India in England/Ireland/Scotland

[harishankar]

English fans: come on, accept defeat gracefully and show some respect to the opposition. Whining and moaning about conditions, about missing players and about the drawn Test at Lords will get your nowhere. To show class in the face of defeat is what makes a team great: not just in winning.

As Ian Chappell said about a question when somebody asked how much would India have got if they faced the 2005 Ashes attack, he said you might as well have asked how much India would have got facing Harold Larwood and company. It's all hypothetical and conjecture. If that makes you feel better, continue living in that fool's paradise. We'll enjoy the series win if you don't mind (and even if you do mind)

And India have beaten England in "English" conditions as well. Remember Headingley in 2002? True, we love a flat track, but India aren't dummies on seaming wickets either. We now have the attack to give back as good as we get and particularly in England with our swing bowlers.

 

[irottev]

It;s just Eddie really who can't accept it.

I hardly agree with 'lifeless pitches' comment from him

what i said was, if all the pitches has been similar to lords, instead of being flat and lifeless (effectively nullifying our bowling) then we wouldn't be in this mess..

but it seems nowadays pitches are getting flatter and flatter..

There was help for the bowlers if they did the right thing.

 

[Will_NA]

English fans: come on, accept defeat gracefully and show some respect to the opposition. Whining and moaning about conditions, about missing players and about the drawn Test at Lords will get your nowhere. To show class in the face of defeat is what makes a team great: not just in winning.

As Ian Chappell said about a question when somebody asked how much would India have got if they faced the 2005 Ashes attack, he said you might as well have asked how much India would have got facing Harold Larwood and company. It's all hypothetical and conjecture. If that makes you feel better, continue living in that fool's paradise. We'll enjoy the series win if you don't mind (and even if you do mind)

And India have beaten England in "English" conditions as well. Remember Headingley in 2002? True, we love a flat track, but India aren't dummies on seaming wickets either. We now have the attack to give back as good as we get and particularly in England with our swing bowlers.

We have been graceful in defeat! How many times do we need to say it!?

You were better! There!

As for Chappell's comments, it's not the same thing as Jones, Hoggard, etc should be playing currently.
Larwood and company retired decades ago. Not the same thing.

It;s just Eddie really who can't accept it.

I hardly agree with 'lifeless pitches' comment from him



There was help for the bowlers if they did the right thing.

yep. we were just too short and wide

 

[harishankar]

Well, I do agree that England's bowlers, barring Sidebottom, looked quite ineffective. Tremlett was a big let-down as he just floated up half-volleys towards the end of his spell. Anderson looked dangerous on occasion but failed to be consistent.

What I think really is that Monty Panesar was the biggest disappointment for England. I think they would have loved him to be more effective than he was. Without him taking wickets regularly, it was hard work for the three seamers.

If there was one tactic which I think England missed out, I think they should have gone with 5 bowlers in the last match. Trying to bowl a team out with 4 bowlers on a flat wicket was always going to be tough. It would have been a very bold move though...

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought most English fans couldn't accept it. It is just a few and particularly in the media who seem to have issues... again, my apologies if I came across as too harsh.

 

[Will_NA]

Well, I do agree that England's bowlers, barring Sidebottom, looked quite ineffective. Tremlett was a big let-down as he just floated up half-volleys towards the end of his spell. Anderson looked dangerous on occasion but failed to be consistent.

What I think really is that Monty Panesar was the biggest disappointment for England. I think they would have loved him to be more effective than he was. Without him taking wickets regularly, it was hard work for the three seamers.

If there was one tactic which I think England missed out, I think they should have gone with 5 bowlers in the last match. Trying to bowl a team out with 4 bowlers on a flat wicket was always going to be tough. It would have been a very bold move though...

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought most English fans couldn't accept it. It is just a few and particularly in the media who seem to have issues... again, my apologies if I came across as too harsh.

There was nothing in the pitch for Monty. There has to be at least something in it when you're bowling to India.

As for the seamers, I didn't wake up early enough to watch Sidebottom bowl. Anderson never pitch it up. Tremlett just bowled long-hops as did Anderson. Tremlett's pitch-up delivery instead of being a quick, straight ball was a floated half-volley. Anderson, of all bowlers (barring the injured Sidebottom) should have found something in the pitch yet he bowled waist high short balls which the Indian batsmen dealt with with ease.

It was a good pitch to bat on but the India bowlers showed what could be achieved when you pitch the ball up. India should have never got 600. We shouldn't have allowed them.

