India in England Jun-Sept 2014

[Aalay]

This is so painful to watch.

 

[ParkedTheBus]

A batsman has attained a 70+ strike rate out of nowhere. Indians just going through the motions. Bowlers start well but then give it away. Slip fielders drop the easiest of easy chances. Sounds familiar? This is Indian cricket on decent tracks for you (except for three test matches)

 

[PokerAce]

A batsman has attained a 70+ strike rate out of nowhere. Indians just going through the motions. Bowlers start well but then give it away. Slip fielders drop the easiest of easy chances. Sounds familiar? This is Indian cricket on decent tracks for you (except for three test matches)

'Decent Tracks' Wtf does that even mean. Where were you when the Aussies were sent packing 4-0 last year in Ind. What was that ... the athletics track?

Yes Ind have been poor, but don't come here with the 'decent track' nonsense.

 

[Satan666]

Also, I am glad u said the Australia run starting around 99 world cup, and when they won 16 matches on the trot and continued to abot 2007 was exceptional. I think you will remember that even during one of these exceptional runs the Aussies came and lost in India . In Kolkata they lost what would have been their 17 consecutive win on the trot, and lost the next one too and lost the series. So again Winning Every Series is not important for an exceptional run even.

What is really odd is that to you when Aus lost in India and thus clearly didn't win everything its okay - still a super run, when SA never won in India, its okay - still a super run, and yet when Ind dont win everything in a run, its not a good run. I like how your logic and yardstick suddenly changes for India !!

Forget your logic and Yardstick, the most laughable is suddenly when Ind are #1 the ranking system is faulty !! If you still dont see how ridiculous your logic is then what can I say.

Look India were ranked the #1. That ranking is not subject to your approval or your liking. So coming back to the main point, we have had India as the #1 team in the world and we have won the World Cup and winning the World Cup was better.

Can you please point out the post(s) in which I mentioned the underlined. The Aussies were for the majority of the period were the number one team by a wide margin, in the ODI arena they won 3 cups consecutively, the Indians have only done this once. So the late 2000's produced the greatest Indian Team in test cricket but this team was now where near the present day South Africans or WI or AUS or ENg TEAMS OF THE PAST! GO AROUND IT MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE, THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Youre the guy who posted in another thread that the rankings system should be scrapped yet that same system you are using to support your argument that the 2000's Indian team was one of the greatest ever, hypocrytical.

I dont debate nor argue with guys of your ilk. My days of dealing with posters who are not big enough to admit when they're wrong are long gone. Good riddance mate.


Back to business at hand

Disappointed at the English not declaring. It gives Kohli the chance to salvage something here though if he can muster up a half century when they bat it will help him a long way. Pujara should be discarded with after this series he is not ready for test cricket or ODI for that matter.[DOUBLEPOST=1408211843][/DOUBLEPOST]

This is so painful to watch.

Hmmm, yes yes it is.

A batsman has attained a 70+ strike rate out of nowhere. Indians just going through the motions. Bowlers start well but then give it away. Slip fielders drop the easiest of easy chances. Sounds familiar? This is Indian cricket on decent tracks for you (except for three test matches)

True, this is why test cricket will always remain the yardstick to measure a cricketer's performance and a team's legacy.

 

[ParkedTheBus]

Decent Tracks' Wtf does that even mean. Where were you when the Aussies were sent packing 4-0 last year in Ind. What was that ... the athletics track?
Yes Ind have been poor, but don't come here with the 'decent track' nonsense

Decent tracks= Tracks that offer encouragement to both batsmen and bowlers. The Mumbai pitch of 2012 is a classic example. If you are good enough, you will get wickets and runs, if you are not, you will get exposed. On the other hand, Chennai 2013 is not. Please, do not tell me the pitch was good. It was as under-prepared as they come. Decent tracks need not necessarily be those in Australia, England and South Africa, all it needs to do is to make the contest between the bat and ball even.

 

[PokerAce]

Can you please point out the post(s) in which I mentioned the underlined. The Aussies were for the majority of the period were the number one team by a wide margin, in the ODI arena they won 3 cups consecutively, the Indians have only done this once. So the late 2000's produced the greatest Indian Team in test cricket but this team was now where near the present day South Africans or WI or AUS or ENg TEAMS OF THE PAST! GO AROUND IT MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE, THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Youre the guy who posted in another thread that the rankings system should be scrapped yet that same system you are using to support your argument that the 2000's Indian team was one of the greatest ever, hypocrytical.

