• PlanetCricket has been upgraded to the latest version of the XenForo forum software, to find out more - including asking any questions or making any notes about any part of the forum that may be broken - see this discussion thread.

19th Match, Group F: West Indies v India at Bridgetown

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
I don't think you can call it either way. You've got to factor in that despite missing their best bowling attack, they were still playing in home conditions. Those are not conditions that Indian batsmen are good at playing to begin with, yet we were still able to score.

Nah dont bring that. The likes of Tendy, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly in 2007 where on their 2nd & 3rd tours to England respectively. While overall proving themselves as quality batsmen in all conditions againts all types of bowlers.

They didn't come to England as novices in 2007. Only a quality England attack was going to test them in that series.


Also, compare our 2006 (home) batting line-up to the 2007 (away) one. In the match we won in England, our batting lineup was: Karthik, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Dhoni. In the match we lost at Mumbai, our batting line-up was Jaffer, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Irfan. IIRC, this is when Ganguly had been dropped. Sehwag was in poor form and was dropped shortly after (for the England tour--although he should have been selected). But we went in with 6 batsmen, one of which was Yuvraj, who I'm still not convinced about in Test cricket. Comparatively, the lineup we played in England was much more settled and experienced. I believe our middle order would have put up a much better show than you are giving them credit for. I personally think the series would have been tight, but England would have pipped it 2-1. But those are all hypotheticals.

Although India indeed had a more settled batting-lineup ring the 2007 tour compared to when ENG toured in 2006. It wouldn't of made much of a difference. If ENG pace attack could own AUS batsmen in our own conditions (AUS batsmen who are more accustomed to ENG conditons & play pace overall better than INDs) in the 2005 Ashes. They certainly could/would have done the same to India in 2007.



What I see is a bunch of tragic-hero flaws, here. I can't accept Simon Jones' injury since he was injured more than he wasn't during his career. I think, in his case, his injuries should be factored into how good a player he was because it's no use if you're an ace reverse-swing bowler if you're never healthy. Trescothick's mental case was only when he was away from home, from what I recall. Vaughan's injury was noteworthy, especially since he was captain. I think Flintoff's injury was most important, although in the matches he has played before and since, he's opted not to bowl in several cases--suggesting that he could be selected into the team purely on batting (which I don't think he could, but that's another discussion).

Excuse me what? What do you mean you can't accept Simon Jones injury??

His injuries had no relation to how good a bowler he was. Jones like Shane Bond, Frank Tyson, Brett Schultz, Flintoff, Ian Bishop, Akhtar, Cairns, Geoff Allot, Shane O'Connor, Dion Nash. Where excellent/very good bowlers who bodies couldn't handle the rigours of test cricket bowling. But when they did play - they where top class. So i dont know what your trying to say...

On Trescothick. His mential issues was not just when he toured. It was the overall rigours on international cricket whether it was home or away he odly couldn't handle it. If you check he is still playing county cricket currently.

His exile was horrible setback for ENG in both test & ODIs. The ODI team has only now found an adequate replacement for him in Kieswetter & Lumb. He was just going into his peak as test batsman has well when this problem came up.


Certainly, the English side was depleted. But they still had the advantage of home conditions, which is key. When Kumble was unfit and then retired during the Australian tour of India, we were able to fill in with Amit Mishra, who came quite out of the blue and put in a match-winning performance in the 1st Test. He obviously had the advantage of the conditions, since he hasn't played a single away game (except one against Bangladesh) in his short career.

You can't compare the Mishra/Kumble situation to England bowlers situation in 2007 at all.

Firstly Mishra when he replaced Kumble in that 08 series was a ready made replacement for tests & was good enough to test the AUS batsmen. While the England's pace trio of Sidebottom/Anderson/Tremlett wasn't a ready made replacement for Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Jones weren't good enough to test the brillaint IND middle-order batsmen. How is this not obvious?.



Also, English county cricket is a traditionally very active cricket league and with such a huge pool of players to choose from, I find it hard to believe that England couldn't find players that could at least trouble the Indian batsmen, given that they had the advantage of home conditions and being in form. No replacements to the likes of Flintoff and Hoggard (although Sidebottom has since usurped Hoggard's spot as the first-choice swing bowler, right?) but they shouldn't be walkovers, either.

Having a active cricket league & a lot a players to choose from. Doesn't mean that the talent pool to choose from is always good enough for test cricket.

Enalgna's talent pool of home grown playersisn't that great either. Which is why we have been forced to take alot of super foreign talent over home-grown talent.

Look at England team success in the last 20 years. Int he 90s when the likes alot of joke county bowlers & batsmen would play test who weren't good enough to play test & struggled.

So again the ENG pace attack losing basically its entire pace attack, was the difference in that series.


Yep... and my argument is that the Indian seamers perform well when they have suitable conditions. The series wasn't just a once-in-a-lifetime performance by our seamers--they've performed when we went to England, to South Africa, to New Zealand, etc. They have had the misfortune of playing in India most of their careers, which don't really offer anything.


Yeah, on dead Indian wickets. How can you judge their form based on that? Even then, these were how our bowlers performed at home:

Against England (2008): Pace - 14 wickets, Spin - 16 wickets
Against Australia (2008): Pace - 26 wickets, Spin - 37 wickets
Against Sri Lanka (2009): Pace - 20 wickets, Spin - 25 wickets
Against South Africa (2009): Pace - 10 wickets, Spin - 15 wickets

They definitely performed better than expected on pitches that should have been, in general, assisting spin bowlers. I'm sure if we look at figures outside of the subcontinent, the pace bowlers will be carrying the load, despite spin being our traditional bowling strength.


I can judge by watching them bowl over the years & recently.

Munaf Patel i remember came into to test cricket vs ENG 2006 bowling 90 mph toe-crushing yorkers. Since then his pace has dropped off slowly but surely & he looks an awfully one-dimntional seamer who has no form whatsoever.

Sharma of course had that exciting debut year in 2008. Bowling excellently vs AUS home & away. Since then he has hit declined & lost alot of form & pace. He seems to be suffering from the overhype & burden of being touted as India's next 'fast bowling hope", just like Irfan Pathan suffered. I'm not saying he will go down the same path as Pathan - but he wayyy shadow of the bowler that played againts Australia in 2007/08.

Sreesanth & RP Singh are just awful at the moment. They blow hot & cold too much as bowlers, too inconsistent.



All our Test bowlers who have had exceptional performances over the years except Zaheer (Ishant, Sreesanth, RP) have been poor Twenty20 bowlers. They may be out of form, too, but that form is based on Indian pitches. In Tests, you have the advantage of more defensive fields, less attacking batsmen and hence you can work on the batsmen. You don't really have that luxury in Twenty20. Even if you look at all the other sides, you'll notice that their bowling line-ups are different from their Test/ODI bowling line-ups.

Nah at least Khan & RP Singh are fairly good T20 bowlers when in form.

I remember when IND won the first T20 WC in 2007. RP Singh bowling some very good death overs. While in IPL 2009 when Deccan Chargers won he was won of their best bowlers.

Zaheer Khan also is very good death overs T20 bowlers at the best of times. Bowls a good reverse-swing yorker.

Plus no, its not true that other sides have much difference in their test & ODI bowling line-ups really. Generally its fairly similar in all formats.



The point is taken. I guess it's important to wonder why we have never been in this situation where all our main bowlers are injured, whereas all the teams we beat away seem to be in that situation.

Well spinners body isn't under the same strain as fast-bowlers, thus they dont get injured as often as fast-bowlers.