Collingwood got the (fortuitous) wicket of Ganguly by pitching it up and he almost got Laxman. He pitched it up and found swing. No matter how flat a pitch is, numbers 8-11 shouldn't be contributing around 200 runs.

This is where we missed Hoggard. He would have pitched it up.

I don't think we needed another bowler. They just didn't bowl well.

 

[ZexyZahid]

This is really strange. Dravid is in doubt of enforcing the follow-on. It's strange to think of that, especially with such a huge lead. Hopefully Dravid will enforce the follow-on so the match can finishes tomorrow.

Dravid ponders follow-on options
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/6942326.stm

 

[cricket_lover]

To be fair, after Lords, India have been better than England. I just wish there were some more Tests, with 3 tests, one mistake and you're stuffed!

you are right, a 3 match series is no fun and it isn't fair either.

I don't think India is a a much better team than England, despite the series win. If it was a 4/5 test match series, you could say who was better.

@ Lords, England failed to bat well as well, except for Pieterson's wonderful innings.

England playing in their conditions couldn't do well, i didn't see the point in blaming Indian batsmen not playing well in foreign conditions.

 

[Will_NA]

you are right, a 3 match series is no fun and it isn't fair either.

I don't think India is a a much better team than England, despite the series win. If it was a 4/5 test match series, you could say who was better.

@ Lords, England failed to bat well as well, except for Pieterson's wonderful innings.

England playing in their conditions couldn't do well, i didn't see the point in blaming Indian batsmen not playing well in foreign conditions.

It's all a cunning plan...

We want you to relax and then BAM!! we beat you on the last day

 

[harishankar]

I don't think we needed another bowler. They just didn't bowl well.

Tremlett took painkillers before the match, according to the commentators. I think that was a huge risk to play him.

Now Sidebottom has a side injury...

England had to win this match and they needed an extra bowler, particularly on that pitch.

 

[Hooper]

Love that image - if only Shane Warne did this more often in the 06/07 Ashes

And I betcha Warney is pissed that Kumble has a Test hundred and he doesn't

 

[SaiSrini]

Well, Dravid should enforce the follow on tomorrow so England should have to look at 500.
If they can do that and get Panesar on a dusty pitch then there is a chance.
I still don't see that though.

For that, England have to go hammer tongs. In test matches with tight field settings, you cant just keep tonking good bowlers for long. They will get you some time or the other soon. Except KP and Bell, the others havent shown that much of an aggressive streak.

 

[SaiSrini]

According to the weather forecast, we might have some rain over the next few days. That would suit me, considering that the weather ruined our chances of winning the first Test and if India only win 1-0, we stay ahead of them in the rankings.

What I don't get is there must be a better way of deciding who bats first than the toss of a coin. I mean, it is a fact that winning the toss could well win you the match, look at India's first innings! I'm sure that if England had won the toss, we'd have done well. Maybe not as much as India made, as we don't have tailenders capable of making centuries, but I reckon if we'd won the toss, we may have made in excess of 400 or 500 runs.

How about a 'bowl off' to decide who bats first on a perfect pitch such as the one we had in this match? It's just ridiculous that so many times, the team who wins the toss on a belter of a track such as this one, often goes on to dominate and win the match.

Also, why have we got so many ODIs? I'd prefer there to be a couple more Test matches instead!

Well, prepare a pitch where the toss is not the deciding factor. I feel the toss is the best way of deciding who gets to do what. Its been there ever since cricket started. Of course at times it gives an advantage to the toss winner, but at times, losing the toss is also better. So it all evens out. Over a period of time, the better team always comes out (wins more series).

 

[Will_NA]

For that, England have to go hammer tongs. In test matches with tight field settings, you cant just keep tonking good bowlers for long. They will get you some time or the other soon. Except KP and Bell, the others havent shown that much of an aggressive streak.

We're trying to save a game so aggression isn't our first thought yet.

 

[aditya123]

Well c'mon then irrotev, who else is better than Panesar?

Vettori was, but has lacked bowling, i dont see anyone else as near, except that Saffie. Can't remember his name, new guy with blondish hair!

Sorry i know i sound like im defending England to the hills, im not I just dont see a better SLA out there at this current time!

Its Paul Harris that you`re talking about. Is it ?

 

[Cricketman]

Well c'mon then irrotev, who else is better than Panesar?

I think that some of the Bangladeshi SLA bowlers are a couple heads better, In ODI's at least.