What India barely won in 2001 series
Defeated by 10 wickets in first test and 2 comfortable draws in next.
Which is my point. Given that ENG had Gough, Caddick, Stewart, Thorpe missing who had played instrumental roles in England winning in Pakistan & Sri Lanka the previous years. After IND smoked ENG by 10 wickets in that 1st test, ENG should have been hammered 3-0. But England came back very well & where the better team in those final two tests.
Don't worry , once again you will be in rebuilding phase after India tour because you are no way going to win the series and a big reality check will hit you.
Even if ENG dont beat IND this summer. ENG will not be in rebuilding. Outside of Strauss, KP, Swann everyone is under 30. So the nucleus of this team will be together for a long time to come.
Plus im fairly confident ENG can win in their own conditions if the ball is swinging. The last time India faced a quality pace ENG attack when the ball was moving, was in IND 05/06. You remember what happened in that final test in Mumbai, when Hoggard/Flintoff/Anderson had this same IND batting-lineup in trouble?. Now if they can do that in Indian conditions, i have faith they can do the same in English conditions. So you can write of England's chances @ your own peril.
What Ashes winning are you talking about ? Both test match England won in 2005 did not feature Mcgrath. When you met a full strength OZ side you lost 5-0.
Well you are venturing into the unknown here. This is your view of what could have happened if McGrath played all 3 tests, but dont speak of it as if it would be a definite.
My position on the matter is that even if McGrath had played all 5 tests fully-fit, England may have still sneaked a series win. The reason AUS lost was because their batting line-up was exposed technically to the moving ball by the English quicks. While Warne never had consistent bowling support after the 1st test.
So i've always been of the view, that even if McGrath was playing all the time. England may not have scored all those 400+ totals & thus the series would have paced with many sub-300 scores. But where ENG may have got the slight edge was the fact that AUS back-up bowlers to McGrath/Warne in Gillespie/Lee/Tait/Kasper where horribly inconsistent & they extra runs they would have given to the ENG batsmen, would have given ENG the edge in the end still.
Plus also one of the reasons AUS in their glory years between 1995-2007 was herald as the great team was due to their amazing debt. AUS where able to win many tough overseas tours without during those glory years McGrath such as:
- 2003/04 in Sri Lanka
- 2005/06 in South Africa
Given that the back-up players would step up. The back-up for once in the Ashes 05 didn't step & ENG took advantage. So in no way should a lack of McGrath be used as means to look down upon ENG 05 Ashes win.
Plus the full-stenght ENG team of the 2005 Ashes, didn't even go to the return series in 06/07. Thanks to various injuries, the Ashes winning XI never played again after the 05 Ashes.
We beat a full strength OZ side in 2001 without Kumble . Stop looking for execuse. Your Ashes win in 2005 was because Mcgrath got injured after 1st test.It was beyond the capability of Eng to beat full strength OZ of 1995-2007 in a series. You sucked against Warne. India drew a series in OZ in 2003/04 when they did not have Mcgrath. We nearly drew series in 2004 had it not been for chennai in 2004 series and you are talking as if you did some spectacular work by beating a OZ side without Mcgrath.
I wouldn't bring that 2001 series in discussion. That was just one of the freakish comebacks in test history. That not something you can use as example to validate any point.
In AUS attack that IND faced in 2003/04 in Australia was the worst attack home series attack of the 95-2006/07 glory years. At least ENG had the consistent threat of Warne in 2005 & a Lee who deadly in some innings after McGrath got injured.
In 03/04 IND punished average/joke test bowlers like Bracken & Bichel, Williams & a half-fit Gillespie on flat pitches. IND had it much easier, so it really is no comparison.
With regards to the 2004 series, 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. Everyone accepts that. 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 sneaky feeling based on facts, 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 1995-2006/07 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.
And i would say , this is the worst attack, they are facing by any major test nation in last 20 years. We have faced Ambrose/walsh, steyn/ Morkel, Mcgrath/Warne/Gillespie,Murali/Mendis, Wasim/waqar, pollock/donald, who are these English bowlers you are talking about.
Why do see a need to compare the current ENG attack to past great attacks of the 90s?. Of course they are better than the current ENG attack. My point is off all the IND tours to England during the Tendulkar era dating back to 1990 tour, 1996 tour, 2002 tour, 2007 tour. This is will be best ENG home attack Tendulkar & co will have have faced. I dont see how thats not fairly clear.
Win a series against half-fit OZ side and keep it parroting for next 20 years as if no body else has done that.
Half-fit OZ side?. Ha AUS team was not half-fit, they may not have played to potential & the selectors made some horrible selections. But AUS in this post McWarne era have been playing inconsistent test cricket for the last 2 years since their surprise 2-1 series in in S Africa 2009. ENG where the more settled side going into the Ashes & throughly outplayed AUS deservingly.
Strike rate not important in test.
Tell this to chappell , smith , Arther who know the importance of scoring quickly.
And a team like IND will never allow batsman like trott to enter the team who virtually will make sure that match produces a draw result.
Rahul Dravid @ his peak batted just as slowly for India as Trott has been doing for England now, in the same # 3. So your point fails.
No doubt scoring quicks has some advantages in tests. But its not important even if you have a top 7 of 7 Jonathan Trott's. The great England team of 1951-1958 was just like that, but they never lost a test series for 8 years. Why?, because they weere well balanced having a great bowling attack that could run through any side even if their batsmen scored slowly.
We will see how your fully fit members do . We saw a glimpse of them in WC. We will further see what they are capable of doing.
Haven't won a series for last 16 years and the execuse is injured bowlers.Never seen a injury which occurs as soon as India play .
Dont understand what point you are trying to make in these last two sentences my friend.