In 2004? You obviously watched a different series. That series would have been 2-2 if the rain hadn't washed away our chances in the 2nd Test. The Aussies played really well in the first two games to build a lead but India were fighting back, needing about 200-odd runs in the last day with a rampaging Sehwag dispatching McGrath all over the place at the end of Day 4. I'm sure the Aussies wouldn't have packed up and gone home, but it would have been tight. It had largely been Shane Warne who had given Australia the advantage in the first innings, when he took his first and only 5-wicket haul against India in his entire career.


Haha no way would that series have been 2-2.

That chennai test was heading for one of the great test match finishes & anything could have happend on that last day. But if we are to take evidence from that test series. The AUS great bowling quartet basically owned the Indian batting line-up throughout that series. So IND batsmen would not have had it easy at all on a waering 5th day wicket vs that great attack.

Plus i have & always has had a nseaky feeling since 2004 that if AUS had won in Chennai along, thus went into the final Mumbai test 3-nil up. They would not have collapsed in the their 4th innings chase in Mumbai (although that pitch was horrible for batting & test cricket in general).

AUS in their glory years from 1995-2006 developed a very peculiar habit of losing dead rubber test matches after already winning test series. You dont have to take my word for it - use cricinfo & check all of AUS series during that timeline.



You responded to it, so I'm guessing you read it, unless you just saw the word "ranking" and then re-iterated your original point.

I aint able check back to see if i did.

But overall do you agree the ranking system flaws was exposed in India's 2007 England tour. Since they gained maximum points after beating an under strenght England team?.



Warne doesn't count against India. In his entire career, he had one 5-wicket haul against India, to go with an average of 47.18 (43.11 in India, 62.55 in Australia). McGrath would have made a difference, for sure, but IIRC, he'd never taken on Sehwag before, so it would have been an interesting battle (remember Sehwag hit 195 in the opening day at the MCG, which was quite a surprising feat).

McGrath exposed Sehwag's technical flaw to inswingers in that 2004 series. Just like how Steyn/Ntini did in 2008 & 2006/07, Hoggard in 05/06, Taylor @ Kingston 06, Asif @ Karachi 06. So i certainly believe the great man would have done the same if he played in that 03/04 series.


Secondly i find it very disturbing that you say Warne "doest count againts India".. Theirfore suggesting he would have been a none threat if he played in that 2003/04 series vs IND. MY GODD

We need to drift off topic a little bit since The Warne in & vs India bashing record has always been one of the most biggest miconceptions in the cricket world. Let me break it down Warne's record vs IND & explain why he would have been a SERIOUS threat in that 03/04 series had he played:


quote said:
In 91/92: Warne was young on his debut, theirfore this series should never be considered when judging his record in India.



In 97/98: He was at his peak & was smoked no debates their. But the argument to his failures was because Warne had NO BOWLING SUPPORT. No McGrath, Gillespie, Fleming. So in Indian conditions where he was basically a one-man attack having to perform both the containing & wicket-taking role againts the best players of spin in their own conditions - he failed.



In 99/00: This series was in the period (ENG 98 to IND 2001) where he averaged 35 which was the worst phase of his career coming off his shoulder injury in 98 & a finger injury after NZ 2000. He zip was gone, his googly of 93-97 was gone & his traditional consistent accuracy went awol on many occassions. Many people debate this, which unfortunately shows a lack of understanding of Warne's career during this period.



IND 2001: As explained above. Before this tour Warne had not played a test match in ONE year, he was coming off an injury. Warne's preparation for that tour was just ODIs vs average WI & ZIM & barely two FC games for Victoria
.Which going into such a tour after a long injury was poor preparation. Thus he was smoked.




IND 2004: When Warne was fully-fit & with strong bowling support of McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper - he did well given in the 3 test he played, given he was generally just needed to give back-up to pace trio. Plus he missed the most spinner friendly track of series due to injury when surely he would have spun out India. But some refuse to accept this.


A point that needs to be STRESSED on that i feel most Warne critics of his performances in India/vs India dont get is the importance of why him having the support of the fast-bowlers was KEY. By contrasting him being a lone ranger in IND 98 & Ashes 2005.


In IND 98 with no proper fast-bowlers to deal with the IND openers, Warne on many occassions would come into bowl with openers already set. When ideally for him or any spinner they would want to come into to bowl with the middle-order exposed with 2-3 wickets down etc..

The Indian batsmen given how excellent they where againts spin, Warne was incapable of dragging things back for AUS - thus he was smoked.

We compare that to what happened in 2005 Ashes. Many times Trescothick/Strauss got ENG off to superb starts againts inconsitent/crap new ball bowling. But Warne this time was able to drag things back since ENG unlike IND always where vulnerable to spin. Thus he single handed kept ENG batsmen in check & AUS in the Ashes with no consistent support.

Its is undernaible that IND played Warne better than anybody especially at home, thats clear. Even with the key dynamics as i've explained before with bowling support of great attack/pace attack, along with him being fully-fit in 2004 he was just solid. (Although he missed the most spin friendly track of that series).




The problem & most critics of Warne performances vs IND is that they seem to feel or wanted to see Warne RUN through IND especially in IND because he is "Shane Warne" which is nonsense - since its a historical FACT leg-spinners since IND have become a force @ home have never dominated IND over a series in IND. What wins in IND is quality pace attack - the role of spinner (especially leg-spinners) historically has always been to give support - not to be a MAIN wicket-taking threat. If you dont believe this i direct you to cricinfo to check & see ever since IND became a force @ home, how many opposition leg-spinners or wrist spinners have won series in India. You wont find any since Benaud 1959/60 & that was when IND where not great yet. Its always off-spinners or left-arm spinners who do well in IND.

I dont hear too many bashing Murali's record in IND when it is just as bad Warne & circumstances for being bad is just as similar. Which is lack of quality pace attack to back him up (except for 2005 where averaged similar to Warne in 2004) & form woes in the recent 2009 series, just like Warne in 2001.


Once you are clear on that. As i mentioned in that quote. Once Warne had played with a full strenght attack with McGrath, a fully fit Gillespie. He certainly would have held his own vs India in that 2003/04.




They won 2-1 with a match that could have gone either way rained out on Day 5. So it was a well-fought victory, not a walkover. The pitches were actually competitive, compared to the pitches we see in India these days. The highest innings total was 474 in the first innings of the series. Comparatively, today you see innings' go up to 600 in India. Also, IIRC, in the series in Australia sides crossed 500 quite a few times. India even had a 700+ score, I believe.

The Bangalore & Chennai pitches in the 2004 series. Where jsut as flat as the 4 tests match bitches during 03/04 series in AUS.

The Nagupr pitch was an unsual greentop. While the Mumbai pitch was just a disgrace of a test pitch.



2004 was competitive. 1999 is stretching way back. There were several players who played in that series who didn't deserve Test caps (Gandhi? MSK Prasad? Ramesh was only an okay Test batsman). Not to mention that going into that 1999 tour, India's top order had a combined Test experience of about 160, compared to almost 370 matches that Australia had (Steve Waugh had 123 alone). That's when Ponting was a newcomer at just about 30 Tests--the same with Ganguly and Dravid (they actually averaged higher than Ponting at that stage!). It may even have been the first Australian tour for all those players save for Tendulkar--but that I cannot confirm since I can't be bothered to check it out.

So, in my opinion, that falls outside the range of acceptable data. Comparatively, the 2003/04 and 2008 touring squad had a lot more experience and hence got the results to show for it.

Australia did have key injuries but if you always get injured when the Indian team is touring, then that's not my problem. You still have to play good cricket to win a game.