I dont debate nor argue with guys of your ilk. My days of dealing with posters who are not big enough to admit when they're wrong are long gone. Good riddance mate.


Back to business at hand

Disappointed at the English not declaring. It gives Kohli the chance to salvage something here though if he can muster up a half century when they bat it will help him a long way. Pujara should be discarded with after this series he is not ready for test cricket or ODI for that matter.

I will point the only thing that matters in any of this.

I did say the ranking system is not complete till all teams play each other. However even with this incompleteness it is the same system under which SA are presently #1 and when that happens you have no issue, or when Eng were #1 or when Aus were #1, but to you the incompleteness of the system over weighs the ranking only for Ind !!

Look bang your head against the wall all you want, challenge the run all you want, but you cannot deny that India have been #1. Also they have been #1 under the same system as Aus and SA and Eng, and so in that regard the playing field is level. If the system was incomplete it was incomplete for all. So that levels the playing field.

Here is the F.A.C.T -

India were the no. 1 test side of the world. You can disagree all you want, but this ranking is not subject to your approval, or anyone's opinion of the point system. MSD did receive the Mace.

Moan all you want, that fact is not going to change.

So once again to conclude - India were #1 MSD did recieve the Mace, and we Ind fans did enjoy it. You can disagree, but u seem to have a hard on of sorts for Indian Cricket, and your agreement or approval is not in anyway relevant to this fact. India were #1, and there is nothing you could do to change that or erase that from the records.

Look India were ranked the #1. That ranking is not subject to your approval or your liking. So coming back to the main point, we have had India as the #1 team in the world and we have won the World Cup and winning the World Cup was better.

Now unless you can get the records on India being #1 deleted or altered, dont bother replying.

 

[PokerAce]

Decent tracks= Tracks that offer encouragement to both batsmen and bowlers. The Mumbai pitch of 2012 is a classic example. If you are good enough, you will get wickets and runs, if you are not, you will get exposed. On the other hand, Chennai 2013 is not. Please, do not tell me the pitch was good. It was as under-prepared as they come. Decent tracks need not necessarily be those in Australia, England and South Africa, all it needs to do is to make the contest between the bat and ball even.

Pls don;t even start about Ind getting fair pitches to play on when they go abroad. All teams traditional make India bat on farmlands of pitches, which don't provide any kind of a fair contest between bat and ball. That garden Pitch on Lord's for instance, how on earth was that in anyway offering a fair contest between bat and ball?

Also what are you going on an on about Ind pitches, if the Ind batsman don't have a tough time scoring on the same 'dustbowls' as they are commonly known.

When Ind travel you guys dont have an issue preparing the most biased of pitches in favor of home side, and yet when Ind do the same in Ind, that is when you have a problem !

The thing is Ind don't have a problem with this at all. I mean that pitch on Lord's of course its going to be green, thats Eng's best shot at getting the win. We understand that logic. Yet for some reason you guys turn up in Ind and say hey that pitch is going to turn and favor the home side ... not fair boo-hoo!

 

[War]

Oh pls we all get the importance of the Ashes for Eng and Aus, any cricket follower does.

The important point is you are missing why in the past 10 years every kid has been hearing about the Ashes, because you won the Ashes 10 years ago, after a long run of one side dominance from the Aussies, so that Ashes is a keypoint in Eng cricket and pushed up the popularity.

Which is the point I have been making all along, compared to winning the world cup, winning the Ashes, is nothing. You don;t know that yet because you have never won the world cup. I am not talking about the T20 WC, which not even serious cricket let along serious world cup. THE World Cup is sweeter than winning any number of test series, and if one Ashes win could push up pop of cricket so much, what a world cup win will do you cannot even imagine. The reason is you have never won the world cup, so you have never experienced that high. The ashes is as good as it ever got, and that is why you think that is the best it could ever get. If Eng win the World Cup then you will know the difference, till then you will keep thinking, the Ashes is the best it could get.

Once you win the world cup then every kid for the next 10 years will grow up reading about the World Cup win and the post will shift.

Since a lot of football analogy has been thrown around, let me give the example of Arsenal - Spurs. Spurs have never won anything big for many years, and to them its all about beating Arsenal, sure they savor other wins, but beating Arsenal (of finishing above them) is the best it could get. They have not tasted the big success in a million years, and so they don't know that feeling anymore. Once they taste it, they will realise beating their rivals is secondary there is greater glory to be had.

