Indian tour of South Africa, December-January 2010/11

[surendar]

The South African batsmen played brilliantly. But it was quite strange to see Dhoni looking helpless. He usually has some plan or the other.
Dhoni's captaincy can sometimes go haywire. In many limited overs matches and in the IPL sometimes his captaincy lacks forethought. I know this because I am a Chennai supporter.

T20/F50 is different from Test matches. Plus, when you are given a couple of useless strike bowlers going around 5 RPO & with part timers going around 11 RPO in a test match, even the legendary captains couldn't have done anything here.

Added to the above, it's just not fair to put blames on poor Unadkat. He was just playing his first test match & to expect him to be a hero is just not fair. Anyone remember Zaheer & Nehra's first performance on SA soil? They were made clueless by SA batsmen.

1st Test: South Africa v India at Bloemfontein, Nov 3-6, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Nehra went with almost around 6 RPO( 2/122 ) & Zaheer was wicketless ( 0/98 ).

So what will be the solution? - Simple, instead of sticking to see the faces of Munafs & RPs and Irfans & Nehras again & again ( who are all now a history ), we should groom atleast 4-5 promising pacers of young age. Well, atleast after the 2011 World Cup! Zaheer - Praveen - Nehra/Sreesanth/some XYZ would be the WC frontline bowlers.

 

[sohum]

blah blah blah

So basically you agree that my comment that you discredit every Indian victory overseas was correct. You discredited NZL and WI because they don't count, AUS and ENG because their bowlers weren't there and failed to address our Test match victory in RSA--something we haven't done consistently in the past.

Thanks, that's all I wanted.

----------

Sehwag, on the other hand, is genuinely a very good offspinner ! He's got great control, and gets a lot of purchase. His five wicket haul against the Aussies (watch on youtube) was sheer class.

Yep, he was a specialist off-spinner at the start of his career so that's not a surprise. Definitely has a lot of control for a part-timer.

Also, his bald head usually reflects light into the batsmen's eyes, which is always useful.

----------

we should groom atleast 4-5 promising pacers of young age.

We are not China, so we can't deterministically produce athletes.

 

[Cricketman]

Sehwag is easily the best offie on our team. Bishan Singh Bedi even agrees .

 

[stefan]

Gambhir is in doudt, could be a big blow for india if he misses out.

For SA the only question is whether tsotsobe plays or parnell/mcclaren. I would pick mcclaren but I think parnell will get the nod.

 

[War]

So basically you agree that my comment that you discredit every Indian victory overseas was correct. You discredited NZL and WI because they don't count, AUS and ENG because their bowlers weren't there and failed to address our Test match victory in RSA--something we haven't done consistently in the past.

Thanks, that's all I wanted.

Yes you won a test series in the windies in 2006 when they were the worst top 8 test teams of the last decade. Give India a medal, since that was such a unbelivably task.

You also want credit for winning in NZ - the second weakest top 8 nation of the last decade. This too another difficult task for touring teams.

Im surprised you dont want credit for winning in Bangladesh.

Plus you want credit for winning in a test in SA 2006/07, since winning one test overides that fact that you lost the series.

 

[War]

these things would make for a TERRIBLE ranking system.

there is no sports ranking system in the world that takes injuries into account. It's not about assessing and weighing things up, it's about keeping it simple. India beat Australia, therefore india are better.

That's the whole point of sport, it's where the whole interest and excitement comes from watching it. of course we can analyse and get enjoyment from saying, "ah but australia were without..." but that's for the nitty gritty. As a rule, sport is about who wins. I mean, maybe instead of actually playing any cricket you're suggesting that countries should invite experts on technique who can then assess they best team on paper should anyone actually play. Maybe India should get a few extra points because there's probably some kid that never got discovered who would have been really good?.

Its not just about injuries. The example i gave you about the Bangladesh tour to windies 2009 when ALLL the windies main players went away on strike - wasn't because of injury. Thats was an unusually extreme circumstance.

