England In India - October 2011/12

[War]

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

Firstly this is where you are confusing the current "England team"

As i just said:

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..

Speaking about the current strenght of the England team going forward, you have to start from the Ashes win last winter.

Going back 9 series excluding the current ongoing series, in which ENG have won 7 out of 9 series. Not 8.

- beat Sri 2011
- beat Aus 2010/11
- beat Pak 2010
- beat Bang 2010
- beat Bang 2009/10
- draw SA 2009/10
- beat AUS 2009
- beat WI 2009
- lost WI 2009

You going back into the dark era of between Pakistan 2005 - Windies 2009, when England were ravaged by injuries to many key players such as Trescothick, Flintoff, Jones, Vaughan which prevented them from building on the Ashes 05 win. Along with players like Bell, Cook, Strauss, Anderson still yet to prove themselevs as the top class performers that they did before the 2010/11 Ashes triumph.

Then of course you had the transitional Strauss/Flower era of Ashes 09 - PAK 2010 in between the 10/11 Ashes victory.

You cannot mix up the two together, since the improvements of certain players since the 2010/11 Ashes wins is so drastic is like comparing two different players and a different team.

During that 9 series period, when ENG were moving from the Flower/Strauss transition to the super looking team that they are now. South Africa and India were the two best teams in the world, dont confuse yourself to try and make England look better than they actually are.

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.

Winning home and way has always been a fair prequisite to judging a top team long before me or you started watching cricket. So this POV is not opinion tha i have derived by myself.

Read how Gideon Haigh summarised all the # 1 test teams in test history since the post war in period. Gideon Haigh on dominant teams in Test cricket | Cricket Features | The Big 2000 Test | ESPN Cricinfo

You will not find any example of him calling no team # 1 after 3 test series wins in 8 months. England being herald as # 1 presuming they beat India would be just as misguided as when India were called the "unofficial # 1" after they won two test series vs West Indies and England in 1971.

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

And what do you thinkrecently means sir??. According to the formula the ICC uses to allocate points in the ranking system, its based performances over a 2 year period.

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.

Which makes it a joke. Especially when you consider all the international teams especially South Africa - who are the next best test team are on a international break.

We win 3 series in 8 monhts, one most likely and notably against India who have been unbeaten in 3 years before this potential series lost. And you accept the flimpsy premise according to the ranking system that we are # 1 for 8 months???

What would say now if India beat us India this winter?.

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.

I just gave you the example of the England team of 1951-1958 who were the # 1 given they did not lose a test series for 7 years. But were not dominant in the way AUS 95-07 or WI 76-91 was.

They beat their biggest challengers AUS home away in the 50s while drawing difficult away tours to S Africa and West Indies. They didn't win away everywhere especially againts all the top team of their time.

This "new" ENG team has to do that for at least a couple years like their 1950s predecessors instead of 8 months before we serious call them the best at anything.

They certainly cannot fall into the trap of winning at home alone and losing away in the next year in IND, SA or SRI. Since that will prove that test cricket since AUS decline in 2007 is going through a fluctuation phase were a few teams a jostling for a top stop, given that they ae incapable of winning away from home as it was between in late 1960s after the decline of Sobers Windies to rise of Lloyds Windies in 1976, as Haigh described eruditely in his cricinfo article:

For almost a decade, in fact, Test cricket was remarkably even - perhaps the most even it has been. Thanks to South Africa's rancid politics, a team who might have dominated were spinning towards oblivion. The Springboks' duffing up of the Australians in 1970, just before the boom fell, with the Pollocks, Barry Richards, Mike Procter and Eddie Barlow at their peak, is one of the most one-sided in history; with Clive Rice and Vince van der Bijl about to break through, they could very well have been the team to beat for the next decade. Even the Australian zenith, under the Chappells, was relatively short-lived: it just seems longer for all its characters and folklore, recapitulations and revisitations.

