England , Will they be able to pull it off in the Sub continent ?

[usy]

i am not voting because i know ENGLAN WILL HAVE A GOOD TIME ANYWAY , WHATEVER THE RESULT IS

 

[Sureshot]

How is it clever? He averages 38!

Over the last 2 seasons his average has been about 29.

I think if Giles were to be left out Swann should be given a go.

 

[m_vaughan]

I reckon England will win 2-0 in Pakistan and 2-1 in India in the test series. I do expect Giles to be a crucial factor in both series, as he was very successful in the last tour.

 

[aussie1st]

Giles successful in the Sub Continent that is interesting given he usually bowls negative. The true test of his spinning ability will come against India as they are the best players of spin.

 

[ronny_kingsley]

England batsman couldnt play Shane Warne in English conditions and you all are hoping against hope that they will play Kumble and Harbhajan in Indian conditions.

Need I say more ?????????

 

[sachin]

I hope they drill pakistan,and then get the favor returned to them by India.

 

[m_vaughan]

India do play Pakistan in between these two tours.

England batsman couldnt play Shane Warne in English conditions and you all are hoping against hope that they will play Kumble and Harbhajan in Indian conditions.

Need I say more ?????????

That is probably the only concern. But the wickets down in the subcontinent are slower, which means, you get more time to get into position before executing the shot. Also players like Pietersen, Flintoff and Trescothick can handle spin well and can make life hell for the Pakistani and Indian spinners.

This is a good test for England, as they will face a different challenge, and one they most likely will overcome without too much troubles.

 

[angryangy]

Its a clever tactic when it works as it forces batsmen to give up their wicket. You saying its negative! well its not, its clever as it forces mistakes which is a crucial way of getting wickets.

For gods sake, dont have to be critical of england all the time cos your an aussie and you lost the ashes. Just a congratulations and acceptance of the way he bowls would be nice. But you act like a 5 year old, so i doubt we will get that.

Oh my God. I never said anything about the Ashes. In fact it feels like the Ashes result is being brought up every time an Australian has anything to say on any topic whatsoever. So is this going to be the trend for "intelligent discussion" for the next two years? Instead of discussing statistics and peformances it's "Your team lost the Ashes, so your opinion is of no consequence, you're just bitter."

Personally, I don't use this forum as a method of imposing my own national pride on others and I think very few people would, either.

If an Australian has been treating any Englishmen like this for the past 20 odd years, then I humbly apologise to you for them on behalf of my country, however I strongly doubt than any argument has been settled by saying "England are crap, so you don't know what you're talking about." Contending that your opponent is inferior is vastly different to assuming that he is incapable of coherent thought as a result.

So I suppose taking offence to this is acting like a five year old, as well? Of course calling someone a five year old isn't immature now, is it? But I digress, this is the internet after all and many people claiming to be adults actually are five year olds.

My point about Giles was 1. That he has played just two Tests in India and his statistics as a result are rather insignifigant, as well as being inflated by tailend wickets and 2. Bowling at a batsman to limit his scoring ability but not directly threaten his wicket is negative and not particularly effective or clever.

In reference to the second point, that 1. it doesn't actually force the batsman to give away his wicket (in evidence, I use Giles' low strike-rate) and 2. it's not clever, I ask, if you do consider it clever, how is it so? How is the batsman outsmarted by this strategy more than a plan that you wouldn't consider clever? In my opinion, clever is doing something your opponent either does not expect or can not defend easily. In this case, he will be expecting it and can easily defend it.

I can accept disagreeance, but not everyone who disagrees with you is "pathetic" or a five year old.

No he's not the best in the world, but as Boycott says he makes the best of his ability and is always striving to improve himself.

Fair enough, but there are lots of people out there making the best of their abilities. Doesn't make them the best in their country, though.

 

[ronny_kingsley]

India do play Pakistan in between these two tours.


That is probably the only concern. But the wickets down in the subcontinent are slower, which means, you get more time to get into position before executing the shot. Also players like Pietersen, Flintoff and Trescothick can handle spin well and can make life hell for the Pakistani and Indian spinners.

