England In India - October 2011/12

[Chewie]

Lets have a look at the NZ matches where he performed.

Both massive run scoring draws, if NZ managed 600, that just tells you all you need to know about the wicket

2nd Test: New Zealand v India at Napier, Mar 26-30, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

3rd Test: New Zealand v India at Wellington, Apr 3-7, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

It's not like the Indian bowling attack's that threatening either...

 

[Haarithan]

yeah for india to win the series there in england, zaheer probably needs to pick up 20+ wickets and needs to be well supported by ishant and the other spinners. England face no such problems. All the 4 bowlers are expected to take 12 wickets or more, so the problem is with india and i just cant see them bowling out england twice (though england's batting has been way below par of late )

 

[icyman]

Gautam Gambhir hasn't played much cricket outside subcontinent, very few tests that too against Zimbabwe and NZ but he has performed good. We can just wait and watch in this matter.

He has not played a single Test in either England, South Africa or even Australia. He has played a few ODIs and T20 matches out there which I feel should help his case.

 

[Cricket_god]

Indians have performed well in last few tours of england,I expect a 2-1 result in favour of india

 

[Haarithan]

Indians have performed well in last few tours of england,I expect a 2-1 result in favour of india

Not to forget the fact that they survived the lord's test by a single wicket in 2007 courtesy of rain .

 

[AbhishekS]

Not to forget the fact that they survived the lord's test by a single wicket in 2007 courtesy of rain .

At the end, it was India who emerged victorious.

I think I will also go with 2-1 in the favour of India.

 

[cricketlover172]

India haven't lost a series since Aug 2008. How is there a doubt that INDIA is no.1 ?

Have the best W/L ratio since 2007 WC.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Have the best W/L ratio against 5 major nation.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

They are World champions.

 

[cricket_icon]

on the discussion of whether or not england deserve the no. 1 spot if they beat both India and SL, i think they should. they will have beat two of the best, having already beaten Australia home and away. and beaten pakistan at home last summer in a series whih, bowling wise atleast was far more competitive than the score line will have u believe.

 

[cricketlover172]

on the discussion of whether or not england deserve the no. 1 spot if they beat both India and SL, i think they should. they will have beat two of the best, having already beaten Australia home and away. and beaten pakistan at home last summer in a series whih, bowling wise atleast was far more competitive than the score line will have u believe.

No. They don't.

They were 1 wicket away from losing 3-1 to SA in SA.

They need to defeat both India and SL at home and atleast draw away series against India and SL, beat WI in WI . Then they will be called no.1 side.

India did not win away tour to SA but they didn't lose too like England.

 

[cricketlover172]

Since AUS lost their # 1 ranking at the end of the 2006/07 Ashes (although the flawed ranking system didn't take it from them until they lost @ home to SA 08/09). Since 2007 both India & South Africa have won 9 of the 14/15 series they have played in:

South Africa

India





So what we have is India & SA being the two more consistent teams in test cricket since AUS decline (this is why i dont understand how the ranking systems is giving IND a edge over S Africa currently). But none of them should be called number # 1 because they have failed to show they can win everywhere - they even right now as the best two teams. SA slipped up in India twice (2008 & 2010) & lost to AUS @ home), which is why the lost their # 1 ranking. While IND have drew in SA recently & have yet to win away to full-strength ENG, AUS sides.


Until some team proves superiority. We will have & will continue to have as it has been the case in post war test history at the end of any era of the previous great teams # 1. A jostling match until a proper # 1 occurs. Which would be good for test cricket if no such # 1 occurs again for a while, since that would mean overall test cricket will be very competitive.

Because India have the best W/L ratio since 2007 WC they are no.1
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

India played 14 series and won 8 of them lost 2 draw 4.
SA played 12 series and won 6 of them lost 1 draw 7.
Eng played 13 series and won 7 of them lost 5 draw 1.

SA have drawn 7 series and hence lost points. England is the worst of the lot.

They haven't won a home/away series against India, SL or SA in last 4 years but still claim that they are no.1.

 

[War]

Because India have the best W/L ratio since 2007 WC they are no.1
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

India played 14 series and won 8 of them lost 2 draw 4.
SA played 12 series and won 6 of them lost 1 draw 7.
Eng played 13 series and won 7 of them lost 5 draw 1.

SA have drawn 7 series and hence lost points. England is the worst of the lot.

They haven't won a home/away series against India, SL or SA in last 4 years but still claim that they are no.1.

Im not sure how you got these figures for IND & SA. Your starting point is wrong it seems.

As i said you have starting querring series IND & SA played after January 2007. Since its obvious cricket knowledge that AUS legacy ended after the 2006/07.

If you do that you get via simple maths:

IndiaStarting from the 2007 Bangladesh tour - 2011 tour to SA. 9 out of 16 series wins.


S AfricaStarting from the 2007 home series vs PAK - 2011 series vs IND. 9 out of 15 series win

Plus even if you want to take out series wins vs BANG in which IND have played twice. That would carry them down to 7 out 14 series wins since 07.

While for S Africa, given they played BANG once. 8 out of 14 series. So technically SA would have a slightly better % series win rate since the decline of AUS. But for me i'm a still call it even since in head to head matches IND & SA have drawn series with each other in the last 2-3 years.

