Who really didn't play well ironically. Not match fit yet.
In terms of the rankings; lost to 5, drew against 6, playing 7 next.
England in Sri Lanka March-April 2011/12
- Thread starter lancashire666
- Start date
Who really didn't play well ironically. Not match fit yet.
In terms of the rankings; lost to 5, drew against 6, playing 7 next.
vs WIN : 9 & DNB + 0/17 & DNB.
West Indies made 152 & 256, not down to Bresnan
vs WIN : DNB & DNB + 0/35 & 3/45
West Indies made 310 & 176, Bresnan only got in on the act in the 2nd innings
vs BAN : DNB & DNB + 1/72 & 3/63
Bangladesh made 296 & 331, Swann scoring a 10wm
vs BAN : 91 & DNB + 2/57 & 1/34
Bangladesh made 419 & 285, still lost by 10 wkts with Bresnan nothing special with ball.
vs BAN : 25 & DNB + 1/76 & 3/93
Bangladesh made 282 & 382, England still won by eight wickets.
vs AUS : 4 & DNB + 2/25 & 4/50
Australia were skittled for 98 1st innings, Anderson and Tremlett taking four apiece. Bresnan mopped up 2nd innings out of an aussie total of 258 as England won by an innings.
vs AUS : 35 & DNB + 3/89 & 2/51
Australia made 280 & 281, all 4/5 bowlers took wickets and only Swann didn't get much joy (1/37 & 1/75) as England again won by an innings.
vs IND : 11 & 90 + 2/48 & 5/48
India got a 1st innings lead thanks to their modest total of 288, Bresnan did help add 205 for the last four wickets to give England a 2nd innings total of 544 before India fell apart for 158 2nd innings. Perhaps the one Test Bresnan did most to help win, yet Broad was MOTM (64 & 44 + 6/46 & 2/30)
vs IND : 53no & DNB + 4/62 & 1/19
India made just 224 & 244 as England won by an innings with 710 in their only innings. While Bresnan matched Broad for wickets 1st innings, it was 294 from Cook and 104 from Morgan that gave England that winning edge, although Bresnan did help add 97 runs for 7th wicket to help give England a massive 486 run 1st innings lead.
vs IND : DNB & DNB + 3/54 & 1/30
England won by an innings, wickets were evenly spread in India's 1st innings 300 and Swann took six in their 2nd innings total of 283
vs SRI : 5 & DNB + 2/47 & 0/14
Pietersen made sure England had a solid lead which was pretty much the difference. Bresnan was fairly anonymous in modest Sri Lankan totals of 275 & 278
Just on face value five of the 11 wins were against modern day minnows (BAN/WIN), three against India who simply didn't turn up, and then against Sri Lanka who had England batsmen applied themselves against from the off, would have probably lost 0-2.
You know a side isn't up to much if a lower order batsman did not bat (DNB) in both innings, not quite so much obvious with one DNB but often that can be innings defeat or other indicators the opposition weren't up to much. 13x DNB out of a possible 22 innings does not suggest they were tough tests, nor does winning all 11.
Something of nothing record, someone quoted something similar about Carroll starting which went t1ts up against Newcastle................. Only in four of the 11 Tests did he take 5+ wickets which would suggest he did anything special, as England generally play four bowlers these days that is 1/4 of the wickets for 1/4 of the bowlers.
I think "right place at the right time" helps Bresnan, coming in for injuries or when players need resting or "it's just Bangladesh/West Indies". That all said, according to cricinfo he has a batting average of 40.37 and a bowling average of 24.16, although if you break it down :
vs WIN/BAN : 125 runs @ 41.67 & 14 wkts @ 35.14
vs SRI/IND : 159 runs @ 53.00 & 18 wkts @ 17.89
vs AUS : 39 runs @ 19.50 & 11 wkts @ 19.55
None of those sides were at their peak when playing England, or remotely close, well maybe Bangladesh but their peak is most other team's trough. I couldn't say when India last lost a series to a whitewash, and not four Tests in a series, but I can say when England previously last won a series down under and that was 86/87. The comfort with which England won both series is an indicator of how ordinary both opponents were. FOUR other England bowlers took more wickets than Bresnan in the Ashes series, not as cheaply but two in the mid to low 20s, while against India both Anderson and Broad took more wickets and seven players scored more runs in the series.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
My series review
Fairly pleased as everyone is with the win. It took a while, but the team (especially the batsmen) have shown they can win in the sub-continent.