Similarly Eng are living in a very Aussie centric world, which they dont and probably will not realise till they win the World Cup.

The thing with the 2005 Ashes, is that it didn't really have every English kid talking about it. It touched the popularity of every English cricket centric fan who may have grown used to AUS beating since 1989 & thus they passed on that vybe to their kids. Cricket in Ashes 05 was the last year of "free-to-air-tv" so every tom dick & harry in 2005 from Manchester in the North to Southampton down south, to Bristol near Wales was seeing cricket that summer. This helped push it in the consciousness of the entire population in a manner football only does here. So it was a unique cricket summer in many ways.

Right now cricket is shown on the well known skysports cable networks, that everyone can't afford so not every person see's cricket. As i mentioned before even in the height of the 2005 Ashes win, majority off young generation blacks still didn't care. And majority of Indians/Pakistan brits since Ashes 05, still support the IND/PAK.

Now that England have won the Ashes a few times since 2005, a world cup win would indeed be bigger than a Ashes win. It clearly is the next big thing that England cricket have not done. I'd argue ENG win in India 2012 (first time since 1985) was on par with Ashes 05 win - but it didn't impact outside the normal cricket fraternity. So given the social dynamics in ENG which places every sport behind football, a 50 over world cup win will be celebrated, hell the players might even get honoured by the queen & will even have a celebration on Trafalgar square like the 2003 rugby winning team. But i see no evidence that the hype will not just last a few months among the main cricket fans, then when footy seasons starts again - it will be status quo.

That's England my friend. Football rules...

 

[War]

Under the same system, Aus were #1, Ind were #1, Eng were #1 and SA were #1. So when the Aus, Eng or SA can be #1 without a dispute, why should there be dispute when under the same system Ind are #1? You can either say, the system is not complete, so there has never been a #1 test side, or you can say Ind, AUs, SA and Eng hvae been #1. What you cannot say, is Eng, AUs, and SA were #1, but Ind #1 is incorrect because the system is not complete. Thats laughable u see. Also this whole system point is all beside the point. You can say the WC is not in the best format possible, so what there is still a champion.

Point remains, MS Dhoni recieved the mace, and that was great to see, but not as great as seeing him lift the world Cup. Hence World Cup > #1 Test.

Nah sir, i started a thread about this recently, so maybe you could switch your point there to avoid clogging this thread - Tracking the faulty ranking system - PlanetCricket Forums. But in quick summary, the ranking system is very faulty, the maths don't work for the current system of the 1st system that ridiculously had S Africa as # 1 in January 2003 when AUS had blasted them 5-1 over 6 test in 2001/02.

IND were never # 1 test team, it was a farce, just like how ENG under Strauss were never # 1 nor recently when Clarke's Australia became # 1. Historical fact is that since the AUS dynasty of 95-2007 ended (we didn't need a ranking system to tell any cricket fan this either), South Africa under Smith/Amla is the only team that has earned the right be # 1.

Since February 2007 S Africa have lost just two test series & won test series in every country except IND. No other team has a record even close to that during this period, so how the ranking system has placed various IND/ENG/AUS teams ahead of them at various times is the biggest cricket joke & eye pass outside of the big three administrative take over of world cricket.

 

[Shrimper]

England will/should bat until either Root is out or those around him fall. I wouldn't expect England to be in past lunch. Around 440 on the board. A lead of 292.

 

[PokerAce]

Nah sir, i started a thread about this recently, so maybe you could switch your point there to avoid clogging this thread - Tracking the faulty ranking system - PlanetCricket Forums. But in quick summary, the ranking system is very faulty, the maths don't work for the current system of the 1st system that ridiculously had S Africa as # 1 in January 2003 when AUS had blasted them 5-1 over 6 test in 2001/02.

IND were never # 1 test team, it was a farce, just like how ENG under Strauss were never # 1 nor recently when Clarke's Australia became # 1. Historical fact is that since the AUS dynasty of 95-2007 ended (we didn't need a ranking system to tell any cricket fan this either), South Africa under Smith/Amla is the only team that has earned the right be # 1.

Since February 2007 S Africa have lost just two test series & won test series in every country except IND. No other team has a record even close to that during this period, so how the ranking system has placed various IND/ENG/AUS teams ahead of them at various times is the biggest cricket joke & eye pass outside of the big three administrative take over of world cricket.