If you dont want to included the 1999 series fine.

But as i mentioned before India's success in 2003/04 was largely down to AUS missing the McGrath/Warne - the aces of their dominant era. That was the only home series in a decade of dominance, where those bowlers didn't play. Thats no coincidence.

While 2008 India caught a AUS team that was in transition especially in the bowling attack with recent retirements of McGrath/Warne. Lee & Clark got injured during that series as well. While Johnson & Siddle where still young & raw.

Right its obvious the likes of Johnson & Siddle are now test match quality. While the likes of Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Harris, McKay & possibly Tait have emerged as AUS pace battery. None of that was availbale during the 2008 IND tour.


It was still away from the subcontinent in different conditions. Pitches aren't just "flat" or "not flat". There is a reason why cricket is a unique sport because home-court conditions actually matter. Playing away from home is a different experience since the pitches are going to be different from what you're used to, no matter what.

Home court advantage is only good if you have a team capable of utilizing home conditions. Look at your own Indian team in the 90s - invincinble at home because they knew how to win @ home againts everybody - but where joke away.

NZ have never been a force at home in recent times, alot of teams have won in NZ. Maybe if the conditions where greentops NZ may have had a chance in that 2008 series - but it wasn't. So that isn't big deal & wasn't a challenge for the much vaunted & experienced Indian batsmen facing medium pacers on flat pitches.


Since when does any domestic league have comparable bowling attacks to international cricket?

Australia in the 1990s & early 2000s & probably England in the 1950s when they were the best team in the world.


The point, which you completely missed, is that you cannot use the IPL/Twenty20 cricket performances to judge and pick Test players. Bowling line-up notwithstanding, you need a certain temperament to succeed at FC cricket.

See way above.


There's a reason why batsmen such as Yusuf Pathan, Yuvraj Singh and Robin Uthappa have poor FC averages. It's because they're built in an aggressive mould--specifically for ODI/Twenty20 cricket. There's a reason why Yusuf/Robin will never get a Test cap (hopefully). Yuvi got lucky with his since we required a left-hander in the middle-order.

Nah i dont buy that. Yuvraj since he came into itnernational cricket always looked a special talent with the bat & certainly looked to have the game to play tests. But he continuosly looked out of his depth when he has faced quality pace attacks in tests.


Vinod Kambli is a poor example because he played at a time where our selection policy was based on politics rather than performances. He only played in one series outside India and he only had a crack against the Windies once. He should have been persisted with. If nothing else, he could have become a pre-cursor to Virender Sehwag, who has set up a lot of wins on flat pitches, for us. :)

The 90s didn't have many flat tracks & average pace attacks like this 2000s era. So if Kambli was persisted with i can't see how he would have succeded in tests during that period.


In Tests, he's looked average against the moving ball, not the short one. I think you're simplifying what our batsmen are good at/not good at. The short ball is a weakness for a majority of our youngsters. It's not a weakness for Yuvraj, though. The moving ball is a weakness for Yuvraj. However, most Indian batsmen can deal with some amount of lateral movement, because the Indian ball does move in the air and reverse-swing. Obviously, they cannot be expected to deal with the kind of movement that is possible in England/etc. just as the English batsmen can't be expected to naturally deal with the pitches of Sri Lanka and India, that turn square.

Nah i have seen Yuvraj look vulnerable in tests to both the short & moving ball in tests againts good pace attacks many times. His 07/08 series in AUS immediately comes to mind.



Right, that was expected, all of Sehwag's centuries were fairly easy, and anyone could have hit them. The difference being that no one else hit them, and no one else hit them in the fashion he hit them. I challenge you to find someone who is attacking as Sehwag and whose century can change the game as quickly. Hayden is the only guy who comes to mind. The advantage Sehwag gives to the team in intangible and if you cannot appreciate it, then you're going to spend your whole life pointing out how Sehwag failed against this attack in that country.

No one debates that Sehwag has a unique ability to score very quickly in tests. But he has a ridiculously poor record againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions - which is why he cannot be rated that highly.

I see Sehwag as the batting equivalent to what Kumble was for India in the ball during the 1990s. Kumble in the 1990s was a one-man winning force for IND in home conditions - but bowled poorly away from home. It was only in the 2003/04 series in Australia that he began to improve his away bowling record.

Thats the position Sehwag is in right now. He has a phenonmenon on flat Indian pitches againts excellent & poor attacks. But overaseas (outside the subcontinent in general) his record againts good pace attacks is a joke. Until he he corrects that, he cannot be rated highly as one of the games great openers. Thus still has alot to prove.



It's a weakness that seems to require very specific set of circumstances: bouncy wicket, Twenty20 game, chase at 9-10 RPO. So, yes, I will ignore it and stand by the fact that although we'll never dominate the short bowling, it won't be as huge an effect in Tests and ODIs.

Ha. Wait until India tour South Africa, Australia, England or Windies for a test series again. You shall remember what i said.



That's extremely shortsighted, though. The reason they looked vulnerable was mostly because they needed to score runs off the short bowling. They needed to score runs. If they didn't score runs, they would lose. In Tests, they can just duck and eventually learn to drop their wrists. And I'll remind you that it's only a short ball weakness. The ball didn't move that much, so we didn't get to see that. Against good length balls, they looked comfortable, even with the speed. So it's not a vulnerability against pace, it's against fast, short bowling.

Stop beating around the bunch & trying to use T20 as a weakness. The overall point is Indian batsmen historically Indian batsmen are poor againts pace. Whether its fast -short bowling or just generally quality fast bowling. If you deny this, you clealry don't know your own countries history very well.


You're not talking about quality, you're talking about effective fast bowling, which is what we faced in the Twenty20's. We didn't see the "two-card" trick at all. We saw a barrage of short deliveries intermixed with slower balls. When the ball was pitched up, even though we were expecting a short delivery, in most cases we survived (Yuvi being the exception, who was done in with a snorter of a yorker--but then that's a yorker and it can dismiss most batsmen).

The fact that the 'two card" trick wasn't used in those T20 games by the AUS & WI quicks along with what happened in the 2009 T20 WC. Doesn't mean that the IND batsmen would survive it if they encounter such a pitch in a test match.

Thats India & Asian batsmen weakness. Just like most non-asian batsmen would struggle againts sharp turn on bounce on a dustbowl. These are fairly obvious trends of international cricket sir, i'm puzzled to why you are debating this.



There's no arguing that they have work to do and that they aren't prepared as yet. That's the reason why we still have stalwarts such as Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman playing. Each international team has had their share of players try to play the game, be found out and never be seen again. We don't remember them because they've played so few games. Test cricket--not Twenty20--will weed out who has the temperament for the highest form of the game. Twenty20 in many ways is a lot harder than Test cricket because of the required aggressive batting.

You mean slogging. Test cricket>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T20 all day man.


There's not as much room for failure. Test cricket requires a different sort of skillset--you need to be able to survive when the going gets tough and capitalize when it becomes easy. You don't have time to play survival cricket in Twenty20, especially when chasing, because the RRR is always knocking on your door. This is why, in my opinion, although our players are not equipped to playing quick, short bowling, they can still grow to become successful Test cricketers.

Disagree as i have continously said above.


Of our remaining stalwarts--Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman--none of them can be compared to a Ricky Ponting or Kevin Pietersen when measuring how well the short ball can be played. I'd say Sachin is the best of our three in being aggressive against that sort of bowling. Laxman and Dravid have learned how to survive because in Test cricket, eventually the bowlers are going to tire.

Tendy is as good as any batsman of all time playing pace, extreme pace, quality pace. While Dravid is fairly excellent as well - they dont call him the wall for nothing.

