the wicket. The length was not full enough for Davey to hit him down the ground without considerable risk. I got the impression that Warner knew what was in store for him and argued with himself as to whether he try to out-wait Broad or try to knock him off his length. He regularly lost those arguments and meekly succumbed to a catch behind the wicket or from dragging one on to his stumps.
...
... I hope that David’s harshest critics acknowledge his talent and contribution and forgive his human frailties. Martin Luther King said: “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a constant attitude.”'
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 5eua4.html
But Greg ignores Warner's atrocious Test batting record overseas his whole career!
And MLK?!?!
(Is this what Greg quotes when kiwis heckle him about underarm bowling? )Ian Chappell:
"... Stokes' aggressive leadership faltered at a crucial time...
On the third evening Stokes desperately needed to start India's chase with his best two bowlers and try to claim at least one wicket. Incredibly, he gave the ball to a part-timer, Joe Root, and ignored the experienced, probing bowling of Jimmy Anderson. India took full advantage and scored an invaluable 40 runs off just eight overs.
Stokes missed a trick in Ranchi. He then compounded his error by allowing too many easy singles on the final day by resorting to some cautious field placings. At a time when Stokes needed to be extremely brave as captain and hope he got lucky, he was abnormally conservative.
India probably would still have won but at least by going on the attack, Stokes would have given England their best chance of an upset victory. Stokes could improve his captaincy in demanding chases if he took the example of the leadership master in those situations - Pakistan's Javed Miandad.
Rohit proceeded to take full advantage of the tentative field placings with a thoughtful innings and India's solid opening partnership helped seal victory.
The second innings should have been a time to force the Indian batters into taking a risk, but by allowing easy singles, Stokes gave his opponents the upper hand. He also needed to use the experience and guile of Anderson to try and force the issue on the third evening but instead relied on the part-time spin of Root.
The use of Root could probably be put down to an over-reliance on the right-left combination to get the wicket of India's accomplished opener Yashasvi Jaiswal. There are times when good captaincy hinges on gut feel rather than statistics or theories; this was such an occasion."
(cricinfo)
"... Stokes' aggressive leadership faltered at a crucial time...
On the third evening Stokes desperately needed to start India's chase with his best two bowlers and try to claim at least one wicket. Incredibly, he gave the ball to a part-timer, Joe Root, and ignored the experienced, probing bowling of Jimmy Anderson. India took full advantage and scored an invaluable 40 runs off just eight overs.
Stokes missed a trick in Ranchi. He then compounded his error by allowing too many easy singles on the final day by resorting to some cautious field placings. At a time when Stokes needed to be extremely brave as captain and hope he got lucky, he was abnormally conservative.
India probably would still have won but at least by going on the attack, Stokes would have given England their best chance of an upset victory. Stokes could improve his captaincy in demanding chases if he took the example of the leadership master in those situations - Pakistan's Javed Miandad.
Rohit proceeded to take full advantage of the tentative field placings with a thoughtful innings and India's solid opening partnership helped seal victory.
The second innings should have been a time to force the Indian batters into taking a risk, but by allowing easy singles, Stokes gave his opponents the upper hand. He also needed to use the experience and guile of Anderson to try and force the issue on the third evening but instead relied on the part-time spin of Root.
The use of Root could probably be put down to an over-reliance on the right-left combination to get the wicket of India's accomplished opener Yashasvi Jaiswal. There are times when good captaincy hinges on gut feel rather than statistics or theories; this was such an occasion."
(cricinfo)