The main discussion was something else entire, and we got sidetracked into the ranking system debate needlessly.

The point I was making was that when England win the world cup they will realise that its bigger then the Ashes, and just as for the past 10 years Eng cricket has got a boost from the Ashes high, it will get an even bigger boost, from the World Cup win as World Cup > Ashes. Even if Eng and Aus fans want to dispute it, we can atleast agree that to the rest of the cricketing world who don't play a series even half as iconic as the Ashes, World Cup win is the pinnacle. There is Ind-Pak series, but that rivalry is there, but the series iteself is not iconic. The Ashes name has a seperate stature. Even so for the vast majority of the cricketing world, the WC is the pinnacle.


To this someone said, that maybe that will happen, but at the same time if Ind ever are #1 maybe they will realise WC is not the pinnacle. Again to this I said we have been #1 and we have seen MSD with the Mace, and MSD with the WC was a better feeling. On the other hand Eng, while Eng have seen the Ashes high, they have never seen an Eng capt lift the world cup, so how can they know. I having Ind be #1 and lift the WC know which is the better feeling.

Now this guy missing the point went off on a tangent about whether Ind should have been #1 or not, which is still irrelevant to the whole thing.

I don't know what his apprehension is to the fact that WC win will help Eng, that he wants to so fiercly dispute it Maybe he likes the level of interest in cricket just as it is and doesn't want it to be peaked further !

So while we can discuss the ranking system, which indeed we have, but that still has notthing to do with the argument at hand here.

In recent years Ind fans have seen Ind win world T20, be Test #1 (whether shoudl ahve been or not is another issue, but that they were cannot be in dispute), Win World Cup and win CT. These I think u will agree are the four biggest prizes that cricket has to offer accross all forms. So having experienced all four, I would rate it as World Cup > CT > Test #1 > Anything T20.

Also, yes I do rate the Eng side that beat Ind in ind very highly. The reason is they beat Ind at their own game - Spin. Aus did it too way back, but they beat Ind with mostly pace, which was still their strength. Eng though beat Ind in Ind at India's game. I have thus even higher regard for that Eng side.

 

[Shrimper]

RE: Cook.

Since Southampton he has played much better. Been a lot straighter and hasn't knicked as much. Seems to be more comfortable. I looked at his stats in the first two tests and the last two (3&4).

Tests 1&2 - Batting average - 12.33
Tests 3&4 - Batting average - 91.00

Something must have clicked inside him.

 

[PokerAce]

RE: Cook.

Since Southampton he has played much better. Been a lot straighter and hasn't knicked as much. Seems to be more comfortable. I looked at his stats in the first two tests and the last two (3&4).

Tests 1&2 - Batting average - 12.33
Tests 3&4 - Batting average - 91.00

Something must have clicked inside him.

Ind just refuse to catch him ! But yes he has done well. I still go back to the Jadeja catch with Cook on 15 in the third test. Sitter (for a slip catch) dropped with Cook on 15.

On a side note, even if Ind had been as terrible as they have been with the bat, but had held onto their catches in the past three tests, we may yet have been looking at a closer series.

 

[War]

Do England stick or twist with Sam Robson? | Cricket News | England v India - Investec Test Series | ESPN Cricinfo

The decision to drop Compton remains one of the mysteries of English cricket. Having appeared to establish himself with back-to-back centuries in New Zealand, he was left out of the side ahead of the Ashes after failing to reach 20 in the next three Tests. While he has managed only one century in this summer's County Championship, he has been out in the 90s three times and remains as good a player of fast bowling and as hard to dismiss as anyone in the English game. Aged 31 and with a first-class average of 43.82, he continues to make a case for selection, though the sense remains that some in the England management simply did not like him and will not countenance his return.

Robson should never have been playing anyway. Compton should have always been playing.

England may be winning but the ECB some in English management still stinks, just like the KP saga, if they don't like them who cares, fire them & bring back KP & Compton - the crowd majority wants to see them & since they the best in ENG in their respective positions.

 

[PokerAce]

Personally Root moves up to open and KP slots into the middle order, and its a great line up.

Also I think that Cook will not be captain for long. I know India have been terrible and that will give him breathing space, but Ind in Eng was the easiest opponent Cook could face, even B'desh would have probably given tougher fight. Overall I think that Cook will be found out again, against the tougher opponents.