Laxman always tends to look vulnerable againts the pace given his lack of footwork yea. But after all these years, he has managed to work roudn that & be successfull.
 
Last edited:

shravi

National Board President
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Profile Flag
India
War lives seems to live in a hypothetical future :laugh. Wait until this, wait until that. If India did this, if India did that. You can only look at what you have in front of you, War.
 
Last edited:

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
War lives seems to live in a hypothetical future :laugh. Wait until this, wait until that. If India did this, if India did that. You can only look at what you have in front of you, War.

Cricket hypotetical scenarios that may happen in the future or could have happened in the past - backed up by historical evidence. Is just as valid & rational as cricket events that actually did happen.
 
Last edited:

sohum

Executive member
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Location
San Francisco, CA
Profile Flag
India
Nah dont bring that. The likes of Tendy, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly in 2007 where on their 2nd & 3rd tours to England respectively. While overall proving themselves as quality batsmen in all conditions againts all types of bowlers.

They didn't come to England as novices in 2007. Only a quality England attack was going to test them in that series.


Although India indeed had a more settled batting-lineup ring the 2007 tour compared to when ENG toured in 2006. It wouldn't of made much of a difference. If ENG pace attack could own AUS batsmen in our own conditions (AUS batsmen who are more accustomed to ENG conditons & play pace overall better than INDs) in the 2005 Ashes. They certainly could/would have done the same to India in 2007.
Aren't you contradicting your previous point? If our top/middle-order have proved themselves in all conditions against all types of bowlers, aren't they less likely to fail? Also, the Ashes side that competed against Australia in 2005 was 2 years previous to this series. As I have maintained before, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that bowling line-up ever played in a series together again, due to injury issues. So you can't use that as a realistic case--only as a best case.

Excuse me what? What do you mean you can't accept Simon Jones injury??

His injuries had no relation to how good a bowler he was. Jones like Shane Bond, Frank Tyson, Brett Schultz, Flintoff, Ian Bishop, Akhtar, Cairns, Geoff Allot, Shane O'Connor, Dion Nash. Where excellent/very good bowlers who bodies couldn't handle the rigours of test cricket bowling. But when they did play - they where top class. So i dont know what your trying to say...
The point I'm making is pretty straightforward. You are assuming for the sake of your argument that all of India's opponents would have to be performing in a best-case scenario for India's victories to have any meaning. The reality is that no team ever performs to its full potential (except arguably that Aussie side in the 90's/2000s). It is much more realistic to compare how teams are expected to perform, on average... there's a reason why the "average" statistic is the one most referenced in any cricket discussion.

When you're trying to measure the expected average utility of a player such as Simon Jones, you cannot just measure his performance at his peak, since he was in his peak for such a short period due to injuries. It's simple mathematics. With players such as Simon Jones, Shane Bond, etc. who are injured more than they are available, you expect, on average, for them to not be available. If they're available, fantastic. But they've missed so many games, that as selectors, you're really being irresponsible by not developing a strong contingency plan.

Going back to the case of Jones, he's not played a single series after the 2005 Ashes. If he hadn't played any of those series' between the 2005 Ashes and the 2007 Indian tour, how can you count him as a missing bowler in your line-up? He hadn't played Test cricket in at least a year and a half.

On Trescothick. His mential issues was not just when he toured. It was the overall rigours on international cricket whether its home or away he odly couldn't handle it. If you check he is still playing county cricket currently.
County cricket is played at home, as far as I am aware, so that doesn't add anything to your argument. The only thing I recall about Tresco's mental issues are him flying home prematurely from tours. Honestly, how good are these players if they have these flaws that strongly affect their ability to deliver on the field? If you can't count on them being fit for the game (mentally and physically), can you really count them when trying to determine how good your team is? Players can't judged on single innings' or series'. As they say, form is temporary, class is permanent. If you cannot consistently make yourself available for selection, you're essentially forcing statistical discussions into either ignoring all statistics or cherry-picking the ones that suit the argument.

You can't compare the Msihra/Kumble situation to England bowlers situation in 2007 at all.

Firstly Mishra when he replaced Kumble in that 08 series was a ready made replacement for tests & was good enough to test the AUS batsmen. While the England's pace trio of Sidebottom/Anderson/Tremlett wasn't a ready made replacement for Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Jones weren't good enough to test the brillaint IND middle-order batsmen. How is this not obvious?.
Please tell me how "Mishra... was a ready made replacement for tests". Is that based on any facts?

That he was good enough to test the Aussie batsmen was the result of his performance, not the expected outcome of his performance. Also, interesting that the Indian middle order is considered "brilliant" whereas the Aussie batsmen do not have any attached adjectives. I'm sure the Aussies won't take nicely to that.

To further solidify my argument here, Amit Mishra has struggled against quality opposition since the Aussie tour. He averaged 43 versus England, 203 versus Sri Lanka and 72 against South Africa. His place in the side is currently not at all guaranteed. In contrast, Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson have slowly been establishing themselves in the Test squad. I'd certainly suggest that they are more valuable players on average compared to Mishra, whose career may end as quickly as it started, as is the case with Indian spinners.

Having a active cricket league & a lot a players to choose from. Doesn't mean that the talent pool to choose from is always good enough for test cricket.

Enalgna's talent pool of home grown playersisn't that great either. Which is why we have been forced to take alot of super foreign talent over home-grown talent.

Look at England team success in the last 20 years. Int he 90s when the likes alot of joke county bowlers & batsmen would play test who weren't good enough to play test & struggled.

So again the ENG pace attack losing basically its entire pace attack, was the difference in that series.
I think that's an okay argument for a country like Bangladesh or New Zealand to make. England has the infrastructure and tradition necessary to generate a good pool of cricketers. Sidebottom was the in-form bowler going into that series. Simon Jones hadn't played a Test match in almost 2 years. Flintoff had been injured from the previous series (against the West Indies). Harmison and Hoggard were the guys who became "newly" unavailable prior to the India series.

I can judge by watching them bowl over the years & recently.
I respectfully disagree with the accuracy of that judgment. Since you are comparing their form based on different conditions and different forms of the game.

Munaf Patel i remember came into to test cricket vs ENG 2006 bowling 90 mph toe-crushing yorkers. Since then his pace has dropped off slowly but surely & he looks an awfully one-dimntional seamer who has no form whatsoever.
Munaf Patel is one of the laziest and most lethargic cricketers to have played the game. As for the other blokes, my argument is that give them a pitch with life on it and let's see how they perform. My argument is based on the fact that our pace bowlers have consistently been able to put in good performances on pitches outside the subcontinent. Those are real performances, not hypothetical imaginative scenarios. When back in the subcontinent with its plush flat tracks, really any bowler can look pathetic. With the IPL and T20 cricket, any bowler can look like they are not fit to play the game at any level. Yet, all that is not related at all to how they performed on a pitch that actually offers them opportunity.

Nah at least Khan & RP Singh are fairly good T20 bowlers when in form.
RP is decent in T20's but not so in ODIs, where he has leaked runs recently.

Plus no its not true that other sides have much difference in their test & ODI bowling line-ups really. Generally its fairly similar in all formats.
You misunderstood the point, which was that the T20 bowling line-ups and ODI/Test bowling line-ups of many of the sides are different. Australia, for example, only have Mitchell Johnson as a regular in both Tests and T20's. South Africa have Steyn and Morne Morkel. England have a pretty consistent match-up (with Broad, Sidebottom and Swann all in the Test squad and Bresnan upcoming). Generally speaking good T20 bowlers have to have a very specific set of characteristics that may not be as useful in Test cricket.