I personally do think regardless of what happens in the home tests vs windies and S Africa, that the India series will be less challenging than the PAK & SRI series.
India as everyone have just lost Dravid and their middle-order will be very much revamped come next winter. Their spinners also since Kumble left although dangerous at home don't offer the same fear factor. They certain don't have a spinner like Ajmal ATM.
So the Indian challenge ENG are likely although it wont be easy, is likely to bit less complicated that anything in the last 20 years, which is encouraging.
I'm in the camp also that is backing Strauss through his struggles. One of the main reasons is because their is no opener based on FC performances who is knocking on the door hard. The next best probably is Mark Carberry - but i have my reservations about him still.
# 6 spot is also still a work in progress. Patel still has to convince and young Taylor needs to step it up a level.
Fairly pleased as everyone is with the win. It took a while, but the team (especially the batsmen) have shown they can win in the sub-continent.
I personally do think regardless of what happens in the home tests vs windies and S Africa, that the India series will be less challenging than the PAK & SRI series.
India as everyone have just lost Dravid and their middle-order will be very much revamped come next winter. Their spinners also since Kumble left although dangerous at home don't offer the same fear factor. They certain don't have a spinner like Ajmal ATM.
So the Indian challenge ENG are likely although it wont be easy, is likely to bit less complicated that anything in the last 20 years, which is encouraging.
I'm in the camp also that is backing Strauss through his struggles. One of the main reasons is because their is no opener based on FC performances who is knocking on the door hard. The next best probably is Mark Carberry - but i have my reservations about him still.
# 6 spot is also still a work in progress. Patel still has to convince and young Taylor needs to step it up a level.
Yeah, 190 odd runs in the match at a run a ball is just poor.
I think the situation of the humidity and heat played a big part in that, but he's an aggressive player, long may that continue. He's excellent, you have to take the rough with the smooth, but you want match winners in the team.
Got to agree with Owzat on Bresnan, it's a slightly overstated fact, he's had a decent start to his career and I'd happily have him as a back up to Anderson, Broad, Finn, Tremlett and co. Though I do think the stat is used by the commentators as part tongue in cheek, part heh, as it is an interesting stat, regardless of how much you read in to it!
Good win for England, everyone will be talking about KP, but Cook hasn't had much praise, and got 150 runs or so and the platform he, Strauss and Trott built. It doesn't solve the issues, but it did show signs of improvement, I've always felt the UAE farce was a mental rather than technical deficiency in most cases. It's great to see the bowling attack adapting to all conditions as well, we're all talking about the batsmen for very obvious reasons, but the bowlers have been absolutely superb.
What a summer we have ahead of us, an improving West Indies side and South Africa, with an impressive bowling attack and several batting stars. Just infuriating that South Africa is 3 Tests, insanity.
Overall, a 1-1 draw in Sri Lanka is a good result. It's a tough place to play cricket, and despite them not being the side they were, they are still a very dangerous outfit, were it not for Mahela, we'd have thumped 'em. UAE is a whole different kettle of fish, but I think they can be content with that series.
*Michael Carberry
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Does anyone else find it uncomfortable the way everyone is now saying "England have found a way of winning in the subcontinent and learnt from their past mistakes, having shown an ability to adapt to the conditions etc etc"?
I don't think that's the case at all. England have lost 4 of their last five tests in Asian conditions, in fact, in their first Test against Sri Lanka, they failed to reach 300 in both innings, were bowled out for less than 200 and after Trott's century, their second highest score was a half century by Ian Bell.
If you look at it in more detail, of the last 4 tests, not including the one just concluded, England have only reached 300+ once and were bowled out for a score of less than 200 on 4 separate occasions.
The English batsmen have seemed all at sea against spin, even the sub par spin of the mediocre Sri Lankan spinners and Pakistan's Abdur Rehman. There was no evidence of recovery against this particular weakness, apart from KP and Trott's centuries. All the other batsmen have barely registered scores in the double figures over the last 3 months. They have been, to put it simply, God awful. And now, the way the media is presenting it is as if all the mistakes of the past are irrelevant due to this one win. That doesn't wash with me
A more realistic assessment would be that England showed minor improvements over the course of the Sri Lankan series, their batting still remains below average in such conditions (the bowling has been a plus). We must also remember, that in winning a solitary test against Sri Lanka just shows that England is better than a team which in reality, has been one of the worst teams to play Test cricket over the last 18 months.