Surely you are not going to tell me that Bangladesh according to how the flawed ranking system deserved to gain all 3 points for winning the series. Thus Bangladesh is now better than the Windies??. If now it was another major team touring windies like SRI who has never won a test series in WI in their history. Surely again you wouldn't take that SRI victory seriously???

As i mentioned before in this thread:

What you people need to understand is the importance of injuries. In test history every single team has a few players who basically is the heartbeat of their side & if they just lose that one player it can cripple them. If South Africa lose Dale Steyn today, India's chances of winning or drawing this series in South Africa increases TREMENDOUSLY - thats how important Steyn is to SA.

Only all-time great cricket sides like Windies 76-95, AUS 95-2006/07 who have superb bench strenght can be expected to lose key players & still win major series.

You are kidding yourself if you dont think injuries to key players dont have a major impact on series. If a ranking system cant consider little details like that, its useless.

Thats why cricket doesn't need one. All the years in history when we had all those unofficial # 1 test series like ENG vs WI 1963, AUS vs WI 1965, AUS vs WI 1968/69, AUS vs WI 1990/91, WI vs PAK 1993, AUS vs WI 95, AUS vs SA 2001/02.

You didn't need a ranking system all those years to tell you who was the best team in world before 2002. So if a ranking system is scrapped, things will be fine again.

fair enough you don't like the ranking system, and the point about Sri Lanka is also fair enough (though perhaps it should be up to teams like australia, england and south africa to invite them, as it is not sri lanka's fault they don't tour much, they don't bring in the money that series against england or india will) but no ranking system should ever account for speculation.

Well yea other major teams like AUS, ENG, SA should invite SRI more over the years. But i dont know if i have always bought that theory, because those countries have had Windies (who have declined alot in the last decade) touring them alot & crowds have still showed up for test series.

A ranking system has to account speculation. The way it allocates its full points for a series win, cannot be so simple as to discount injuries & extreme circumstances like i showed you above with the BANG tour to Windies 2009.

Thats why i say again, given the dynamics which those nitty gritty factors have to the outcomes of sseries. Cricket should never have a ranking system. We need to go back to the pre-2002 days where non existed.

 

[Adarsh]

A ranking system has to account speculation.

Brilliant ! Haha, War, you're a funny guy. Thank goodness you're not in charge of any rankings. Rankings are based on the team you play. If the team is weakened because of an earthquake killing everyone which leads to 2 year olds having to fill in , well that's reflective of the team's strength. Can't do anything about it. Fact of life. If you disagree with that ...well...who cares.

Anyway, attempting to move on to some relevant discussion, Gambhir is indeed unlikely, although Vijay has coped well in the past so I don't think Gambhir would be missed so much. The pitch promises to be juicy, but I hope it doesn't favour the side which wins the toss massively because that just ruins the contest. A lot of pressure on Zaheer Khan, looking at the rest of the bowling attack he needs to be getting 6 wickets every innings .

 

[War]

Yeah, the injuries thing you are saying.

Zaheer Khan never plays fully fit, he is always injured before nearly every important series. And other teams are hit by injuries too, not just England.
What you're saying that England might have won that India series if and only if England had their 1st choice bowlers. It's just like saying that if Zaheer was there at centurion then India would have won it but it wasn't like that, even with Zaheer's presence India could have barely managed to draw.
I don't agree to your theory of presumption, "that if that would've happened, the it would result into that".

And as I have said earlier, how come all their 1st choice bowlers were out injured at the same time, that was ████?.

Firtly i think you are vastly overexaggerating Zaheer's injury record. Since Khan became a test quality bowler & undisputed leader of the India attack during the 2006/07 tour to SA.

The only major series i recall him missing before this current series was the 2007/08 tour to AUS, 1 test vs PAK 07/08, 1 test vs NZ 09/10, 1 test vs SRI 09.

Otherwise he has been ever present more often than not for you guys. His injury record is nowhere near comparable to Flitoff or Bond for example.

Also no as i said before. Between 2005-2009 no team in world cricket lost so many players to injuries like England. Thats an undisputed fact.

Zaheer is quality bowler - but he is no Glenn McGrath type quality. His presence @ centurion IMO woulldn't have made much of difference. SA would have still won handsomely.

