South Africa's tour of India - October/December 2015

[grkrama]

root has to prove against bouncy pitches like in aus and SA too against quality pace the one time he was tested in 2013 ashes didnt go so well!

 

[stefan]

root has to prove against bouncy pitches like in aus and SA too against quality pace the one time he was tested in 2013 ashes didnt go so well!

TBF he was opening then a bit different to batting at 4 but I agree he needs to prove himself on bouncy tracks as well. Will soon find out about thought .

 

[War]

The home series vs Aus? Pretty sure that was smith's last series as captain. Amla has captained 4 series. The win in sri lanka,the west indies tour to SA, the washout in bangladesh and the indian diaster. England tour will be important to see how his captaincy develops.

Ye my mistake ha, don't know why i typed that given i did indeed know Smith captained in that series.

Well would just adjust that specific point to say this is second big series vs one of the top sides SA have lost. So their upcoming contests vs ENG & NZ will be important that they win.

 

[PokerAce]

Graeme Smith hints at coming out of retirement - Cricbuzz

Interesting !!

 

[PokerAce]

BCCI has announced an award/bonus for the Indian team of Rs 2 crores (roughly $300,000) for the brilliant performance against the #1 ranked team.

 

[PokerAce]

India headline tour for that year the headline is always expected to play the New year Newlands test and the Boxing day test at Kingsmead/PE similiar to how the headliner tour in Aus is expected to play Boxing day at MCG and New years at sydney. Yes CSA screwed up in announcing it before agreeing with India but should have and should have expected that they would have needed to play those historic fixtures...It was all about politics imho.

I missed this post, and while its clear that you feel very strongly about this post, but the scheduling just was never going to allow an extra new year test.

India arrived in NZ on Jan 16, with the first ODI on Jan 19.

Now if India had stuck around for a new year test in SA, it would mean the tour which finished on Dec 29, would have continued till Jan 7.

Now that would left less than even 10 days for India to return from SA back to India, prepare of NZ, and then head over to NZ.

I think most will agree 10 days is just a ridiculously short time to have in between 2 overseas tours. If India's next series was in india a case could have been made that okay India play at home so need lesser time to prepare. But 10 days between two overseas tours is too low.

That is why BCCI just couldn't accept a new Year's test in SA which SA had unilaterally announced. Better communication would have helped the issue, and I genuinely don't see this as BCCI having issues with Lorgat. There just wasnt enough of a gap in between the two tours, had India stayed back in NZ to play a third test.

Anyway its clear that SA fans feel strongly about it, and hopefully the next series can be planned better.

 

[namin96]

Kohli has been better than Root in tests. I'd wait for Root to get some runs in the sub continent before I put him ahead of Kohli.

Root is a very defensive player and yes he hasn't really proved himself in the sub continent except for that one time in Nagpur when England came last time and the pitch was terrible and wasn't even turning and he got runs.

 

[namin96]

You are so out of your depth and so far from reality with your posts that it's laughable. Everyone has their own choices, but let's not manipulate facts with fiction. I'll just like to show you some of AB's achievements against spin.

In the series gone by, De Villiers was the second highest run scorer of the series and to any normal fan, he looked well at home. Cricket is a team sport. In the first innings of the Delhi test, AB looked at absolute ease but he didn't have support from the other end. It happened quite frequently that he ended up batting with the tail and had to bat 'differently' for the sake of the team. In the last innings, he didn't make a hundred, but the vigil was as good as one, if not better. Mind you, that's not his game.

As far as the past is concerned, the man has got double hundreds against Pakistan and India in their own backyard. His double against India came against a bowling attack that consisted of Kumble and Harbhajan, at least equal in stature to Ashwin and Jadeja.

He averages above 50 at home and away, above 50 whether the team bats first or second, above 50 against pace and spin in a career spanning more than a 100 tests. To top it off, he has opened, kept wickets and yo-yo'd a bit in his first half of the career in the batting order.

Since you have a penchant for statistics, here is one to enlighten you.

Numbers Game: The complete batsman | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Lastly, Williamson's record in India pales in comparison to AB's. His hundred at Ahmedabad, came against a bowling attack comprising of Harbhajan Singh and Pragyan Ojha. So technically, Williamson has never made runs against an attack of quality spin bowling like Ashwin and Jadeja. So how do you exactly know he will be able to cope better? Or are you saying that Ojha is better than Kumble because AB got a double against Harbhajan and Kumble.

At this moment in time, AB de Villiers is the best batsman in the world come rain or shine, pace or spin, home or abroad, block or slog, T20 or test. It's perfectly fine to enjoy someone else's way of scoring runs more, quite another to heap praise on them and manipulate an opinion as fact by bringing someone else down.

Yes you've got a great point. I did forget that he did make a double hundred against Kumble and Harbhajan the last time, my bad. He's good and the best right now. Also, in the article you use it says he's got better stats than Tendulkar and some of the other good batsman since 2008 now does that necessarily make him better than Tendulkar, absolutely not! They've got completely different styles of play, AB is more destructive, while Tendulkar is aggressive but can really do anything you ask him to with elegance. Stats aren't alway everything and I guess that applies to what I used as well to compare Kohli and AB. Also, your point about Williamson is correct. However, how about Warner? What's your logic for putting him ahead of Kohli and some of the other guys?

