India in England/Ireland/Scotland

[Adarsh]

Yep, Zaheer should get the jelly bean and have it fossilised. It can then be kept at Trent Brige Museum.

 

[sohum]

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.

Yup, India are in the existent mid-range between "poor travelers" and "good travelers". I think the main thing to take into account here is that they don't require the dry and dusty pitches to take wickets and our batsmen have done better against the moving ball.

 

[cricket_lover]

I don't think this loss was due to England underrating India at all. I know it sounds like an excuse but we have had to replace our whole seam attack with three relatively new players to Test Cricket. Any team would struggle without the likes of Hoggard, Flintoff and Harmison and India have capitalised wonderfully in winn ing the Second Test.

I still believe after Trent Bridge that we can still salvage something from this series and get a draw. The key is to get a big score on the board in the 1st Innings to set the foundations for the rest of the test match.
BRING ON THE OVAL!!!

India too had new bowlers, besides Zaheer. He was ineffective int he last tours and came back after a year or so break. Sreesanth, RPS are new bowlers.

Kumble is the only experienced campaigner but he didn't have to bowl too many overs and the pitch definitely did nto suit him.

Infact that was the talking point before the series...weak Indian bowling linkk facing strong English batsmen and decent bowling to follow.

 

[Sureshot]

I said that we are no more poor travellers based on the fact that we have won more away tests that any other team (barring Australia ) since 2000 and not just based on this test.

How many series abroad have you won? That's relevant, winning test matches is pointless if you get thrashed in the next 2-3, isn't it?

Ratings changed btw.

 

[angryangy]

Shame that none of the large amount of Aussie's on here that said Vaughan was a poor player during the WC haven't come here and admitted they were wrong yet.

Why? Plenty of bad or average players score hundreds and have spells of good form, in fact that's the whole argument around Vaughan, he's judged by his best periods, while everyone else is judged by their whole career. Two hundreds in 9 innings (let's not forget Strauss and Shah were the only batsmen not to take hundreds against the Windies) does not make a great player.

 

[BigCrickNan]

Vaughan can't really be a bad or average player seeing as he averages mid 40's in test cricket and has one of the best conversion rates...

 

[evertonfan]

Ah but Mr.Davie he's English isn't he?

 

[SaiSrini]

Cook says that the intensity from the players is not going to reduce one little bit when they move on to the Oval. Would be good if within the limits. A test series needs this sort of intensity to be enjoyed by the spectators. So far, I would say that this series has been one of the most exciting ones in recent times (not becoz India are leading!).

 

[Sureshot]

Why? Plenty of bad or average players score hundreds and have spells of good form, in fact that's the whole argument around Vaughan, he's judged by his best periods, while everyone else is judged by their whole career. Two hundreds in 9 innings (let's not forget Strauss and Shah were the only batsmen not to take hundreds against the Windies) does not make a great player.

The West Indies attack was poor, but his 124 the other day was a stunning innings with some gorgeous strokeplay. He's got one of the best conversion rates in Test history. Is he great? Well he's not in the same league as Bradman, Ponting, etc. But he's still blimming good. Suggestions that Vaughan isn't good enough or isn't a very good batsman are ludicrous.

 

[irottev]

Shame that none of the large amount of Aussie's on here that said Vaughan was a poor player during the WC haven't come here and admitted they were wrong yet.

He is a poor One Day player. Theres no doubt he's a very good test player though.

 

[siddharth2002]

Interesting article on Indiatimes about Sidebottom beating Tendulkar's bat where he bowled 5 maidens. How Sachin got to bottom of Ryan.

 

[angryangy]

Calling on his conversion rate means you know it as well as I do; he throws away starts. Pretty much why he struggled in one dayers as well.

There have been some unquestionable strokeplayers who just weren't great in the end and plenty more inhabit domestic cricket in England, South Africa and Australia with scarcely more than a couple of matches as a fill in. Mark Waugh was a brilliant player in full flight, but he was dwarfed in overall result by an uncountable number of his international contemporaries. Ultimately, his superb slip fielding was what kept him in the Aussie team as much as his ability to write textbooks with his bat.

Vaughan's best was a remarkable period, but, well, Jason Gillespie has a pretty remarkable PB. You shouldn't judge a player only by their best. In the past 4 years, to the day, Vaughan averages 39 for England (Many would note he averages 38 for Yorkshire), while in the first 16 matches, leading up to that run of devastation, he averaged 31, though anyone would assess that as finding his feet.

In a spell of 26 innings, about one fifth of his international career, he picked up more than 34% of his total runs and 47% of his hundreds, averaging more than 72.

It's one hell of a group of numbers. It actually got me interested in a tangent as to what sort of win-loss records various players' centuries produce, which I'll probably post in its own thread later.

Anyway, what sparked Vaughan's Hun-like rampage and what caused it to end I do not know, maybe he just rolled double sixes, maybe he just was at his peak. Whatever it was, it had a beginning and an end and usually, is not the batsman he is hyped to be. That is why criticism is often encountered, particularly from Australia, considering the number of Australian cricketers whose past glory couldn't keep them in the team, or success in one team that can't keep them in the other team (but also the vast number of 40 average batsmen who never get that big chance).

 

[aditya123]

How many series abroad have you won? That's relevant, winning test matches is pointless if you get thrashed in the next 2-3, isn't it?

Ratings changed btw.

I know that winning test matches is not enough but if you look at how Indian teams in the 90s played abroad, overseas wins were a rare phenomenon.
The statement from an Indian fan`s point of view.

I do not know a side in recent times other than Australia that even manages to win test matches overseas consistently, leave alone test series.

 

[Sureshot]

He is a poor One Day player. Theres no doubt he's a very good test player though.

Yup, could be an irony that his last ODI was probably his best ODI innings

Angryangy, you're reading too much into his stats. Fact is he is a very good player as shown by his last hundred.

 

[zub2005]

are india playing a tour game tomorrow. i would like to see yuvraj play also ramesh power. india need to make sure they dont draw this series. dravid come oval you can play you long innings that you like to