Finally i explained to you before why all ENG 1st choice bowlers where out injured for that 2007 series. I told you can do your research on the careers of Hoggard & Harmison for example & you will see that that 2007 sseries vs IND was the only time in their respective careers coincidentally that they both missed a series for ENG due to injury.


[/COLOR]

Zaheer getting injured leaving a ████ attack behind is the same condition too. And we are blaming it on Zaheer, he does not know how his body works and I'd say he's never fully fit. So, India were going to lose.

Excuse me, what?.

Are you trying to say that 1 Zaheer Khan is equal to the combined quality of Flintoff/Hoggard/Harmison??. Dear god i hope not.

Otherwise no the comparable situation to inuuries to ENG main attack in 2007, would be IND losing Zaheer + Sharma + Sreesanth for the current SA tour.

Plus as i said abouve Zaheer isn't no all-time great seamer in which his presence or lack of it can swing a series. India IMO would still have lost @ centurion with him present & will likely lose the other two test with him back as well.

----------

Brilliant ! Haha, War, you're a funny guy. Thank goodness you're not in charge of any rankings. Rankings are based on the team you play. If the team is weakened because of an earthquake killing everyone which leads to 2 year olds having to fill in , well that's reflective of the team's strength. Can't do anything about it. Fact of life. If you disagree with that ...well...who cares.

Thats madness. If such a unthikable circusmtance happens to a cricket team. The more reason why a ranking system shouldn't allocate full 3 points if the opposition touring team & winning.

So based on this. I presume you are telling me if the entire SA team had died in plane crash coming back from UAE & SA had to find a C team to play the series & IND had won their 1st series in SA, that series win should be looked upon as highly as if they where playing a real full-strenght SA team?

 

[Adarsh]

So based on this. I presume you are telling me if the entire SA team had died in plane crash coming back from UAE & SA had to find a C team to play the series & IND had won their 1st series in SA, that series win should be looked upon as highly as if they where playing a real full-strenght SA team?

Of course the rankings shouldn't take that into account ! Once you bring even the tiniest sort of speculation into any rankings, it is useless. Everyone might as well have their own rankings in their head. Heck, why bother playing the match...just decide the league on paper, etc etc. Look there's no point debating that. Give me one example of a rankings league that takes into account injuries. Any credible one. I can't begin to argue the million different ways that is wrong.

This is how injuries in sport works - if you're injured and thus cannot play to your full potential, or can't play at all then you're equivalent to a guy playing at full potential and playing at the same level. For example, you can't say Shane Bond was as good as Michael Holding, BUT he was unfit. That's equivalent to saying Harbhajan Singh is as good as Tendulkar BUT he just can't play as well as him. It's a stupid argument. If the full West Indies team that's their fault. If the SA team gets wiped out, then that's bad luck. In the same way that me not being as good as Tendulkar is bad luck. That's life, and that's how sport works.

India were better than England in the series 2007, because they won. If the English players were injured then that's their fault. The first thing a good sportsman needs to do is be present for the game.

 

[SaiSrini]

The law of averages seems to be catching up with Gambhir. After having a great run in test cricket, now he seems to be plagued with poor form and now injuries. Hope Vijay turns up a real good performance if he is asked to open. And I hope this doesnt make Dhoni or the management not to opt of Pujara in place of Raina. We need Pujara in for Raina. We will have 3 changes (if Gambhir is fit, it will be 2) - Vijay for Gambhir, Pujara for Raina and Zaheer for Unadkat.

India winning the toss would help them a lot. But even if we lose the toss, I dont expect us to be bowled out for like 130 odd. I think this time, we could stay in for 200+ even if we bat first.

 

[War]

Of course the rankings shouldn't take that into account ! Once you bring even the tiniest sort of speculation into any rankings, it is useless. Everyone might as well have their own rankings in their head. Heck, why bother playing the match...just decide the league on paper, etc etc. Look there's no point debating that. Give me one example of a rankings league that takes into account injuries. Any credible one. I can't begin to argue the million different ways that is wrong.