England have a long way to go before they can claim to "have adjusted to the subcontinental pitches".
I don't think that's the case at all. England have lost 4 of their last five tests in Asian conditions, in fact, in their first Test against Sri Lanka, they failed to reach 300 in both innings, were bowled out for less than 200 and after Trott's century, their second highest score was a half century by Ian Bell.
If you look at it in more detail, of the last 4 tests, not including the one just concluded, England have only reached 300+ once and were bowled out for a score of less than 200 on 4 separate occasions.
The English batsmen have seemed all at sea against spin, even the sub par spin of the mediocre Sri Lankan spinners and Pakistan's Abdur Rehman. There was no evidence of recovery against this particular weakness, apart from KP and Trott's centuries. All the other batsmen have barely registered scores in the double figures over the last 3 months. They have been, to put it simply, God awful. And now, the way the media is presenting it is as if all the mistakes of the past are irrelevant due to this one win. That doesn't wash with me
A more realistic assessment would be that England showed minor improvements over the course of the Sri Lankan series, their batting still remains below average in such conditions (the bowling has been a plus). We must also remember, that in winning a solitary test against Sri Lanka just shows that England is better than a team which in reality, has been one of the worst teams to play Test cricket over the last 18 months.
England have a long way to go before they can claim to "have adjusted to the subcontinental pitches".
nelson111
School Cricketer
Come on guys, the South African "B Team" (England) is not the best team in the world. The only reason they got to be ranked as No. 1 was a quirk of who they played and where they played them. They are certainly not "the best team in the world" as various English media say!
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
Anyone who beats Australia, especially in Australia, is quite clearly the best team in the world.
They still did not win against Pakistan, failed to win against Sri Lanka as well and they are yet to play India in sub-continent. So I am not sure about their "best team in the world" status.
Dipak
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2010
- Location
- Mumbai, India
They did not get plundered away from home like India. No innings losses, no conceding 500+
Well let's see how South Africa A get on in the summer shall we?
It's a relative term. All it means is that they're better than everyone else. Doesn't say much for test cricket I agree.
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
Yeah, I mean, who's the better team than England right now? Only South Africa, Australia and Pakistan are in the running.
South Africa's results aren't even all that impressive, 16 tests in the last three years for 7 wins. At least they haven't lost a series in the six they've played in that time, but they've only won three, against WI, NZ and Sri Lanka (who haven't won a series in that time).
Pakistan's results look a bit better. 21 tests in that time for 11 wins. 10 series and only 1 loss at the hands of England, which is the earliest of those series.
In conclusion, Australia is probably still the best.
South Africa's results aren't even all that impressive, 16 tests in the last three years for 7 wins. At least they haven't lost a series in the six they've played in that time, but they've only won three, against WI, NZ and Sri Lanka (who haven't won a series in that time).
Pakistan's results look a bit better. 21 tests in that time for 11 wins. 10 series and only 1 loss at the hands of England, which is the earliest of those series.
In conclusion, Australia is probably still the best.
They did not get plundered away from home like India. No innings losses, no conceding 500+
A loss is a loss. You don't look at the margin in it. Even if you loose by 1 run it will be still declared as a loss.
I am all aware of how bad India played in England and that was the reason they got whitewashed but then again, you have to accept that even England is not the best by how they struggled against spin in UAE and Sri Lanka.
So as we have discussed this many times that there is not a single team right now that deserves number 1 spot because none of the teams have shown the sign of domination that we saw in old WI and Australian team.
I think the only conclusions you can draw is the top 4/5 teams are all very close and have their own strengths and weaknesses and there is no clear best team in the world. It doesn't help that we spent many years with Australia being the best team in the world by some distance, so people draw a conclusion with that.
I completely disagree with some who think that this situation is bad for Test cricket, the standard is still very good, exceptional in cases and cricket has changed in the last few years. Much rather have several teams at the same level than one team well beyond anyone else.
I completely disagree with some who think that this situation is bad for Test cricket, the standard is still very good, exceptional in cases and cricket has changed in the last few years. Much rather have several teams at the same level than one team well beyond anyone else.
umm NO.
Similar threads
- Locked