Well spinners body sin't under the same strain as fast-bowlers, thus they dont get injured as often as fast-bowlers.
We usually go in with 2 pacers and 2 spinners. When we're playing outside the subcontinent, that's usually 3 pacers and 1 spinner. So it's not as if we are a spin-heavy bowling line-up. As aditya123 has pointed out, in recent years, our pacers actually have had more output than our spinners, at least abroad.

Haha no way would that series have been 2-2.

That chennai test was heading for one of the great test match finishes & anything could have happend on that last day. But if we are to take evidence from that test series. The AUS great bowling quartet basically owned the Indian batting line-up throughout that series. So IND batsmen would not have had it easy at all on a waering 5th day wicket vs that great attack.
No one said it was easy. But unlike the previous matches, the game was close. You contradict yourself once again by saying "no way would that series have been 2-2" and then admitting that anything could have happened on that last day.

Plus i have & always has had a nseaky feeling since 2004 that if AUS had won in Chennai along, thus went into the final Mumbai test 3-nil up. They would not have collapsed in the their 4th innings chase in Mumbai (although that pitch was horrible for batting & test cricket in general).
Well, I've never had the sneaky feeling. I could counterpoint with the sneaky feeling that if India had won that Chennai test they would've gone into the 3rd Test with the series level 1-1 and then any number of things could have happened. But I don't usually masquerade sneaky feelings' as facts.

Look at the evidence in some of the series' India has played in the recent past. Against South Africa (when we lost 2-1), we were thoroughly outplayed in 2 games and thoroughly outplayed the Saffers in one. Hell, even back to the classic 2001 series, Australia had wrecked us in Game 1 and we came back to wreck them in the remaining two games. Just like Australia's peculiar habit of losing dead rubbers (I've actually looked up those statistics in a separate discussion), India has had a peculiar habit of late of either losing a match by a huge margin, or winning it by a huge margin.

But overall do you agree the ranking system flaws was exposed in India's 2007 England tour. Since they gained maximum points after beating an under strenght England team?.
Since you're too lazy to scroll, here's my original text:

"Besides, notice that I did not make any points about the ranking system, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I'm not a proponent of the ICC ranking system. I don't believe India is the best team in the world. I think the top spot in Tests right now is very much up for grabs, which is why Test cricket is so exciting right now."

I don't agree with your insinuation that the 2007 England tour was some sort of revelatory eureka moment for critics of the ranking system. In fact, I don't care for the ranking system. If tomorrow Bangladesh beat a second-string Indian team and plummeted to the top, I wouldn't give a hoot. Why? Because I know that the top teams are very competitive right now. I don't need a bunch of numbers trying to separate them.

In 97/98: He was at his peak & was smoked no debates their. But blah blah blah....

In 99/00: This series was in the period (ENG 98 to IND 2001) where he averaged 35 which was the worst phase of his career coming off his shoulder injury in 98 & a finger injury after NZ 2000....

IND 2001: As explained above. Before this tour Warne had not played a test match in ONE year, he was coming off an injury...
They're all interesting excuses. But the disparity of his series averages between India and other teams, both home and away, strongly suggest that this wasn't just another convenient set of circumstances. If these issues were as serious as you make them out to be, they would have had an effect on his general performances as well.

IND 2004: When Warne was fully-fit & with strong bowling support of McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper - he did well given in the 3 test he played, given he was generally just needed to give back-up to pace trio. Plus he missed the most spinner friendly track of series due to injury when surely he would have spun out India. But some refuse to accept this.
We go back to being sure about things that have not happened and we'll never get the chance to test out. "Surely India would not have won in England." "Surely Australia would have won 3-1." "Surely Warne would have taken 20 wickets in Mumbai."

The Indian batsmen given how excellent they where againts spin, Warne was incapable of dragging things back for AUS - thus he was smoked.
Warne was pretty much smoked in every series he played against India, home and away, regardless of whether he had fast bowling support or not. The only exception was the 2004 series, where he was decent. Don't forget that during that time India was still failing to do well against Australia in Australia. I don't believe it was until that 03/04 tour that we even won a meaningful match. But Warnie was regularly being smoked, and you can say it was because of injuries or form or this or that, but the fact is that he was still performing against other teams. Warne himself has admitted that he had nightmares of Sachin Tendulkar. This shows that he was mentally affected when playing India. That has nothing to do with injury/etc.

The problem & most critics of Warne performances vs IND is that they seem to feel or wanted to see Warne RUN through IND especially in IND because he is "Shane Warne".
I think most critics just wanted him to show that he could be an average spinner rather than a below average one against India in India.

I dont hear too many bashing Murali's record in IND when it is just as bad Warne & circumstances for being bad is just as similar. Which is lack of quality pace attack to back him up (except for 2005 where averaged similar to Warne in 2004) & form woes in the recent 2009 series, just like Warne in 2001.
That's because Murali dominates us when we play in Sri Lanka. The conditions aren't that much different. But clearly Murali has some x-factor that affects Indian batsmen. In the last tour of Sri Lanka, it was Murali and Mendis who single-handedly won Sri Lanka the series against a mostly veteran batting line-up.

Once you are clear on that. As i mentioned in that quote. Once Warne had played with a full strenght attack with McGrath, a fully fit Gillespie. He certainly would have held his own vs India in that 2003/04.
So, basically if the circumstances were perfect for Warnie he would have held his own? But if they were anything but perfect, then he was liable to being smoked? Sounds like a very well-constructed excuse to me. Besides, Australia had a very good world-class leg-spinner in Stuart MacGill playing that series. I'm sure you'll now make the argument that if McGrath and Gillespie were playing and maybe if the Indian bowlers were out of form, that the Australians would have surely won that series 4-0.

The Bangalore & Chennai pitches in the 2004 series. Where jsut as flat as the 4 tests match bitches during 03/04 series in AUS.
I guess the batsmen just felt more generous in India, then.

Right its obvious the likes of Johnson & Siddle are now test match quality. While the likes of Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Harris, McKay & possibly Tait have emerged as AUS pace battery. None of that was availbale during the 2008 IND tour.
Tait was available and was shown the door in the 2008 tour, strongly enough to make him consider retirement, IIRC.

Ha. Wait until India tour South Africa, Australia, England or Windies for a test series again. You shall remember what i said.
Why don't we just wait for that, instead of pretending it's over before it's been played? That's the only real problem I've had with your attitude.

Stop beating around the bunch & trying to use T20 as a weakness. The overall point is Indian batsmen historically Indian batsmen are poor againts pace. Whether its fast -short bowling or just generally quality fast bowling. If you deny this, you clealry don't know your own countries history very well.
Test Match != T20 Mathc.

Doesn't mean that the IND batsmen would survive it if they encounter such a pitch in a test match.
Doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either. Test Match != T20 Match.

These are fairly obvious trends of international cricket sir, i'm puzzled to why you are debating this.
I'm debating it because you seem to be of the mentality that we will be bowled out for under a 100 in every Test match we play against the West Indies, South Africa, Australia and England due to this weakness. Since you've acknowledged that we've had this weakness for ages, you are now trying to cover up your contradiction by reasoning that every time that we have succeeded in conquering the problem, either the pitch was flat or someone was injured, or maybe the blue was moon, which was clearly why India shouldn't be given credit.

You mean slogging. Test cricket>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T20 all day man.
Slogging, death bowling, innovative shots. These are all skills that are not required in Test cricket. By pretending that these skills are inferior to skills required in Test cricket, you're just showing yourself to be an elitist instead of a real fan of the game.