I should put in a personal word for those Australians, as they were the team I grew up watching, and therefore feel a certain unreasoned loyalty to - they are, in a way, my own reference point where other Test teams are concerned. Man for man, they actually don't match off all that well in comparison with other great teams. They were a core of stars (the Chappells, Lillee, Thomson, Marsh) fortified by hardworking sweats (Keith Stackpole, Ross Edwards, Rick McCosker, Max Walker, Ashley Mallett), plus a few who played above themselves for one crowded hour (Gary Gilmour, Bob Massie, Jeff Hammond, Alan Turner, Gary Cosier). Nonetheless they had "something" that expressed a common purpose - Mike Brearley called it a "lounging hostility". I suspect it emanated from their captain, Ian Chappell, who put you in mind of John Ford's famous comment about John Wayne: "The sonofabitch walked like a man."

What's interesting in hindsight is the comparative brevity of that Australian dominance. We tend to pass over Ian Chappell's standing down as captain after the Oval Test of 1975, forgetful that he was only 31, and, it turned out, had another five years of good cricket in him, in and around a temporary retirement. In memory, one Chappell seems to segue naturally into the other: on reflection, the slippage from Ian the leader into Greg the virtuoso might have been a greater shift than we grasped at the time.

----------

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.

Im well aware of the differece and in going this to the death before i have never confused the two, when saying IND were not the # 1, but instead implying it was a equal between them and S Africa for the top spot in test cricket based on series performances/results since February 2007.

West Indies 76-91 and AUS 95-07 is different type of # 1 from ENG 1951-1958, Sobers Windies of 1963-1968, Chappells AUS 72-76 or the Bradman invincibles. Those are the two mutually exclusive concepts of what # one teams have looked liked that some of you have failed to grasp.

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.

Key word is contenders. They have to maintain the last last 8 months and 3 series of performances for another couple of years before they can fully claim # 1 status over IND or SA.

 

[s2sschan]

Solution

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

India contributes 3 out of every 4 dollars in the ICC's income and plenty to the ECB's coffers as well.
No sane Cricket Board will like your suggestion.

Haven't seen this kind of Arrogance from the Aussies, West Indies, or even Pakistan fans when they had way bigger victories over India.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

In their defence, idiots like Sobi and co. have been hugely arrogant to the build up to this, so the English fans are just trying to give them a dose of their own medicine.

None of the arrogance is actually aimed at level-headed Indian fans, such as yourself.

 

[pcfan123]

Exactly, and if you want to talk about overreaction, lets rewind to when India won that joke of a tournament, known as the World2020.

Did anyone in England even blink twice when they won it? nope, cause it's fake cricket.

Either way this is all just horseplay, I couldn't care less about a series against India. Ashes or nothing baby

 

[Prithvi]

slow starters lol, the series is over for them.

No way! We're playing with our dream team, which achieved us the #1 spot, so don't take us too easy! Sehwag-Gauti-RD-Sachin-Laxman-Bhajji. Two of these six clicking will land England is deep deep troubles (yeah, Bhajji is more of a batsman than a bowler)!

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.

Parthiv Patel is way to better than Dhoni. Dhoni doesn't has any good FC record. He came straightaway to ODI cricket, then became captain, and rest is well known. Parthiv Patel debuted when he was just 17, that too on a foreign land. He has been sacked, and all the hype he had is down to zero now. He can do 100% well, if he is taken in. Dhoni has way too much of hype, which is not making him play. He might be a good ODI/T20 batsman, but he's absolutely garbage in test cricket, which people need to understand, before cheering him blindly.

 

[6ry4nj]

Key word is contenders. They have to maintain the last last 8 months and 3 series of performances for another couple of years before they can fully claim # 1 status over IND or SA.

War, will you just say who you think the number 1 Test team is.

I don't believe you have anyone in the top ranking. You must be aware that rankings don't start from two or three, they start from number one.

 

[6ry4nj]

No way! We're playing with our dream team, which achieved us the #1 spot, so don't take us too easy! Sehwag-Gauti-RD-Sachin-Laxman-Bhajji. Two of these six clicking will land England is deep deep troubles (yeah, Bhajji is more of a batsman than a bowler)!

You must be joking right? Sehwag and Gauti are not even playing. Bhajji can't bat and looks like he may never 'click' again as a Test bowler. He's not even good enough to get a bowl. Dravid has 'clicked' in both games, unless your circular definition of 'clicked' is 'singlehandedly won the game' which I fear may be the case. If you're not joking, it's a joke.