Well if the ranking system as it normally does doesn't take any care about such a tragic circumstance & IND gets the full 3 points for winning that series. The more reason why as i said before the ranking system should be squashed & we should go back pre-2002 days where cricket was fine without a ranking system for more than 50 years.

Since no sane cricket fan or pundit in their right mind would ever give India or any team any credit if they won in SA, againts a SA C-team due to such extreme circumstances.

This is how injuries in sport works - if you're injured and thus cannot play to your full potential, or can't play at all then you're equivalent to a guy playing at full potential and playing at the same level. For example, you can't say Shane Bond was as good as Michael Holding, BUT he was unfit. That's equivalent to saying Harbhajan Singh is as good as Tendulkar BUT he just can't play as well as him. It's a stupid argument. If the full West Indies team that's their fault. If the SA team gets wiped out, then that's bad luck. In the same way that me not being as good as Tendulkar is bad luck. That's life, and that's how sport works.

Your comparison of "how injuries in sports" (mainly cricket since cricket is unique to other sprorts) in comparing Bond to Holding & Harbhajan to Tendy work makes absolutely no sense i'm afriad & is indeed a stupid argument that you are making/trying to make - i have never suggested/implied anything like that. However as i said before, last i checked this is how it does work:

What you people need to understand is the importance of injuries. In test history every single team has a few players who basically is the heartbeat of their side & if they just lose that one player it can cripple them. If South Africa lose Dale Steyn today, India's chances of winning or drawing this series in South Africa increases TREMENDOUSLY - thats how important Steyn is to SA.

Only all-time great cricket sides like Windies 76-95, AUS 95-2006/07 who have superb bench strenght can be expected to lose key players & still win major series.

India were better than England in the series 2007, because they won. If the English players were injured then that's their fault. The first thing a good sportsman needs to do is be present for the game.

Yes IND won in ENG 2007 because they where better yes. But quite clearly as the 2006 Mumbai test showed:

3rd Test: India v England at Mumbai, Mar 18-22, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

When the full fit ENG attack destroyed basically the same IND batting line-up on a english style greentop in Indian conditions. Its incoceivable that if Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmo where fit to play the home series in 2007 in what was even more bowler friendly conditions, that IND could have won. So they got lucky it 2007.

Thats why i draw the comparison with IND 2007 win in ENG to their 1971 win in ENG. In 1971 they where lucky that time with weather to win that series 1-0 & everyone at the time thought IND claim to # 1 back then was a farce. But later in 1974 when they toured ENG again with no weather interruption they where hammered 3-0 & those who called their 1971 lucky where proven right.

The same thing will happen in 2011 if ENG beat IND here next summer with what will be a full strenght ENG bowling attack. If IND dont win here next summer, my position that their 2007 win here was lucky due to ENG missing their entire 1st choice attack will be proven correct.

Plus what gives you the impression that Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmo didn't do their best to be fit for the 2007 series & it was their fault they got injured??.

Flintoff certainly always prepared 100%, its just simply that he had chronic injury that could pop up unexpectedly anytime in his career.

Plus as i keep saying to you people but none seem willing to make the research. Hogagrd & Harmo expect for that 2007 series NEVER missed a series for ENG due to injury, that was just an odd coincidence that happened at the time.

 

[Valaskjalf]

Well if the ranking system as it normally does doesn't take any care about such a tragic circumstance & IND gets the full 3 points for winning that series. The more reason why as i said before the ranking system should be squashed & we should go back pre-2002 days where cricket was fine without a ranking system for more than 50 years.

Since no sane cricket fan or pundit in their right mind would ever give India or any team any credit if they won in SA, againts a SA C-team due to such extreme circumstances.



Your comparison of "how injuries in sports" (mainly cricket since cricket is unique to other sprorts) in comparing Bond to Holding & Harbhajan to Tendy work makes absolutely no sense i'm afriad & is indeed a stupid argument that you are making/trying to make - i have never suggested/implied anything like that. However as i said before, last i checked this is how it does work:









Yes IND won in ENG 2007 because they where better yes. But quite clearly as the 2006 Mumbai test showed:

3rd Test: India v England at Mumbai, Mar 18-22, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

When the full fit ENG attack destroyed basically the same IND batting line-up on a english style greentop in Indian conditions. Its incoceivable that if Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmo where fit to play the home series in 2007 in what was even more bowler friendly conditions, that IND could have won. So they got lucky it 2007.

