England In India - October 2011/12

[War]

How are they better than India atm? They have beat India at HOME, If they can beat them in India then they should be close to number 1 or even better than India. India can CRUSH any team in Tests at home. So winning at home isn't a big deal. England played at home and won but they would get creamed if they had played at India.

My friend im pretty sure i said post, that ENG need to beat IND in IND along with winning in S Africa and SRI before they can be safely termed # 1, even if the faulty ranking system place them @ # 1 if/when they win another test in this current series.

Plus no IND wouldn't cream S Africa in India conditions. The last two series when S Africa taking series leads before IND came back to salvage a draw.

This current ENG team is not that far off the S Africa teams that drew in India 2008 and 2010, if not equal to them. So i dont see IND creaming ENG in India this winter. But no doubt it will be a challenge for the ENG team.

 

[barmyarmy]

If there's any point buried in there it's that England really don't care about ODI cricket.

 

[Ollie_H]

The point I was trying to make there with that 5-0 defeat in India is that England are nothing when they play in India.

No it's not. It's a completely different ball game. England are terrible at ODI cricket and the English will be the first too admit it! India can get away with shat bowling in ODI's cos their batting is so strong and they just trust themselves to get whatever the opposition set.

I'd love to see the stats for Indian wins when batting 1st or 2nd.

But for me, this article takes the bacon on the India side.

BBC News - Why India risks losing cricket's top spot

 

[Themer]

My friend im pretty sure i said post, that ENG need to beat IND in IND along with winning in S Africa and SRI before they can be safely termed # 1, even if the faulty ranking system place them @ # 1 if/when they win another test in this current series.

The system isn't faulty. You don't have to be miles ahead of everyone to be number 1. England in the last year or so have been the best test side in the world, they are not dominant, they wouldn't beat everyone home or away. They have though performed the best in Test cricket out of everyone lately hence number one.

You keep confusing number one with domination merely because of how far Australia and the West Indies before them were in front.

 

[Sobi]

My friend im pretty sure i said post, that ENG need to beat IND in IND along with winning in S Africa and SRI before they can be safely termed # 1, even if the faulty ranking system place them @ # 1 if/when they win another test in this current series.

Plus no IND wouldn't cream S Africa in India conditions. The last two series when S Africa taking series leads before IND came back to salvage a draw.

This current ENG team is not that far off the S Africa teams that drew in India 2008 and 2010, if not equal to them. So i dont see IND creaming ENG in India this winter. But no doubt it will be a challenge for the ENG team.

I am not talking about you but some other people and they know who they are. Also, ENG and SA's last series over the last 5 years are the only series which they managed to draw after losing in India for long time. But still, India kept away from losses. I know that there is no true number one team in Test cricket so far but there have been alot of criticism against the India team saying they are just at the top because they play at home and win but now, when ENG won matches at home, there aren't any criticisms against them and all I see is people claiming how ENG is so dominating and worth number 1 spot.

 

[BKB1991]

You keep confusing number one with domination merely because of how far Australia and the West Indies before them were in front.

I would probably go and say England are a better team than India atm. Yea this is England and all, but if it was in India, I wouldnt expect England to go down like the way India has done.

I really want to see Zaheer and the Indian openers back. A fully-fit Indian should surely test the English, but I reckon England can still beat 'em.

Another point I would like to mention is that Gary Kirsten is missing. India are under some new management, and it might be a while before results start coming. This shouldnt be an excuse though, they are professional cricketers and should know how to get around this.

 

[darthlewis1]

I knew all the Indian fans would start playing a couple of missing players and playing away from home on the thrashing they've had so far this series. Remembering England have Tremlett out and along with Trott and swann injured in the match. Also the number 1 side in the world should be able to put up a decent fight away from home conditions but India were just shockingly poor in the last Test.

 

[s2sschan]

Test Cricket

I knew all the Indian fans would start playing a couple of missing players and playing away from home on the thrashing they've had so far this series. Remembering England have Tremlett out and along with Trott and swann injured in the match. Also the number 1 side in the world should be able to put up a decent fight away from home conditions but India were just shockingly poor in the last Test.

We are not making any excuses. We know England played damn well. Some English fans and some English journalists are more happy talking about how bad India is, instead of enjoying the performance of their own players. They are apalled England won so convincingly.

Anyways, Test Cricket is the least popular format in India. The crowds just don't like it.
Secondly, the pitches in India only suit spinners. So chances of India producing good Test Cricketers are slim.
You will probably never see a world dominating Indian Test Team in the future. We never have seen one in the past either.

 

[Themer]

We are not making any excuses.

Anyways, Test Cricket is the least popular format in India. The crowds just don't like it.
Secondly, the pitches in India only suit spinners. So chances of India producing good Test Cricketers are slim.

...

 

[pcfan123]

Anyways, Test Cricket is the least popular format in India. The crowds just don't like it.

I have the perfect solution. Stop playing it and leave it for the proper teams.

 

[sifter132]

Also, they beat india at home just like India would kill England if they played in India. I dont see what is the point of overconfidence. Enjoy while you play at home cause you probably wont even win a session when playing in india.

I'm afraid you've sandwiched that sentence with overconfidence. A pretty weak Australia side was only one wicket away (and a matter of millimetres in that last over) from drawing their series with India in India last year. Shouldn't they have been crushed and killed? India certainly plays well in their own conditions, are hard to beat and deserve to be favourites for each home series, but don't go over the top with it and say that the opposition have no chance.