This is a good test for England, as they will face a different challenge, and one they most likely will overcome without too much troubles.

What have they done to proove they can play spin welll ????
None of them can admit to having played Warney well and that too in hostile English conditions.

 

[icyman]

yeah how will they play kumble and harbhajan in indian conditions then ?

 

[barmyarmy]

Oh my God. I never said anything about the Ashes. In fact it feels like the Ashes result is being brought up every time an Australian has anything to say on any topic whatsoever. So is this going to be the trend for "intelligent discussion" for the next two years? Instead of discussing statistics and peformances it's "Your team lost the Ashes, so your opinion is of no consequence, you're just bitter."

Personally, I don't use this forum as a method of imposing my own national pride on others and I think very few people would, either.

If an Australian has been treating any Englishmen like this for the past 20 odd years, then I humbly apologise to you for them on behalf of my country, however I strongly doubt than any argument has been settled by saying "England are crap, so you don't know what you're talking about." Contending that your opponent is inferior is vastly different to assuming that he is incapable of coherent thought as a result.

So I suppose taking offence to this is acting like a five year old, as well? Of course calling someone a five year old isn't immature now, is it? But I digress, this is the internet after all and many people claiming to be adults actually are five year olds.

My point about Giles was 1. That he has played just two Tests in India and his statistics as a result are rather insignifigant, as well as being inflated by tailend wickets and 2. Bowling at a batsman to limit his scoring ability but not directly threaten his wicket is negative and not particularly effective or clever.

In reference to the second point, that 1. it doesn't actually force the batsman to give away his wicket (in evidence, I use Giles' low strike-rate) and 2. it's not clever, I ask, if you do consider it clever, how is it so? How is the batsman outsmarted by this strategy more than a plan that you wouldn't consider clever? In my opinion, clever is doing something your opponent either does not expect or can not defend easily. In this case, he will be expecting it and can easily defend it.

I can accept disagreeance, but not everyone who disagrees with you is "pathetic" or a five year old.

Fair enough, but there are lots of people out there making the best of their abilities. Doesn't make them the best in their country, though.

ITA agree with this post. Just as there are bad winners and losers in Australia there are bad winners and losers in England. The key is not to tar everyone with the same brush.

yeah how will they play kumble and harbhajan in indian conditions then ?

Neither of them turn it as much as Warne. Plus with Warne half the battle is pyschological. We've given our wicket away before we even face a ball.

 

[ronny_kingsley]

Neither of them turn it as much as Warne. Plus with Warne half the battle is pyschological. We've given our wicket away before we even face a ball.

Agreed they both dont turn as much as Warney but they both have been more succsesfull in Indian conditions than Warne. Thats a fact. Also I think the magnitude of spin for Harbhajan will be more than what Warne got because of the pitch differences.

Also I am not ruling out that they will play spin well but its just that thier technique against spin is more than just dodgy. The only time they looked at ease against Warne when they tried to hit him out and got away with it .But in India they will have to be at the crease more and that would take greater technique like showed by the Aussies when they did actually won in India.They curbed thier agressive instinct and thus won.

Another point is Warne lacked quality support from the other end but that wont be much of a problem for India I suppose.


All in all conditions wont be rosy for English players and my money will be on the Indians.

 

[Sureshot]

England batsman couldnt play Shane Warne in English conditions and you all are hoping against hope that they will play Kumble and Harbhajan in Indian conditions.

Need I say more ?????????

Actually we played Warne quite well imo, look how KP and Flintoff played him.

Scored 800 runs off him. We attacked him so he took wickets simple as.

 

[squiz]

England had no clue against Warney

 

[Jarryd]

Actually we played Warne quite well imo, look how KP and Flintoff played him.

Scored 800 runs off him. We attacked him so he took wickets simple as.

SK Warne: 40 wickets @ 19.92. Rco rate 3.15.

Really attacking :