Thats why i draw the comparison with IND 2007 win in ENG to their 1971 win in ENG. In 1971 they where lucky that time with weather to win that series 1-0 & everyone at the time thought IND claim to # 1 back then was a farce. But later in 1974 when they toured ENG again with no weather interruption they where hammered 3-0 & those who called their 1971 lucky where proven right.

The same thing will happen in 2011 if ENG beat IND here next summer with what will be a full strenght ENG bowling attack. If IND dont win here next summer, my position that their 2007 win here was lucky due to ENG missing their entire 1st choice attack will be proven correct.

Plus what gives you the impression that Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmo didn't do their best to be fit for the 2007 series & it was their fault they got injured??.

Flintoff certainly always prepared 100%, its just simply that he had chronic injury that could pop up unexpectedly anytime in his career.

Plus as i keep saying to you people but none seem willing to make the research. Hogagrd & Harmo expect for that 2007 series NEVER missed a series for ENG due to injury, that was just an odd coincidence that happened at the time.

Seriously guys....since when did this become the "India tour of England" thread? Keep it relevant, digging up what happened in 1971 to prove a point is a bit ridiculous isnt it?

Back on topic:

I find some of the rants on here laughable, especially from the Indian fans claiming how if Zaheer played SA would have been 100 all out on the Centurion pitch. An absolutely stupid thing to say, and so arrogant - pretty much pointing out that Zaheer Khan on his own would have been more destructive than Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, No 1 and No 3 in the ICC rankings.

Opinions like that almost dont even warrant any recognition or reply because its so absurd. And get over yourselves about the "wet pitch" bull$%&t. The pitch got better as the game went on and we still managed to take 20 of your wickets and you took 4 of ours so boo hoo. Fact is, in order for you to be considered no1 in the world you must beat all opposition in all conditions. Bragging about your top 5 with their 50+ averages mean less when most of their runs are scored on the most batsmen-biased pitches in the world (Obviously Tendulkar is an exception because he is actually really great)

Unfortunately for you when you encounter a global sport like cricket you are required to get out of your own backyard once in a while to prove yourself in unfamiliar terrain. If preparing dust bowls the way you did at Eden gardens last time we were there is considered ok, then stop whining about the green mambas we're preparing over here.

You cant have your bread buttered on both sides.

 

[0601731]

I don't think anyone here is complaining about the pitch, It is infact better for India if it were to be a green top but anyone with even a little bit of cricket sense would agree that the toss played a vital role in the outcome of the last match despite the fact that Indians could have done much better.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Its not just about injuries. The example i gave you about the Bangladesh tour to windies 2009 when ALLL the windies main players went away on strike - wasn't because of injury. Thats was an unusually extreme circumstance.

Surely you are not going to tell me that Bangladesh according to how the flawed ranking system deserved to gain all 3 points for winning the series. Thus Bangladesh is now better than the Windies??. If now it was another major team touring windies like SRI who has never won a test series in WI in their history. Surely again you wouldn't take that SRI victory seriously???

this barely merits a response but yes BNG do deserve those points. The windies scheduled a series, put out a team that played under "The West Indies" and got beat. It's not up to the ICC to look after them while they have internal problems.

You are kidding yourself if you dont think injuries to key players dont have a major impact on series. If a ranking system cant consider little details like that, its useless.


You didn't need a ranking system all those years to tell you who was the best team in world before 2002. So if a ranking system is scrapped, things will be fine again.

no it's not useless. being the no.1 team in the world is something to play for, you need it to give all the matches a bit of context. the endless tours are beginning to run together into a meaningless mash and the ranking system was to provide a wider competition.