It would take a brave man but if I was a visiting team I'd use my WK as an opener to knock the batting line up one down, and if a wicket falls with the new ball, bring in the no.8.

One last thing I want to say is Dhoni should strictly constrain himself only to One Day cricket! He is unable to play test cricket- its clearly visible. Make him a non playing captain- but no Dhoni into test cricket action please. He might do average stuff in sub continent pitches, but no way he can play good test cricket on foreign lands. He cannot become real test cricket star with a single huge knock, he should play consistently 50+ knocks, which he isn't able to.

Some interesting ideas floating around this morning Who would keep if not Dhoni? He's averaging in the mid 30s which is better than Parthiv Patel managed in his career, and it's just as good as the average international keeper. He's just down in confidence at present.

As for promoting tail enders, I'm not sure why it doesn't happen more often. I'm not sure I'd waste them against the new ball, unless they were particularly good at surviving but I think mixing them with the top order players could exploit modern captains laziness when it comes to tail ender/top order partnerships. I'm reminded of JP Duminy's 166 vs Australia a couple of years ago. It was one of the easiest centuries I've seen, because Duminy was always batting with the tail: Harris, Morkel and particularly Steyn. Australia let Duminy off strike pretty easily looking to knock over Steyn and the others and didn't really have a Duminy plan. If you had a good defensive tail ender, then he could create some good partnerships in the middle order.

 

[War]

The system isn't faulty. You don't have to be miles ahead of everyone to be number 1. England in the last year or so have been the best test side in the world, they are not dominant, they wouldn't beat everyone home or away. They have though performed the best in Test cricket out of everyone lately hence number one.

You keep confusing number one with domination merely because of how far Australia and the West Indies before them were in front.

Firslty i am not confusing "number one" with domination that was accomplished by Windies of 76-91 or Australia 95-07, when they were miles ahead of the pack.

An example of # 1 team in test history that didn't have daylight over everyone was England from 1951-1958. They managed to stay unbeaten for that 7 year period without losing a test, but they didn't dominate their competition i.e AUS, SA, WI especially away from home. They had to fight hard for their wins and the fact that they were unbeaten, everyone accepted they were the best of that time.

As you said the ranking system rates you as # 1 based on your performances "lately" or over a 2 year period according to the ICC. Which is wrong.

A strong prerequisite of a # 1 team is your ability to be versatile and win home and away. Regardless of how far this England team goes in the future, their dynasty will begin from the 2010/11 Ashes win, just like how the great West Indies team dysnaty began in the summer of 1976 and Australia during that 95 series win in the Caribbean. Because that was the series were certain England players like Cook, Anderson, Tremlett, Bell came of age as test players.

Its is not right for ENG to gain # 1 status based on 8 months and 2 series after the Ashes win, that is madness.

India although i have never considered them # 1, if they lose this series would be the first one they have lost since in Sri Lanka 2008. Otherwise India has had to build up the solid test record over the last 3 years, to be the the top test team along with South Africa who have a similar impressive series by series test record.

England's dynasty is not even 1 year old & them beating India @ home is just a starting block on a potential road to dominance.

Since if now England failt beat Indian in India this winter and struggle in Sri Lanka and vs South Africa next year. England potential home series win vs IND wll just be seen as a one-off in a years time and us ENG fans will look dumb thanks to a faulty ranking system that told ENG b4 this series, we could achieve # 1 status so quickly.

Overall though i certainly believe have the all bases needed to beat IND, SRI and SA within the next year, so dont get me wrong on that point. But as aformentioned its not right for ENG to be called # 1 just yet after this series, presuming they win.

 

[ferg512]

India can CRUSH any team in Tests at home.

I seriously doubt this, we (NZ) are pretty much bottom of the test rankings and even then at home India just managed to scrape a 1-0 win against us, in fact if we had another seamer in that first test to support Martin I have no doubts we would have won that game. It would certainly be much closer if it was Eng v Ind in india but I would still think England has a very good chance to beat them.

 

[Themer]

Its is not right for ENG to gain # 1 status based on 8 months and 2 series after the Ashes win, that is madness.

It isn't though is it. England have won 8 out of the last 9 test series that they've played. That's better than anyone else has achieved based on the opponents at the time

A strong prerequisite of a # 1 team is your ability to be versatile and win home and away.

NO IT ISN'T! The prerequisite for you to ascend to being number one is being slightly better than anyone else. England are/have shown themselves to be slightly better than everyone else even if they haven't beaten India in India over the last few years.

As you said the ranking system rates you as # 1 based on your performances "lately" or over a 2 year period according to the ICC. Which is wrong.

THAT ISN'T WRONG. The rankings are there to show who has been the better team recently.

ENG fans will look dumb thanks to a faulty ranking system that told ENG b4 this series, we could achieve # 1 status so quickly.

No they won't. They just won't have been the best side for very long, there is nothing wrong with that as far as the ranking system goes.

The way you constantly keep saying England need to beat India in India and SA to become number one suggests that you believe that they have to beat everyone everywhere. If they did they'd be dominating test cricket not just number one.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

themer, this has been done to death. War for some reason cannot compute that being no.1 in a ranking system and being the Greatest Team Of The Era TM are two mutually exclusive concepts.

England are clear contenders to be no.1 and I wouldn't dispute it for a second if they come out of this series with the top spot.