sohum
Executive member
If you judge Chappell's coaching by an incident that occurred when he was young (and foolhardy), and one that he has since regretted, well, there is nothing I can say to you but point that out.WG. said:
England in India
- Thread starter m_vaughan
- Start date
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
gaurav_indian said:What was the cause behind that,winning a match for his team not losing.:
Yea mate, thats the spirit! :hpraise
It was such an idiotic decision...a disgrace to entire cricket.
WG. said:
Well that in my opinion is stupid to judge a person's coaching skill just because he had asked some one to bowl under arm when he was a player himself!
why are rules made for? if you have to follow something that is not written in the rulebook, then the same applies otherwise (you can do something that the rule prohibits). i think he felt bad for having done it, and thats the end of the story.
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
saisrini80 said:
thanks for speaking..for Chappell.
But yea, past is past...and we cannot judge anything from that. He has done wonders with the ODI team, but credit should also go to the captain and mainly the players.
Its good to see him back Kaif and Sehwag, and rightly so. I think India will not make any changes to the line-up for tomorrow's ODI.
cricket_lover said:
Well Chappell's backing Kaif and Sehwag and he has also stated that they will be given enough chances but not endless ones.
So that should be quiet right.
source: http://cricket.indiatimes.com/quickiearticleshow/1475789.cms
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
yes, you shouldn't give too many chances because there are youngsters waiting in the line behind. But we all know what Sehwag and Kaif are capable of, and hopefully they fire sooner than later.
puddleduck said:
I looked at England's performance aginst India in tests for the last 4 series and the last 6 series to give equal number of home and away series. Here it is.
Year Host # Tests England India Drawn Tie
1990 England 3 1 0 2 0
1992/93 India 3 0 3 0 0
1996 England 3 1 0 2 0
2001/02 India 3 0 1 2 0
2002 England 4 1 1 2 0
2005/06 India 3 1 1 1 0
Total 19 4 6 9 0
1996 England 3 1 0 2 0
2001/02 India 3 0 1 2 0
2002 England 4 1 1 2 0
2005/06 India 3 1 1 1 0
Total 13 3 3 7 0
In the last six series India have done better (6 won against 4) compared to England. In the last four series they are even (3 and 3 wins). So England have improved but they are still even against India.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
How does series that were in 1990 have anything to do with test cricket today? The simple fact that England have improved is exactly that, fact.
When Fletcher took over England were effectively bottom of the test rankings, they are now 2nd. If that is not proof that in the test arena England have improved than I do not know what can be said to convince you.
I like to look at results within the last 2-3 years as a benchmark for a teams success, as if you got back further the teams are rarely the same as the teams 3 years down the line. It is afterall unfair to bracket a new look side with their past sides failings. At the most 5 years is a good indication.
End of the day, Englands results in the last 2 1/2 years are, unbeaten in all but their 2nd most recent series (up until then not just unbeaten but having won every single series), away on the subcontinent. That was a bad series in Pakistan (and I believe every team is allowed one bad series). Following on from that a highly credible draw in India regarding the circumstances is yet further signs that this England side is a very different proposition to ones from as far back as 1996 and 2001, even further back.
Afterall the Windies have pretty good records against everyone if you go back to 1990, yet there is no way that their side then can be compared to the current side, same is true of England although in the reverse.
In my eyes Englands performances in India in the test series lead me to believe that India could struggle the next time they are in England unless there are some changes, as I believe Pakistan and Sri Lanka will this summer.
Odi arena, they could be playing on the moon and still India would probably beat England, although a pitch with a bit of pace and bounce with the majority of the unavailable players available would at the least cause the Indian batsman a few more problems, and allow some of the English batsman to feel at home.
edit - to add, yes I do agree with you however than it would be difficult to seperate England and India as test teams, both have a lot of talent, and both are susceptible to the odd collapse. I do not however think performances 10 years ago are in anyway useful in gauging the various merits of the two sides. Why not use the fact that they just drew 1-1 to show that they are more or less even
When Fletcher took over England were effectively bottom of the test rankings, they are now 2nd. If that is not proof that in the test arena England have improved than I do not know what can be said to convince you.
I like to look at results within the last 2-3 years as a benchmark for a teams success, as if you got back further the teams are rarely the same as the teams 3 years down the line. It is afterall unfair to bracket a new look side with their past sides failings. At the most 5 years is a good indication.
End of the day, Englands results in the last 2 1/2 years are, unbeaten in all but their 2nd most recent series (up until then not just unbeaten but having won every single series), away on the subcontinent. That was a bad series in Pakistan (and I believe every team is allowed one bad series). Following on from that a highly credible draw in India regarding the circumstances is yet further signs that this England side is a very different proposition to ones from as far back as 1996 and 2001, even further back.
Afterall the Windies have pretty good records against everyone if you go back to 1990, yet there is no way that their side then can be compared to the current side, same is true of England although in the reverse.
In my eyes Englands performances in India in the test series lead me to believe that India could struggle the next time they are in England unless there are some changes, as I believe Pakistan and Sri Lanka will this summer.