Tendy is as good as any batsman of all time playing pace, extreme pace, quality pace. While Dravid is fairly excellent as well - they dont call him the wall for nothing.

Laxman always tends to look vulnerable againts the pace given his lack of footwork yea. But after all these years, he has managed to work roudn that & be successfull.
Did you not read the part you quoted at all? Even our accomplished middle order batsmen are not close to being good at responding aggressively to short bowling compared to their international counterparts, but have still been as successful (and in some cases, more successful) than them. This suggests that even if we have a systemic failure in playing short-pitched deliveries, you can be a successful Test batsman despite that.

--

This is all I really have to add to this discussion. I'm getting tired of going around and around in circles. Either you are purposely ignoring what I'm saying or we are just incapable of communicating on the same wavelength. These are my final conclusions:

1. Twenty20 Cricket DOES NOT EQUAL Test Cricket. A good Test batsman may be a poor T20 batsman and vica versa. Same with bowlers. Hence, drawing conclusions based on how players respond in T20 cricket and applying them to how you think they will perform in Test cricket is fallacious.

2. Indian bowlers have performed well outside the subcontinent consistently in the last 4-5 years. More often that not, they've played against full strength batting line-ups and held their own. We don't have many series victories to show for it, but it's definitely a major improvement over the previous generation.

These were my original points and I don't know how we managed to bloat that into what it has become now. These were pretty simple points, in my opinion, and I'm not sure why you find them so difficult to agree with.

sohum added 1 Minutes and 36 Seconds later...

Cricket hypotetical scenarios that may happen in the future or could have happened in the past - backed up by historical evidence. Is just as valid & rational as cricket event that actually did happen.
You can't back up something that hasn't happened with evidence. Evidence is used to back up things that have happened. You can theorize that certain things could have happened given certain things that have happened in the past, but as soon as you begin pretending that that's the only way the cards would have fallen, you're overstepping the boundaries of hypotheses.
 

-D-S-B-

International Coach
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Online Cricket Games Owned
Wooo hooo it's on for young and old!
How long do these posts take to write, at least we know they love cricket!
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Aren't you contradicting your previous point? If our top/middle-order have proved themselves in all conditions against all types of bowlers, aren't they less likely to fail?

No contrdiction. Two different points clearly.

The experienced IND batting in English conditions certainly would not have had trouble facing an under strenght ENG pace attack, as it proved to be.

Only a full-strenght ENG pace attack would have tested them consistently.




Also, the Ashes side that competed against Australia in 2005 was 2 years previous to this series. As I have maintained before, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that bowling line-up ever played in a series together again, due to injury issues. So you can't use that as a realistic case--only as a best case.

Realistically Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Giles played alot together after the 2005 Ashes - except for Jones who has the world knows hasn't played since the 05 Ashes. So the realistically all of them except Jones, if it weren't for injury would have definately played in that 2007 series vs India.



The point I'm making is pretty straightforward. You are assuming for the sake of your argument that all of India's opponents would have to be performing in a best-case scenario for India's victories to have any meaning. The reality is that no team ever performs to its full potential (except arguably that Aussie side in the 90's/2000s). It is much more realistic to compare how teams are expected to perform, on average... there's a reason why the "average" statistic is the one most referenced in any cricket discussion.

Dont really agree. After England won the 2005 Ashes - it was supposed to be start of something great. The team had had all basis cover to become a very strong team in all conditions.

But due to injuries of key players, that momentum was destroyed. Thus between the the end of the 2005 Ashes until 2009 (when ENG regained the Ashes by a bit of a fluke in my opinion). English cricket had alot of piss poor results due to injuries of many key players in this period.

No other team in world cricket had such injury woes during the 2005-2009 period like England. India won in England during the height of that crisis - so that series win cannto be rated highly. Simple.



When you're trying to measure the expected average utility of a player such as Simon Jones, you cannot just measure his performance at his peak, since he was in his peak for such a short period due to injuries. It's simple mathematics. With players such as Simon Jones, Shane Bond, etc. who are injured more than they are available, you expect, on average, for them to not be available. If they're available, fantastic. But they've missed so many games, that as selectors, you're really being irresponsible by not developing a strong contingency plan.


Going back to the case of Jones, he's not played a single series after the 2005 Ashes. If he hadn't played any of those series' between the 2005 Ashes and the 2007 Indian tour, how can you count him as a missing bowler in your line-up? He hadn't played Test cricket in at least a year and a half.

I have already above accepted that Jones in a realistic scenario would not have played in that series anyway. But the rest certainly would have.



County cricket is played at home, as far as I am aware, so that doesn't add anything to your argument. The only thing I recall about Tresco's mental issues are him flying home prematurely from tours. Honestly, how good are these players if they have these flaws that strongly affect their ability to deliver on the field? If you can't count on them being fit for the game (mentally and physically), can you really count them when trying to determine how good your team is? Players can't judged on single innings' or series'. As they say, form is temporary, class is permanent. If you cannot consistently make yourself available for selection, you're essentially forcing statistical discussions into either ignoring all statistics or cherry-picking the ones that suit the argument.

What the hell?. What are you talking about here?. Clearly you are misinformed about Trescothick's mental issues.

Between 2000-2006. Trescothick played all forms of the game for England without any problem. It was during the home summer of 2006 vs SRI Lanka that he suddenly started complaining of the stress of no stop internaitonal cricket - especially touring.

He skipepd the Pakistan home series in 2006 & was presumably ready for the 06/07 Ashes tour. He toured Australia, played in the warm-up before the 1st test & his mental issues of being away from home arised again & he went home.

The reason he continues to play county cricket to this day is that mentally he can handle playing here in England & touring. Overall it was weird problem that noooo cricketer has ever experienced, that affected Trescothick & England at a time when he was peaking as a international batsman.

I hope you are clear now.


Please tell me how "Mishra... was a ready made replacement for tests". Is that based on any facts?

That he was good enough to test the Aussie batsmen was the result of his performance, not the expected outcome of his performance. Also, interesting that the Indian middle order is considered "brilliant" whereas the Aussie batsmen do not have any attached adjectives. I'm sure the Aussies won't take nicely to that.

To further solidify my argument here, Amit Mishra has struggled against quality opposition since the Aussie tour. He averaged 43 versus England, 203 versus Sri Lanka and 72 against South Africa. His place in the side is currently not at all guaranteed. In contrast, Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson have slowly been establishing themselves in the Test squad. I'd certainly suggest that they are more valuable players on average compared to Mishra, whose career may end as quickly as it started, as is the case with Indian spinners.

Mishra was ready mande replacement during that 2008 tour based on his performances in FC cricket. He earnt his selection. So even if he was dominated by the AUS batsmen - he was still the best option based on FC form.

With England it was different. Anderson in 2007 was still very poor. He had just come off a very poor Ashes series in 06/07. So at the time when Hoggard/Harmison/Fintoff were out injured & Anderson had to lead the attack it was a cringeworthy feeling.

Tremlett was young & raw. He wasn't ready for test cricket for that 2007. Although in the end he didn't disgrace himself.

Sidebottom was the only one that would have played anyway if all of Hoggard/Harmo/Freddie were fit.


On Mishra's bowling. I have seen all his series since that AUS series.

- H ecertainly bowled MUCH better in that ENG series that his 43 average suggested. Saying he bowled poorly in that series would be blindly looking at stats.

He had two expensive hauls in two tests vs Sri Lanka & South Africa in recent tests in Ahmedabad & Nagpur. But he bowled pretty well in the Kolkatta test that India won. I persoanlly see nothing wrong with his form at the moment & i would be shocked if he faded away like other joke Indian spinners of the past like Chauhan, Raju, Kapoor, Bahutule, Kulkarni, Johsi.



I think that's an okay argument for a country like Bangladesh or New Zealand to make. England has the infrastructure and tradition necessary to generate a good pool of cricketers. Sidebottom was the in-form bowler going into that series. Simon Jones hadn't played a Test match in almost 2 years. Flintoff had been injured from the previous series (against the West Indies). Harmison and Hoggard were the guys who became "newly" unavailable prior to the India series.

What do you mean its an okay argument for a country like Bangladesh or New Zealand?.

Thats the facts of English cricket. As i mentioned before, did you not follow English cricket during the 1990s???. After NZ won a series here in 1999 England were embarassingly dubbed the "worst test team in the word".

Having a good county sturcutre means nothing if the talentpool is very good - which is the case with English cricket. England have a problem with its under age grassroots level & the fact the cricket is scene as a posch/upper class sport here. Black people for example dont play cricket here. But thats a whole different can of worms..



I respectfully disagree with the accuracy of that judgment. Since you are comparing their form based on different conditions and different forms of the game.


Munaf Patel is one of the laziest and most lethargic cricketers to have played the game. As for the other blokes, my argument is that give them a pitch with life on it and let's see how they perform. My argument is based on the fact that our pace bowlers have consistently been able to put in good performances on pitches outside the subcontinent. Those are real performances, not hypothetical imaginative scenarios. When back in the subcontinent with its plush flat tracks, really any bowler can look pathetic. With the IPL and T20 cricket, any bowler can look like they are not fit to play the game at any level. Yet, all that is not related at all to how they performed on a pitch that actually offers them opportunity.

Those performances are in the past. I certainly dont believe unless unless they improve or regain their mojo very quickly. That when India tour overseas again in fast-bowler freindly conditions that other than Zaheer - none of the other quikcs will be able to repliacate what they did in ENG & SA 06/07, AUS 07/08 & NZ 08/09.





You misunderstood the point, which was that the T20 bowling line-ups and ODI/Test bowling line-ups of many of the sides are different. Australia, for example, only have Mitchell Johnson as a regular in both Tests and T20's. South Africa have Steyn and Morne Morkel. England have a pretty consistent match-up (with Broad, Sidebottom and Swann all in the Test squad and Bresnan upcoming). Generally speaking good T20 bowlers have to have a very specific set of characteristics that may not be as useful in Test cricket.

I agree. But you are still wrong to say most sides T20 bowling attacks are that different from their test & ODI ones.

For AUS for example. Johnson technically yes is the only one that plays all 3 formats. But the likes of Nannes, Tait, Harris, Bollinger would play all 3 formats for any country. I just that AUS has so much options - they have the great luxury to rotate & pick & choose between formats currently.

NZ, WI, SRI also are fairly similar throughout all 3 formats as well.


We usually go in with 2 pacers and 2 spinners. When we're playing outside the subcontinent, that's usually 3 pacers and 1 spinner. So it's not as if we are a spin-heavy bowling line-up. As aditya123 has pointed out, in recent years, our pacers actually have had more output than our spinners, at least abroad.

Why are mentioning the fact that IND tend to play 3 seamers away from home?.

We are talking about in this specific point. Why one cannot or could not have rated any opposition victory in India highly if Kumble/Harbhajan were not present. Just like how India win in ENG 07 cannot be rated highly because ENG entire first chocie pace attack was missing.



No one said it was easy. But unlike the previous matches, the game was close. You contradict yourself once again by saying "no way would that series have been 2-2" and then admitting that anything could have happened on that last day.


Ha you like that word contradiction dont you?. You were the one who cme out firmly and said.... "You obviously watched a different series. That series would have been 2-2 if the rain hadn't washed away our chances in the 2nd Test.

I accept it would have been a close finish & potentially one of the greatest in test history.

But base on facts & performances of the Indian batsmen in that series in which their where owned by AUS attack in pretty much every innings. Along with AUS record in live rubber matches. It is only fair to give AUS the edge in that situation, if one is to predict what could have occred on that final day.


Well, I've never had the sneaky feeling. I could counterpoint with the sneaky feeling that if India had won that Chennai test they would've gone into the 3rd Test with the series level 1-1 and then any number of things could have happened. But I don't usually masquerade sneaky feelings' as facts.

Look at the evidence in some of the series' India has played in the recent past. Against South Africa (when we lost 2-1), we were thoroughly outplayed in 2 games and thoroughly outplayed the Saffers in one. Hell, even back to the classic 2001 series, Australia had wrecked us in Game 1 and we came back to wreck them in the remaining two games. Just like Australia's peculiar habit of losing dead rubbers (I've actually looked up those statistics in a separate discussion), India has had a peculiar habit of late of either losing a match by a huge margin, or winning it by a huge margin.

My sneaky feeling is based on facts. If you did as you said check up all of AUS series perfomrnaces in dead rubbers between 1995-2006/07. You will see why i have that suspicion.

Overall fact is 2-2 would not have been a fair reflection of that series 2004 at all. India were so outplayed it wasn't funny.

I wouldn't bring that 2001 series in discussion. That was just one of the freakish comebacks in test history. Thats not the kind of consistent trends of test cricket that one can use to use a gudie to how things could happen in the future.




Since you're too lazy to scroll, here's my original text:

"Besides, notice that I did not make any points about the ranking system, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I'm not a proponent of the ICC ranking system. I don't believe India is the best team in the world. I think the top spot in Tests right now is very much up for grabs, which is why Test cricket is so exciting right now."

Very good.

I don't agree with your insinuation that the 2007 England tour was some sort of revelatory eureka moment for critics of the ranking system.

Why?.

In fact, I don't care for the ranking system. If tomorrow Bangladesh beat a second-string Indian team and plummeted to the top, I wouldn't give a hoot. Why? Because I know that the top teams are very competitive right now. I don't need a bunch of numbers trying to separate them.

Well if you think this which i 100% agree with. How can you then disgaree that India 2007 win in ENG highlights the flaws that can happen ever so often in the ranking system?


They're all interesting excuses. But the disparity of his series averages between India and other teams, both home and away, strongly suggest that this wasn't just another convenient set of circumstances. If these issues were as serious as you make them out to be, they would have had an effect on his general performances as well.

It did. I just showed you that. He averaged 35 during that period. Even during that 1999 tour of the windies, he was dropped for the final test of that series for Stuart MacGill.

Injuries serious affected Warne's test bowling during 1998-2001 - which was the worst phase of his bowling career. Debating this as many cricket fans do when talking about hsi record vs IND. Shows a lack of undertsanding of his career.


We go back to being sure about things that have not happened and we'll never get the chance to test out. "Surely India would not have won in England." "Surely Australia would have won 3-1." "Surely Warne would have taken 20 wickets in Mumbai."

If a part-timer like Michael Clarke could cause so much havoc to India's batting on that shocker of a pitch. Surely you are not going to tell me, if Warne the greatest leg-spinner of all time who in his previous 2 tours to India had never played on such a spin friendly surface in India - would not have caused some sort of significant havoc on that Mumbai pitch??. Come onnnn...


Warne was pretty much smoked in every series he played against India, home and away, regardless of whether he had fast bowling support or not. The only exception was the 2004 series, where he was decent.

He was decent because he had very strong bowling support & was fully-fit. So that pretty much proves my point.