If it's not going to accurately reflect fact and results then it's useless. you're proposing some silly airy fairy system in which India don't get to be no.1 because England had an injury crisis. how is that a good ranking system? What if England were on the cusp of being no.1 and ponting being injured deprived them of the possibility of earning the points? it would stupid. Also, by awarding speculation then you get daft arguements where someone has to decide how costly an injury is. You don't think mcgrath's injuty had much impact on 2005s result. Well you are in a minority, so unless they appoint you to decide everything then you're not going to agree with the rankings. pretty flinging rubbish system if it's whole premise comes down to you being god.

if the ranking system has one flaw it's that rain caused draws can unfairly allocate points to a team that was completely out played and on the cusp of certain defeat.

 

[War]

this barely merits a response but yes BNG do deserve those points. The windies scheduled a series, put out a team that played under "The West Indies" and got beat. It's not up to the ICC to look after them while they have internal problems.

. You guys have officially lost the plot now. Since this is ridiculous reasoning to totally disregard what was going on with the windies at the time.

The ranking system is suppose to reflect also, accurately by points gained after you win a series, your progresss as a team. So after 10 years of winning no test series to an casual observer bangladesh getting 3 points vs WI & winning their 1st test series in their nations history. Is supposed to be seen as sign of progress at last in tests for

But quite clearly that is not the case, since any person would realise once the windies had their main XI playing under normal circumstances, BANG would have suffered another series defeat & most likely they will continue to keep losing series in the coming years. Thus they should have ZERO points currently.

Its beyond me that you or anyone else can look it anyother way.

no it's not useless. being the no.1 team in the world is something to play for, you need it to give all the matches a bit of context. the endless tours are beginning to run together into a meaningless mash and the ranking system was to provide a wider competition.

If it's not going to accurately reflect fact and results then it's useless. you're proposing some silly airy fairy system in which India don't get to be no.1 because England had an injury crisis. how is that a good ranking system? What if England were on the cusp of being no.1 and ponting being injured deprived them of the possibility of earning the points? it would stupid. Also, by awarding speculation then you get daft arguements where someone has to decide how costly an injury is. You don't think mcgrath's injuty had much impact on 2005s result. Well you are in a minority, so unless they appoint you to decide everything then you're not going to agree with the rankings. pretty flinging rubbish system if it's whole premise comes down to you being god.

if the ranking system has one flaw it's that rain caused draws can unfairly allocate points to a team that was completely out played and on the cusp of certain defeat.

Firstly, So from 1946-2002 (when the 1st ranking system was used). Do you have evidence that that in those 56 years that not having a ranking system that their wasn't competition or that all those yearly tours was meaningless??

Plus again you dont need a ICC ranking system to tell you who is # 1. As i showed before erudite cricket fans, cricket pundits, cricket teams etc during the course of a few years of tours will realise who are the best two teams around & a battle (unofficial # 1) series match-up would be played to decide who is the best team in the world. Thats what happened for series such as:

- Ashes 1958
- ENG vs WI 1963
- WI vs AUS 1965
- WI vs AUS 1968/69
- Ashes 1972
- WI vs AUS 1979/80
- AUS vs WI 90/91 & 92/93
- WI vs PAK 92/93
- WI vs AUS 94/95 & 96/97
- AUS vs SA 2001/02


Secondly i'm not proposing anything to do as you claimed to..you're proposing some silly airy fairy system in which India don't get to be no.1 because England had an injury crisis.

Im proposing cricket has no ranking system.

Thirdly your hypotetical scenario of ENG becomig # 1 wouldn't occur if Ponting was to get injured anyway in the current Ashes. So that doesn't make any sense.

Fourthy i know alot of people outside of planetcricket, other cricketchat website who dont chat cricket online who dont believe like me that a fully fit McGrath would have prevented ENG from winning the 2005 Ashes.

They like me draw comparison from AUS tour to IND 2001. Where a similar situation happened. AUS bats where exposed to quality spin & McGrath's presence didn't help. In 2005 where AUS bats where exposed to quality pace bowling, we dont believe McGrath presence would have saved AUS.

So even if you want to call me God, they wont have to appoint me to head any ranking system. Since again i saw cricket doesn't need one.

Finally. Good observation on points allocated in ranking system for a drawn tests, for a team that was outplayed.