Odi arena, they could be playing on the moon and still India would probably beat England, although a pitch with a bit of pace and bounce with the majority of the unavailable players available would at the least cause the Indian batsman a few more problems, and allow some of the English batsman to feel at home.
edit - to add, yes I do agree with you however than it would be difficult to seperate England and India as test teams, both have a lot of talent, and both are susceptible to the odd collapse. I do not however think performances 10 years ago are in anyway useful in gauging the various merits of the two sides. Why not use the fact that they just drew 1-1 to show that they are more or less even
Last edited:
sohum
Executive member
I agree with puddleduck. I don't see India doing too well in England if they had trouble against the moving ball in India. In England, a captain can seriously justify winning the toss and putting the opposition in, with a bit of moisture in the air and overcast conditions. Not so true in India.
That said, I think there were two major reasons that India could not pull off a test series victory against England:
1. Fielding
2. Top order form
Our fielding was... pathetic. And still is (in reference to the ODI series). I don't know what happened--we used to be a pretty decent fielding unit just a few months back. But now, I don't think we have gone a single match in this series without dropping at least one catch. Our top order not firing was another problem. Sehwag in nick can numb the new ball because he goes at it hard and has better than average hand-eye coordination.
But the tour to England should be tough, and something the Indians shouldn't be thinking of now. If we can't beat the Windies at home, for starts, then I don't believe we are serious contenders for #2.
That said, I think there were two major reasons that India could not pull off a test series victory against England:
1. Fielding
2. Top order form
Our fielding was... pathetic. And still is (in reference to the ODI series). I don't know what happened--we used to be a pretty decent fielding unit just a few months back. But now, I don't think we have gone a single match in this series without dropping at least one catch. Our top order not firing was another problem. Sehwag in nick can numb the new ball because he goes at it hard and has better than average hand-eye coordination.
But the tour to England should be tough, and something the Indians shouldn't be thinking of now. If we can't beat the Windies at home, for starts, then I don't believe we are serious contenders for #2.
puddleduck said:How does series that were in 1990 have anything to do with test cricket today? The simple fact that England have improved is exactly that, fact.
When Fletcher took over England were effectively bottom of the test rankings, they are now 2nd. If that is not proof that in the test arena England have improved than I do not know what can be said to convince you.
I like to look at results within the last 2-3 years as a benchmark for a teams success, as if you got back further the teams are rarely the same as the teams 3 years down the line. It is afterall unfair to bracket a new look side with their past sides failings. At the most 5 years is a good indication.
End of the day, Englands results in the last 2 1/2 years are, unbeaten in all but their 2nd most recent series (up until then not just unbeaten but having won every single series), away on the subcontinent. That was a bad series in Pakistan (and I believe every team is allowed one bad series). Following on from that a highly credible draw in India regarding the circumstances is yet further signs that this England side is a very different proposition to ones from as far back as 1996 and 2001, even further back.
Afterall the Windies have pretty good records against everyone if you go back to 1990, yet there is no way that their side then can be compared to the current side, same is true of England although in the reverse.
In my eyes Englands performances in India in the test series lead me to believe that India could struggle the next time they are in England unless there are some changes, as I believe Pakistan and Sri Lanka will this summer.
Odi arena, they could be playing on the moon and still India would probably beat England, although a pitch with a bit of pace and bounce with the majority of the unavailable players available would at the least cause the Indian batsman a few more problems, and allow some of the English batsman to feel at home.
edit - to add, yes I do agree with you however than it would be difficult to seperate England and India as test teams, both have a lot of talent, and both are susceptible to the odd collapse. I do not however think performances 10 years ago are in anyway useful in gauging the various merits of the two sides. Why not use the fact that they just drew 1-1 to show that they are more or less even
It is true that even the series played in 2002 does not reflect test cricket today. So there is not enough data with the current teams for home and away matches to tell that one is better than the other one. India is scheduled to play England in Tests in 2007 June-September in England. There could be a possibly a few senior Indian test players retiring by then and I do not know about England. I would rather not speculate what would be the outcome but just wait and see.
For India now the focus seems to be experimentation for the future. The first focus is the world cup. Secondly to build a younger team for the future and also I believe that they are thinking about how to win abroad. As we know India's away record so far is not good. Also it is possible in the middle the coach could change the board management could change and reinventing the wheel could start over.
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
When you talk about wins, its either ODI's or Tests. I'm sure the current ODI team will excel in foreign conditions, mainly due to the nature of the game and also b/c of the flexibility/talents each player is providing.
However, test cricket is entirely different. This is where experience is needed, India have done well in patches but never were they convincing. Now they are even "learning" to lose matches at home, something not that common a year back.
However, test cricket is entirely different. This is where experience is needed, India have done well in patches but never were they convincing. Now they are even "learning" to lose matches at home, something not that common a year back.
Manohar said:
Good, I agree! There could be a lot of things happening between now and when India tour England.
Something makes me feel that the whole focus (all the focus of the players, the captain, coach and the nation) is rested in the ODI's and the World Cup event which they are trying to win. I mean thats not bad. Winning a World Cup is such a big achievement that ANY TEAM would dream of! But their focus on test cricket is not great at all. I mean notice the difference in speed for Pathan. He bowls at a leisurely mid 120's in test cricket all through, but he manages to hit 138 or so in ODI cricket. He is giving it his all in ODI cricket.
I think once the World Cup is over, our side will shift their focus on test cricket. And this England tour is after that! So can expect them to concentrate better on it. And I doubt if we would be having guys like Sachin, Kumble in the team, but we have able players to replace them like Powar opr Piyush for Kumble and Venugopal Rao or Suresh Raina for Sachin.
cricket_lover said:
If we can win test matches abroad more consistently than from the ganguly-wright era, I would take those few losses at home!