So much ████ has piled up here every time I check back, tough to give it all the (sewage) treatment it deserves. The BBC story linked to above quoted the Times of India, on its front page, saying India don't deserve to be number one. The Times of India can usually be trusted to support India one-eyedly. It is normally full of all the snide pathetic what-ifs and excuses that some Indian fans here are encouraging to crawl out of the woodwork. To them I say, I will leave you to argue amongst yourselves, as the majority of opinions voiced by your compatriots are contrary to yours.

That said, the series is not over. England have to win the next game to guarantee taking the number one spot before the last one. In this era where bookie-friendly international results are so prevalent, an Indian comeback is well within the realms of what passes for plausibility. If that happens, and they claw their way back to less than two Tests behind, then India get to keep their number one ranking, and you will not hear me saying otherwise.

 

[War]

War, will you just say who you think the number 1 Test team is.

I don't believe you have anyone in the top ranking. You must be aware that rankings don't start from two or three, they start from number one.

Their is no # 1 team and their hasn't been one since the Australia era ended after the 2006/07 Ashes. It has been even between India & South Africa, since they have been the two equal consistent test teams over the past 4 years.

Dont take my word for it, since i always direct people to go on cricinfo and check the amount of series both IND & SA have played since Feb 2007 and you see they both have an equal amt of series victories ratio. Added to the fact that in the three (3) series they clashed in 2008, 2010 & 2010/11 they drew with each other.

England potentially beating IND in this series will bring them right up their with IND/SA as the third most consistent test side & begin their quest as contenders for a slight # 1 test status over those two sides in the coming years. Them being herald as # 1 due to the faulty ranking system if beat IND in this series is misguided and very knee-jerk.

They need to develop an unbeaten streak over the next couple of years especially overseas similar to what IND has had since 2008. But if they want to pip S Africa and India they have to win in those countries.

But looking at the FTP programme for ENG for the next couple years http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/DOWNLOAD/0000/0045/ftp_2011_2020.pdf. The scenario of touring IND & SA in its current solid test form may not be possible.

As you can see ENG are touring IND next winter 2012/13, when their is strong possibility the likes of Tendy/Dravid/Laxman/Khan could be already gone or on their last legs. That would slightly diminish the challenge of touring IND, if INDs side is in transition then. While they dont tour S Africa until 2015/16 where the likes of Kallis will be gone and Steyn will be 33 and probably passed his best (although he could still be lethal).

So for now presuming ENG close IND off this series. Just looking ahead upcoming series this winter and home next summer sees:

- In SRI
- In PAK (neutral turf)
- Host WI
- Host SA

So presuming ENG win those winter tours along with beating WI at home. Next summer vs SA is another big series presuming SA dont slip up in their fixtures list between now and then and also keep playing good cricket. Thus if ENG can beat SA next summer - i'd be willing to call them the # 1 by then.

But if S Africa slip up by lets say lose to a rejuvenated Australia @ home this winter before they come to ENG next summer. While ENG do well in the sub-continent this winter, ENG would be clear # 1 before their 2012 home season since it would have clearly showed that IND/SA are in a bit of decline - while ENG are moving up.

 

[6ry4nj]

Their is no # 1 team

So all that you fillered your post with after that was to hide the fact that you don't know how ordinal numbers work. Every sport has team rankings. In cricket, some Test teams are better than others. When you list the teams in order of how good they are - you can start numbering them from 3 or 7 or 1,000,001 if you like - but the one (or more in the case of a tie) at the top is the number one team.

 

[Ollie_H]

You honestly just can't please some people. They're just so blooming picky.

 

[deepuparayil]

If any one of Raina,Yuvraj or Dhoni showed some sense by leaving the bouncers and playing their shots in the swinging deliveries rather than try to defend everything, the result would have been something different. Lack of knowledge about how to tackle these situations cost them dearly. Broad and Swann showed every one a perfect example about how to tackle these conditions and the whole England team followed the suit in their 2nd innings. But the Indian batsman failed to see this.