 

[cricketlover172]

Im not sure how you got these figures for IND & SA. Your starting point is wrong it seems.

As i said you have starting querring series IND & SA played after January 2007. Since its obvious cricket knowledge that AUS legacy ended after the 2006/07.

If you do that you get via simple maths:

IndiaStarting from the 2007 Bangladesh tour - 2011 tour to SA. 9 out of 16 series wins.


S AfricaStarting from the 2007 home series vs PAK - 2011 series vs IND. 9 out of 15 series win

Plus even if you want to take out series wins vs BANG in which IND have played twice. That would carry them down to 7 out 14 series wins since 07.

While for S Africa, given they played BANG once. 8 out of 14 series. So technically SA would have a slightly better % series win rate since the decline of AUS. But for me i'm a still call it even since in head to head matches IND & SA have drawn series with each other in the last 2-3 years.

Check out this list.

For India
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

For SA
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - South Africa - Test matches - Team analysis

My cutoff date is 2007 WC because it was then Mcgrath retired.

And as for you labelling Ind/SA equal, go and ask Smith, well Botham rates England as the true no.1 team.

So having the best W/L ratio counts for nothing. India doesn't need your affirmation. ICC has already done it.

 

[War]

Check out this list.

For India
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

For SA
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - South Africa - Test matches - Team analysis

My cutoff date is 2007 WC because it was then Mcgrath retired.

And as for you labelling Ind/SA equal, go and ask Smith, well Botham rates England as the true no.1 team.

So having the best W/L ratio counts for nothing. India doesn't need your affirmation. ICC has already done it.

Well obviously you cant use the 2007 WC as guide, thats ODIs. ODI cricket has no relevance when judging the test rankings.

Plus also you cant include the 2006/07 India tour to S Africa. That was during the AUS 95-2006/07 glory years.

You have to start from all series with IND & SA after the 2006/07 Ashes.

The argument here is two things:

1. That the ICC test rankings is extremely faulty & is not needed. For more than 50 years before ranking systems came into play before 2002, any erudite cricket fan could tell who was was the best team in the world. As Ian Botham rightfully said recently..."'Forget the rankings designed by men with computers who believe that logarithms can tell us who is playing the best cricket more accurately than we can see with our eyes. Look at what you are watching and make your own minds up.. That what cricket fan did for more than 50 years.


As i stands right now since AUS declined as the obvious # 1 after the 2007 Ashes, BOTH India & S Africa have been the two equal best test nations in the last 4 years.

2. The faultiness of the ranking system which is predicting if certain results happen, than England could become # 1 over India if they beat them this summer is also very wrong. Given that IND & SA have built for 4 years to reach best team status. For ENG to potentially attain that just 8 months after winning the Ashes by beating IND is too quick. They would still need to beat S Africa home & away, win or draw in IND/SRI.

 

[cricketlover172]

Well obviously you cant use the 2007 WC as guide, thats ODIs. ODI cricket has no relevance when judging the test rankings.

Plus also you cant include the 2006/07 India tour to S Africa. That was during the AUS 95-2006/07 glory years.

You have to start from all series with IND & SA after the 2006/07 Ashes.

The argument here is two things:

1. That the ICC test rankings is extremely faulty & is not needed. For more than 50 years before ranking systems came into play before 2002, any erudite cricket fan could tell who was was the best team in the world. As Ian Botham rightfully said recently..."'Forget the rankings designed by men with computers who believe that logarithms can tell us who is playing the best cricket more accurately than we can see with our eyes. Look at what you are watching and make your own minds up.. That what cricket fan did for more than 50 years.


As i stands right now since AUS declined as the obvious # 1 after the 2007 Ashes, BOTH India & S Africa have been the two equal best test nations in the last 4 years.

2. The faultiness of the ranking system which is predicting if certain results happen, than England could become # 1 over India if they beat them this summer is also very wrong. Given that IND & SA have built for 4 years to reach best team status. For ENG to potentially attain that just 8 months after winning the Ashes by beating IND is too quick. They would still need to beat S Africa home & away, win or draw in IND/SRI.

Ian botham forgot that England haven't beaten either IND,SL or SA away or home in last 4 years. And no ranking system is not faulty.

England won't beat India . Keep your delusions to yourself.

And rankings is faulty in the sense that how Swann is no.1 spinner in the world ?
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Harbhajan has taken 53 more wickets against stronger teams, with a better average. So since Harbhajan plays for no.1 team, he gets less points than Swann for doing well .

Both Anderson and Swann played against weakest pakistan and WI team in England, took lots of wicket and climbed on rankings.
Here ranking system is faulty. Players from no.1 team are expected to bowl like Mcgrath and Warne.

----------

Pringle compares SL test attack to second division of the County Championship,

England v Sri Lanka: Prasanna Jayawardene hits century in first Test as Andrew Strauss caught cold - Telegraph

We will see by the end of this tour.

 

[cricketlover172]

"Boring"? The reason they are "boring" is because they are playing on pitches which are a genuine challenge to bat on; unlike any pitch in the sub-continent.

They have played fantastically in this innings and have exemplified why they are two of the top batsmen in world cricket.

Even if you remove runs scored in draws not one English batsman averages above 45 in last 60 years
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

England players are the most selfish batsman ever period.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo