England certainly would. Becuase when Engalnd beat Indian in the final test of 2005/06 tour to draw that series. With a full-strenght pace attack on a Mumbai pitch offering the kind of assistance to fast-bowlers that you would not expect from an Indian pitch - but rather in English conditions.
Their is no way Indian would have won in England 2007, if England had a full-strenght pace attack. In English conditions where they could have exposed India's hsitorical weakness to extra bounce - plus the moving ball.
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.
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.
Plus as i said before overall as i said before immediately after the Ashes going into the IND series & beyond up until 2009. Vaughan had a career threating knee injured that crippled him forver. Trescothick developed a horrible mental case, Flintoff our inspirational all-rounder was always injured. Jones was out too. England dont exactly have a fantastic talent depth pool, so losing so many quality player was crucial. Thats fairly obvious.
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).
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.
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.
India's seamer used the seaming conditions brilliantly in that series & really tested the ENG batsmen. But England didn't have their experienced pace attack to take 20 Indian wickets consistently. How was that not obvious sir?.
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.
I saw India's recent test @ home vs SRI & SA plus their tour to Bangladesh. Its fairly obvious that other than Zaheer Khan. All of Patel, Sharma, RP Singh Sressanth are not in any good bowling form. Thus unless something miraculos happens i dont see how that pace attack would take 20 wickets outside India.
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.
Surely if they where in good form a few of them would have been in world cup T20 squad?. India desperately lacked some good pace bowling in this WC.
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.
So i dont see how its not fairly obvious that if a team won in India & didn't have to face Kumble/Harbhajan. How you could rate that series win higly if they instead had to face Sarandeep Singh, Raju, Kapoor, Joshi, Chauhan who were nothing spinners.
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.
Yep & even if he was fit to play in that 2004 series he wouldn't have made a difference - even if he alone had stood up to the AUS attack. Since that legendary AUS basically owned the entire IND batting throughout that series. Nothing was going to stop AUS in that series.
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.
Kindly repeat it. Since i dont see any points about it above..
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.
McGrath & Warne are legends that could take wickets on any surface. Them not playing fit in that series, along with a fully fit Gillespie made all the in that series. AUS certainly would have won.
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).
When all of McGrath/Dizzy/Warne went to India 6 moths later in 2004 on equally flat pitches they won. So that basically proves my point.
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.
But certain circumstaces that affected AUS in the 2003/04, 07/08 & 08 series. Such as the injuries to key bowling personnel. That always seems to go unacknowledged when people talk about Indian "good test record vs AUS". Which is wrong. Since full strenght AUS teams beat IND fairly comfortably in 2004 & 1999.
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.
Yea NZ are such a great test team right?. Clealry winning a test series in NZ on some flat pitches is comparable to a series win in AUS, SA or ENG againts strong pace attacks in bowler friendly conditions.
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.
Yea since when does the ranji trophy ever had any pace attacks remotely comparable to that of is seen in international cricket.
Since when does any domestic league have comparable bowling attacks to international cricket? 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. 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.
Vinood Kambli was a doemstic bully, but yet faield in tests when he faced the pace of windies. India batsmen have a historically vulnerability againts pace, so when once see's them struggle in limited overs againts the line of attack. It cannot be taken lightly.
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.
Maybe average medim pacers on flat pitches. But he has consistently looked average/poor in test when he faced the 90 mph stuff. Which is what the likes of Sharma, Vijay (who looked vulberale vs Steyn & Morkel in the recent test series), Kohli, Panday, Raina look like as well ATS of their careers.
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.
- He ot centuries in AUS on flat pitches againts a weakened AUS pace attack in 2003/04.
- Got centuries in 2001/02 on debut againts a SA attack in decline on fairly flat pitch. Pollock was the only good bowler in that test/series. Ntini & Hayward was crap in those days. Klusener & Kallis where in decline. Plus Donald wasn't playing.
When Sehwag faced a real quality Saffies pace attack in SA in bowler friendly condtions in 2006/07. He averaged
14 in that series.
- Sehwag's hundred in England 2002 was againts a inexperienced England attack. All of Flintoff, Harmison, Jones, Hoggard where nto test quality as yet. They didn't become test quality until 2004 when England famously won int he caribbean en route to the 2005 Ashes win.
While the likes of Caddick & Cork where passes their best in the summer of 2002.
- The hundred Sehwag scored in windies 2006 was on a flat pitch. Only the only pacy deck of that series during the final test in Jamaica. Sehwag failed.
So Sehwag obviously has to prove that he can score runs overseas againts quality pace attack on helpul pitches. Instead of just roads. Thats why the tour to SA later this year is a key point in his career.
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.
Nah the point about Roach/Taylor/Tait/Nannes in T20s is just as valid as the Steyn/Morkel point. What those guys did to India's batsmen in the last two T20 WC is exposed a historical weakness. You can ignore it if you want.
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.
The runs they needed to score isn't important. The looked vulnerable againts the pace technically.
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.
Who said they have to bowl 3-4 bouncers an over for 5 days?? :laugh
Quality fast bowling isn't all about bowling bouncers. With Indian batsmen for example who have the vulnerabilyt vs quality pace. The old tactic of the "two-card trick" would work perfectly. Push them back, then send the full delivery which would result in a LBW, bowled or catch behind the wicket.
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).
I certainly would be surprised if they dont. Since India have the hottest young batting line-up in the world in those players. Just right now they have a lot of work to do.
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. 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.
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.
Maybe you should recommend a Publisher, I see PC don't have word count limit, but give the guy marks for effort!!