Sanjay Manjeraker was right about the lack of preparations, India prepared very poorly for this series. I still believe India has enough talent to beat this England team but the application is missing. I hope never again the other Indian fans will bring up the slow starters excuse, it's actually a load of BS. When they lost the 1st test, the whole Indian team believed that it was normal because they are slow starters and they will automatically come back in the second test,because the history says so. If they prepared better for the second test rather than holding to the silly excuse of 'slow starters' , they would have shown some fight in the 2nd test.

 

[War]

So all that you fillered your post with after that was to hide the fact that you don't know how ordinal numbers work.

Nah i think that is more of case you probably not understanding a word of the post after that minute portion of post that you chose quote and deliberate on for some reason. Then go on to suggest i dont understand some drivel notions that you have suddenly deemed as a "fact". Similar the hash job response you gave me in this thread http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/2169280-post10.html, which im still waiting for a response from mind you.

Every sport has team rankings. In cricket, some Test teams are better than others. When you list the teams in order of how good they are - you can start numbering them from 3 or 7 or 1,000,001 if you like - but the one (or more in the case of a tie) at the top is the number one team.

Cricket does not need a ranking system as i always say.

In the post war era of many teams present from 1948 to 2002 (when rankings systems were first introduced), cricket - mainly test cricket did fine without a ranking system.

Erudite fans, pundits, journalists etc made correct judgements on who was the best teams in the world and knew which when was time to herald it as the unofficial #1 bout i.e Ashes 54/55 & 58/59, ENG vs WI 1963, AUS vs WI 1965, AUS vs WI 1968/89, SA vs AUS 1970, AUS vs WI 79/80, WI vs PAK 1988, AUS vs WI 90/91 and 92/93, AUS vs WI 94/95, AUS vs SA 97/98, AUS vs SA 2001/02.

All of that was done with ease for 54 years without a ranking system and no one ever complained that we needed a ranking system. Do you remember anyone in the 90s or 80s saying "cricket is in desperate need of a ranking system"???

Other sports were doing it and the ICC just did the same with cricket since it seemed all "modern".

But they and the majority of cricket fans didn't realize judging a sport like test cricket on some mathematical model set to rank team blindly every 2 years. Which ignores a fact that all teams decline and peak at different times due to player improvement, decline, retirements.

The flaws are insoluble in and i can go on and on highlighting important peripheral factors than any ranking system will always miss. You will never get a ranking system that does what some people want done - tells you unequivocally which team is "best" whether the margin is big or small. Because sometimes there is no "best".

The idea that there must always be a "best" team by the majority of cricket fans these days is plain wrong IMO also. Is it so inconceivable that cricket can have 2 equal top teams???

 

[6ry4nj]

If any one of Raina,Yuvraj or Dhoni showed some sense by leaving the bouncers and playing their shots in the swinging deliveries rather than try to defend everything, the result would have been something different. Lack of knowledge about how to tackle these situations cost them dearly. Broad and Swann showed every one a perfect example about how to tackle these conditions and the whole England team followed the suit in their 2nd innings. But the Indian batsman failed to see this.

Sanjay Manjeraker was right about the lack of preparations, India prepared very poorly for this series. I still believe India has enough talent to beat this England team but the application is missing. I hope never again the other Indian fans will bring up the slow starters excuse, it's actually a load of BS. When they lost the 1st test, the whole Indian team believed that it was normal because they are slow starters and they will automatically come back in the second test,because the history says so. If they prepared better for the second test rather than holding to the silly excuse of 'slow starters' , they would have shown some fight in the 2nd test.

Totally agree that the slow starters excuse is bullshit. All the pathetic excuses and what-ifs are bullshit - including your first sentence. Yes India has enough talent to beat England in a Test. I'm not going to concede that they might be good enough to win a series in England, because it can't possibly happen now. The next time (if) it happens, it will be in a whole other set of circumstances.

 

[Gaurav_7]

India in England 2011: Harbhajan Singh to miss Edgbaston Test | Cricket News | England v India 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[deepuparayil]

India in England 2011: Harbhajan Singh to miss Edgbaston Test | Cricket News | England v India 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

Finally India to win a test.