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Yes you've got a great point. I did forget that he did make a double hundred against Kumble and Harbhajan the last time, my bad. He's good and the best right now. Also, in the article you use it says he's got better stats than Tendulkar and some of the other good batsman since 2008 now does that necessarily make him better than Tendulkar, absolutely not! They've got completely different styles of play, AB is more destructive, while Tendulkar is aggressive but can really do anything you ask him to with elegance. Stats aren't alway everything and I guess that applies to what I used as well to compare Kohli and AB. Also, your point about Williamson is correct. However, how about Warner? What's your logic for putting him ahead of Kohli and some of the other guys?

For me, personally, I admire de Villiers simply because of the fact that he has 'redefined' batting. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion the people who 'define' batting in eras are Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and AB de Villiers. It is your belief that AB isn't elegant on the eye. Actually, Maxwell is perhaps slightly more destructive, but de Villiers has the consistency and the elegance which is why he's such a darling in everyone's eyes. I totally understand that you don't find his style attractive. It's a subjective thing. For instance, I could watch Rahul Dravid make 30 of 200 balls and get irritated if someone called it boring. For me, even his defense was very enjoyable.

Kohli? I believe he will get runs in England because he's too good not to, which is the only place where he's failed. I also am quite sure he will finish with all the records in ODI's. Personally, I think Rahane is a more complete test batsman than Kohli is. Is he someone who has revolutionized batting? No.

I think you're confusing me with PokerAce. He rated Warner. My top 10 test batsmen would be as follows-

AB de Villiers
Hashim Amla
Alistair Cook
Kane Williamson
Ajinkya Rahane
Virat Kohli
Steven Smith
Joe Root
Ross Taylor
Angelo Matthews & Murali Vijay
12th man David Warner

 

[PokerAce]

I think you're confusing me with PokerAce. He rated Warner.

Huh !! ... not that I don't rate Warner, of course I do, and he is a great entertaining player, but I never said he is better than Kohli. The only batsmen I have talked about in this context are ABD, Williamson, Kohli and Root.

 

[War]

rank turner is not substandard, anyway! if you insist to go by referee report then only Nagpur would fall under that! mohali was more than fine! so were every other wicket in this series!

Im also inclined to say give amla a series more before judging him, while he may have been around a while i think he is still to get reigns on captaincy fully!

Also abbott will be on the sidelines again once philander getsback, He has bowled really well here i can only see him improving more in ENG and other tours! The only advantage i see philander having over abbott is batting!

Yep fully agree with ICC report on Nagpur. Mohali was bad for more phases than it was good IMO, Bangalore of course was fine - had something for quicks early and was potentially similar to Dehli.

Fact is preparing surfaces like Nagpur won't help IND long term - Dehli was a normal turner and SA batsmen were still clueless

 

[namin96]

For me, personally, I admire de Villiers simply because of the fact that he has 'redefined' batting. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion the people who 'define' batting in eras are Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and AB de Villiers. It is your belief that AB isn't elegant on the eye. Actually, Maxwell is perhaps slightly more destructive, but de Villiers has the consistency and the elegance which is why he's such a darling in everyone's eyes. I totally understand that you don't find his style attractive. It's a subjective thing. For instance, I could watch Rahul Dravid make 30 of 200 balls and get irritated if someone called it boring. For me, even his defense was very enjoyable.

Kohli? I believe he will get runs in England because he's too good not to, which is the only place where he's failed. I also am quite sure he will finish with all the records in ODI's. Personally, I think Rahane is a more complete test batsman than Kohli is. Is he someone who has revolutionized batting? No.

I think you're confusing me with PokerAce. He rated Warner. My top 10 test batsmen would be as follows-

AB de Villiers
Hashim Amla
Alistair Cook
Kane Williamson
Ajinkya Rahane
Virat Kohli
Steven Smith
Joe Root
Ross Taylor
Angelo Matthews & Murali Vijay
12th man David Warner

Ya that is a more reasonable list of the current top 10 batsman. I do think it is a little early to say whether rahane is better than kohli in tests, but one thing is for sure that Rahane has a very tight technique and there seem to be no weaknesses maybe fishing outside the off stump like kohli but nothing else. Also, yes I agree with you on Rahul Dravid. He was really good and his defense was so good to watch and his shots were elegant as well especially on the backfoot. Kohli I think will get at least 85 international 100s, but it is still early to say that, but I think the capability and talent is there for him to get close to Tendulkar's records. Only time will tell.

 

[namin96]

Yep fully agree with ICC report on Nagpur. Mohali was bad for more phases than it was good IMO, Bangalore of course was fine - had something for quicks early and was potentially similar to Dehli.

Fact is preparing surfaces like Nagpur won't help IND long term - Dehli was a normal turner and SA batsmen were still clueless

See just cause Nagpur started turning from day 1 doesn't make it poor. I just don't understand the criticism. Pitches in England start seaming and swinging a lot from day 1 and teams are bundled out for very low scores on the first day and we never hear criticism like oh that Manchester pitch was poor or oh that Edgbaston pitch was slow.

 

[_Sam_]

See just cause Nagpur started turning from day 1 doesn't make it poor. I just don't understand the criticism. Pitches in England start seaming and swinging a lot from day 1 and teams are bundled out for very low scores on the first day and we never hear criticism like oh that Manchester pitch was poor or oh that Edgbaston pitch was slow.

Do you want to start fining countries pitches based on their overhead conditions?

 

[namin96]

Do you want to start fining countries pitches based on their overhead conditions?

That wasn't the main reason why India got bundled out quickly in Manchester or why Australia collapsed against England in one or two of the matches. The pitches were prepared in such a way that there would be a lot of moisture on day 1 and 2 and the ball would move a lot. The overhead conditions helped the cause.