India in England/Ireland/Scotland

[Kev]

At the Moment!!!!!!!!???????????????????

 

[evertonfan]

Well I was going to say he's pure garbage, but that might have upset a few Geordies.

Come to think of it, that's a good thing!

 

[surendar]

yes i'd bring Ramesh Powar instead of sreesanth because its meant to suit the spinner at the oval.

For getting smashed? Still Powar needs to improve a lots to play at test level against the bigger opponents. I like to see him only in ODIs though.

And for next test match, most probably, we would go with the unchanged team which won the second test

I'd drop Sreesanth for the next match and the next series for him to get his head straight.

For what? I don't see any chances in dropping Sreesanth.

I think Munaf and Zaheer are two good seamers that India can keep in their frontline.

really? Isn't he the guy who generally walks and bowls ( i do agree Munaf maintains a tough line but poor poor body language ). Unless the body language of Munaf and VRV Singh, line/length for RPSingh, bodylanguage/line/length/Swing for Pathan improves.. our future for the fast bowling department is very very tough.

 

[harishankar]

I really think we ought to look beyond Munaf Patel and VRV Singh. Both of them promised so much (and hyped up a lot by people watching domestic cricket) but neither have proved to be effective at Test level.

I don't know which is worse: Munaf's attitude or his fitness.

VRV is just an up-and-down bowler. He has to bowl a lot faster (as he initially promised) to take wickets at the international level since he doesn't move the ball naturally in the air.

So many Indian seam bowlers have had great starts to their career but most of them faded away. Even Zaheer Khan's case was very similar until he bounced back so strongly of late.

 

[Leicester Fox]

I don't think Plunkett is injured Joe, he's just not very good at the moment.

Thats good to hear, broads ahead then

 

[Sureshot]

It's ok, you dont need to convince me I obviously didn't really think about my answer given that I posted it about 2mins after the question was posted. Ok so then its a choice between Sidebottom and Anderson, shame because I think they've both done well of late. Sidebottom has extra variation in being a leftie plus he does seem to know which way up to hold the bat (with his 25 in 26 balls). Whereas I feel Anderson is probably bowling as well as he has in a long time and 20 wickets in the match is more important than getting a few extra runs with the (rather long) tail. So I guess it comes down to who you think will take more wickets Hoggy, Sidey or Andy(son)

There does that sound like enough fence sitting to you

I've got the tweasers ready and waiting!

I'd pick Sidebottom over Anderson. If not for when Sidebottom isn't taking wickets he's still keeping the pressure on, something we need at the Oval.

A great win for India.
To be fair, England should have won the Lords test and we`d have gone to the Oval with the series tied 1-1.

What this proves is that India are no more poor travellers.

As well as India have played they have to be consistent over a period of time and on more than just one tour to get rid of that tag, for all we know they could crumble to an innings defeat at The Oval.

 

[harishankar]

As well as India have played they have to be consistent over a period of time and on more than just one tour to get rid of that tag, for all we know they could crumble to an innings defeat at The Oval.

I think they showed a stat on ESPN/Star saying that India have won at least one overseas test match in every series since 2005.

And since 2002, I think India's overseas record has been quite good. We haven't won too many series but we haven't lost too many either. Again they showed a stat on ESPN/Star with the wins overseas and it's quite surprising to know that we've won quite a few games overseas (and one of the few teams to have won a Test in Australia against Australia).

So the tag of "poor travellers" is a bit dated. If anything, India's batting and bowling seem currently more suited to the bouncier wickets than the dustbowls of old at home.

 

[dhoni dhamaka]

For getting smashed? Still Powar needs to improve a lots to play at test level against the bigger opponents. I like to see him only in ODIs though.

And for next test match, most probably, we would go with the unchanged team which won the second test



For what? I don't see any chances in dropping Sreesanth.



really? Isn't he the guy who generally walks and bowls ( i do agree Munaf maintains a tough line but poor poor body language ). Unless the body language of Munaf and VRV Singh, line/length for RPSingh, bodylanguage/line/length/Swing for Pathan improves.. our future for the fast bowling department is very very tough.

Yes but you do have to admit that irfan pathan would have been very good in these englsih condition with his natural swing always troubling andrew strauss as he showed in the ODI's last year in India. Also Munaf Patel would have very good also with his ability to bowl a probing line witch moves both ways. But i cannot argue that these two playes need some fitness and body language. I watched in last years ICC trophywhen he was fielding at fine leg and third man,his body was slumpded and he had his hands on his hips in the first 5 overs, simply not good enough. As for Irfan its slightly less for him to do, because he can bat as well, but his main priority is bowling, if he bowls a consistent line and lentgh and swing it in domestic cricket i can assure he will be back in the side. As for Harbhajan, he justs needs some match consistency.

 

[m_vaughan]

I think they showed a stat on ESPN/Star saying that India have won at least one overseas test match in every series since 2005.

And since 2002, I think India's overseas record has been quite good. We haven't won too many series but we haven't lost too many either. Again they showed a stat on ESPN/Star with the wins overseas and it's quite surprising to know that we've won quite a few games overseas (and one of the few teams to have won a Test in Australia against Australia).

So the tag of "poor travellers" is a bit dated. If anything, India's batting and bowling seem currently more suited to the bouncier wickets than the dustbowls of old at home.