Don't forget that during that time India was still failing to do well against Australia in Australia. I don't believe it was until that 03/04 tour that we even won a meaningful match. But Warnie was regularly being smoked, and you can say it was because of injuries or form or this or that, but the fact is that he was still performing against other teams. Warne himself has admitted that he had nightmares of Sachin Tendulkar. This shows that he was mentally affected when playing India. That has nothing to do with injury/etc.

I already told showed you his average between 98-2001 & what happened during the 1999 tour to WI which disapproves this point.

Yes i have seen the interview where Warne said he had nightmares of bowling to Tendulkar (i believe this was during the 1998 series). I stated above that India has played Warne better than any team in his career no doubt. But i have always seen that as Warne just giving Tendy a great compliment. I have never belived he suffers a total mental blockage when he plays agiants India. Their is enough evidence to disapprove that.



I think most critics just wanted him to show that he could be an average spinner rather than a below average one against India in India.

Injuries in 2001 & lack of bowling support in 1998 prevented that. In 2004 when both were not an issue he certainly did well enough in India.

Even Murali in 2009 without proper bowling support of the fast bowlers was smoked in India. While in 2005 when SRI toured IND, Murali's performances where just as similar to what Warne did in 2004 averaging 30 odd as well.


That's because Murali dominates us when we play in Sri Lanka. The conditions aren't that much different. But clearly Murali has some x-factor that affects Indian batsmen. In the last tour of Sri Lanka, it was Murali and Mendis who single-handedly won Sri Lanka the series against a mostly veteran batting line-up.

Yea but Warne never played India in Australia when he was 100% in form & fully fit. We have already discussed that in 99 he was in the worst phase of his career.

While in 2003/04 he was banned.


So, basically if the circumstances were perfect for Warnie he would have held his own? But if they were anything but perfect, then he was liable to being smoked? Sounds like a very well-constructed excuse to me.

No excuse at all. As i said before:

me said:
Its a historical FACT leg-spinners since IND have become a force @ home have never dominated IND over a series in IND. What wins in IND is quality pace attack - the role of spinner (especially leg-spinners) historically has always been to give support - not to be a MAIN wicket-taking threat. If you dont believe this i direct you to cricinfo to check & see ever since IND became a force @ home, how many opposition leg-spinners or wrist spinners have won series in India. You wont find any since Benaud 1959/60 & that was when IND where not great yet. Its always off-spinners or left-arm spinners who do well in IND.

Those are the facts.



Besides, Australia had a very good world-class leg-spinner in Stuart MacGill playing that series. I'm sure you'll now make the argument that if McGrath and Gillespie were playing and maybe if the Indian bowlers were out of form, that the Australians would have surely won that series 4-0.

Haa, calling Stuart MacGill world-class is wayyyyy over the top. Only 6 leg spinners in test history deserve that accodale. Warne, O'Reilly, Grimmett, Qadir, Kumble, Aubrey Faulkner.

Stuart MacGill was a godo bowler - thats it. His big weakness was bowling to good players of spin. Lara smoked him alot in the past, plus after the 2003/04 vs India in which he struggled to contain the Indian batsmen. When AUS toured Sri Lanka when in their next series, MacGill continued to struggle - while Warne held his own.


I guess the batsmen just felt more generous in India, then.

Your point sir?.



Tait was available and was shown the door in the 2008 tour, strongly enough to make him consider retirement, IIRC.

Tait retired (temporarily circa 2008) because of consistent injury woes which was affected him alot in those ealry days. Had nothing to do with him trying to avoid the Indian tour of anything. Get it right..



Why don't we just wait for that, instead of pretending it's over before it's been played? That's the only real problem I've had with your attitude.

Ok. Im just one of those cricket fanatu fans who likes to look ahead & without trying to sound arrogant. In my 15 years of watching cricket, i am usually always fairly on point with my predictions.




Doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either. Test Match != T20 Match.

I'm a conservative in my judgment. History tells me that they wont. Unless something miraculous happens.


I'm debating it because you seem to be of the mentality that we will be bowled out for under a 100 in every Test match we play against the West Indies, South Africa, Australia and England due to this weakness. Since you've acknowledged that we've had this weakness for ages, you are now trying to cover up your contradiction by reasoning that every time that we have succeeded in conquering the problem, either the pitch was flat or someone was injured, or maybe the blue was moon, which was clearly why India shouldn't be given credit.

Firstly i dont believe India would be bowled out for under 100 in every test in WI, SA, AUS, ENG againts their full strenght attacks. Its unfortunate if i cam across that way. I just expect them to struggle.


Plus give me an example of India winning a series in either AUS, SA, ENG, SA againts their full -strenght pace attacks in your countries history on bouncy decks?.




Slogging, death bowling, innovative shots. These are all skills that are not required in Test cricket. By pretending that these skills are inferior to skills required in Test cricket, you're just showing yourself to be an elitist instead of a real fan of the game.

Those skills are inferior to that of test cricket.

ANybody can slog. Real cricket test cricket test your natural hitting skill, your technique & mental strenght. The latter two are hardly tested in T20s.

Let me give you an anology here:

Truly good & great playes can adapt to all formats yes test & ODIs yes. But also should the decent too.

In T20 joke players (especially batsmen who are sloggers) like Dwayne Smith, Pollard, Wright, Bossman, Afridi (his batting is joke in ODIs of course, although is bowling is top class) etc, look like stars.

While you have players like Gayle & McCullum who where/are have many technical issues in tests matches, they look like God's with the bat in T20s. Gayle could smash a bowler like Hilfenhaus/Hoggard in a T20, but in a tests Hilfy/Hoggard would own him technically.

Death bowling is a form of defensive bowling trying to keep the batsman from scoring freely. Many very good/great fast bowlers of the past didn't have death bowling skills, thus would be uselss in T20s. But where excellent in ODIs & T20s.

While innovative shots like the scoop shot that McCullum invented would never be needed or seen in test cricket. A batsman would look like a fool playing that shot unless the score is 400 for 3 & he is 200 not out or something...



1. Twenty20 Cricket DOES NOT EQUAL Test Cricket. A good Test batsman may be a poor T20 batsman and vica versa. Same with bowlers. Hence, drawing conclusions based on how players respond in T20 cricket and applying them to how you think they will perform in Test cricket is fallacious.

Genreally yes given that T20 cricket does not equal test crciekt & one cannot take any performances from that format as a clear guide to how players may go in tests.

But given that Indian batsmen historically have problems with short-ptiched bowling. One cannot ignore the fact the young Indian batsmen when they come up againts a quality pace attack on pacy decks. That achillies heel will be exposed unless improved are made extremely soon.



2. Indian bowlers have performed well outside the subcontinent consistently in the last 4-5 years. More often that not, they've played against full strength batting line-ups and held their own. We don't have many series victories to show for it, but it's definitely a major improvement over the previous generation.

I answered this above.



Did you not read the part you quoted at all? Even our accomplished middle order batsmen are not close to being good at responding aggressively to short bowling compared to their international counterparts, but have still been as successful (and in some cases, more successful) than them. This suggests that even if we have a systemic failure in playing short-pitched deliveries, you can be a successful Test batsman despite that.

Tendy, Dravid & Laxman have hadled the short ball as well as any top-class international batsman from other nations, that i've seen in my time of watching cricket.



You can't back up something that hasn't happened with evidence. Evidence is used to back up things that have happened. You can theorize that certain things could have happened given certain things that have happened in the past, but as soon as you begin pretending that that's the only way the cards would have fallen, you're overstepping the boundaries of hypotheses.

Where have i pretended that the hypoteitcal scenorios theories that i have suggested are the ONLY way the cards could have fallen?.

The hypotheses i derived is just the most likely scenario based on past evidence & circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top