India's overseas performance has definately improved in recent years. They are now a lot more competitive now, and hence the stats back that.

However India have a long long way to go to be termed "good travellers". To be honest, the only team that has done well all over the world and on a consistent basis has been Australia. England have done well everywhere apart from Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The Lankans too have improved a lot overseas. They came back strongly to level the series against England last year. I personally rank them the second best team in the world right now.

 

[prarara]

I agree with that. Personally, I'd rate the Sirils and Safricans better as overseas travelers, but I think that India are closing that gap pretty fast, and we are getting more competitive.

 

[m_vaughan]

I agree with that. Personally, I'd rate the Sirils and Safricans better as overseas travelers, but I think that India are closing that gap pretty fast, and we are getting more competitive.

The Saffers, like England, struggle in the subcontinent and in Australia.

 

[cricket_lover]

I really think we ought to look beyond Munaf Patel and VRV Singh. Both of them promised so much (and hyped up a lot by people watching domestic cricket) but neither have proved to be effective at Test level.

I don't know which is worse: Munaf's attitude or his fitness.

VRV is just an up-and-down bowler. He has to bowl a lot faster (as he initially promised) to take wickets at the international level since he doesn't move the ball naturally in the air.

So many Indian seam bowlers have had great starts to their career but most of them faded away. Even Zaheer Khan's case was very similar until he bounced back so strongly of late.

McGrath didn't have a great start, but he was persisted with and look at the results.
MP showed great promise and so far he hasn't done that bad. His attitude/body language are the problems not his skill.

Same goes with VRV. RP Singh has shown great promise in the first two tests (and he's a good fielder as well). Pathan should be in sometime so I think our pace bowling dept. looks good. Concern is the spinners who have not been looked into. Bhajji will probably be the only one (and though peopl e have doubts abuot him...he'll definitely be in after kumble retries).

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Well done to India, you deserved the win. It's a pain that we're not going to the Oval for a decider, as opposed to only one team being able to win. Still, you had that bit of luck with Vaughan just when you needed it, because if you didn't break that partnership, I could've seen England getting a lead of over 150 and I think it would've been very interesting this morning the way we were bowling.

Anyway, well done and we'll see you at the Oval!

 

[Sureshot]

India's overseas performance has definately improved in recent years. They are now a lot more competitive now, and hence the stats back that.

However India have a long long way to go to be termed "good travellers". To be honest, the only team that has done well all over the world and on a consistent basis has been Australia. England have done well everywhere apart from Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The Lankans too have improved a lot overseas. They came back strongly to level the series against England last year. I personally rank them the second best team in the world right now.

Didn't we win the series before last in Pakistan? Albeit in conditions that today you wouldn't finish a game in. (Tongue in cheek btw)

India have improved, but I think it'd be fair to say they struggle to keep it up for the whole tour/test series?

I'd agree with you about Sri Lanka being the second best in the world at the moment. Don't have the greatest back up bowlers, so that could be a weak spot if Murali ever tripped over.

Ratings time again:

England:

Strauss - 6.5, I felt his shot in the first innings almost set the tone for our poor 198. A decent effort second time around, needs a hundred more than Anteaters need ants.
Cook - 6, highest scorer in the top innings but has a bit of a LBW problem atm, he needs to resurrect it.
Vaughan - 8, a wonderful hundred, a pleasure to watch (I'm sure the Indian fans enjoyed it too) unlucky dismissal
KP - 5, 2 failures, good ball second time around, unlucky first time up.
Colly - 6.5, showed signs of coming back to the Colly we all know and love. Stuck around second time around.
Bell - 4, he's looking completely out of form. Needs a score at The Oval or could be displaced by Fred come the winter tours.
Prior - 5.5, good ball second time around, his keeping was impressive imo.
Tremlett - 8, really impressive with the ball and showed some signs with the bat in the first innings, could be dynamite at The Oval.
Sidebottom - 7.5, how he only got one wicket was a mystery, nice little 25* too
Anderson - 4.5, aggressive second time around, still a bit wayward for my liking.
Panesar - 6.5, Got 4 wickets, got some more tailenders which is handy because we've struggled of late in that department.

India:
Karthik - 8, vital first innings partnership with Jaffer. Looking a good prospect.
Jaffer - 7.5, same as above, maybe not too fond of the short ball though?
Dravid - 7, captained well. Amazingly not scored a half century in 4 innings (make that 3 and a 1/4 innings tbf)
Tendulkar - 8, master class in the first innings, bowling looked odd, I hope to see him bowl more Rough'un first up, good ball second time.
Ganguly - 7.5, batted well and bowled decently too. Rough'un first up too.
Laxman - 7, important partnership with Kumble.
Dhoni - 5.5, keeping was poor, first innings was poor.
Kumble - 7, his bowling is yet to amaze but he picked up wickets and got a good 30.
Zaheer Khan - 9, excellent bowling, the scourge of the England batsman.
RP Singh - 7, has an ability to bowl a wicket taking ball. Maybe a little expensive?
Sreesanth - 5, attitude all over the place, like his bowling and his hair.


Any qualms about those ratings, then say so.

 

[angryangy]

If Sreesanth is a 5, and I think that's fair, because his impact on the team was neither detrimental nor impressive, I think you've got to say Bell was worse. Cook got 2 starts and that's worth 6, Bell got one, so I'd give him a 3.