***Official*** India in England

[honestbharani]

For me they did not because the did not show urgency at times in the game when they should have. I am not debating whether they deserved to win or not though. That can be debated.

I did not like cricinfo putting in they headline that the deserved to win for the fact that whether they deserved to win can be a point of debate. Such judgemental words (which are debatable) in headlines of match reporting is undesired for me.

yeah, I think England deserved to win this match, but as you said it might be better if they lay off from using such judgemental words and calls in their headlines.... As much as I think they deserved to win, it still is a matter of opinion, it is not exactly cold fact.....

 

[honestbharani]

You win tests matches. If you cannot, they are draws. A lot of the times Sri Lanka had their matches end in draws because they did not have bowlers capable enough to win matches for them. I am not saying that England = Sri Lanka of the in ability here mind. Would you say that those teams which had draws with Sri Lanka did not deserve the draws? It requires a lot of charecteristics - proactiveness, cricketing acumen, ability among others to be able to win. The question usually is whether a team deserved to win and if it did not, the match rightfully ends in a draw. Whether the opposition deserved a draw or not is not significant for me. The win is for the taking and if you cannot do it, it ends in a draw.



For me it is inexcusable if you are slow in over rates in such a scenario. If possible, you should be faster than normal. What great things were there to think? They had to just get the men in catching positions and attack really.

yeah, and one thing I have noticed about Vaughan for a long time now is that it just takes a boundary or two for him to put the boundary riders out. He seems a rather defensive captain to me, in that sense. He seems to think that the best way to get most batsmen out is by denying them runs for decent shots. It will work in some cases, but I am sure it is not the best way. The ICC champs trophy final in 2004 is a case in point where I think his captaincy had as much share as the Bradshaw/Browne partnership in Windies winning that match.

 

[Pratters]

Sanz: you will be happy to see that Patel has done well in the first inning in Zimbabwe.

Uthappa and his opening partner Cheteshwar Pujara got off to a brisk start, adding 56 before Pujara fell for 9, edging to the slips. Wicketkeeper Parthiv Patel coming in at No.3, scored 67 and was involved in two half century stands.

Hopefully, he has a good tour.

 

[Raghav]

Atleast you get to see good entertaining cricket played from one side

a true cric fan expects a good close match...two keenly contested sides will produce more entertaining stuff

 

[Tom Halsey]

if you mucked around with the ball and you took your time and bowled Michael Vaughan when the issue with the light was consistency from a meter, (it had nothing to do with pace imo, although debatable).

The only explanation that I see for Vaughan bowling himself is that he was told that the light would be offered unless there was spin at both ends.

 

[Nishant]

The only explanation that I see for Vaughan bowling himself is that he was told that the light would be offered unless there was spin at both ends.

Thats probably right TBH...he is a good captain and so it would have to be a reason like this for him to actually put himself on. Also, i remember....before he put himself on, the umpires had a look at the light meter...so the bowling change may have occured as a result of that.

 

[leepayne]

Yep, in that situation, Michael Vaughan would only have bowled himself if the umpires said he needed spinners at both ends or they would go off.

Kevin Pietersen was the other option I suppose, but I don't think there is much difference between them.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nah Pietersen is a better bowler than Vaughan tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah Pietersen is a better bowler than Vaughan tbh.

DWTA really. Vaughan bowled rubbish on the day, but I still maintain he's a better bowler than Pietersen.

 

[open365]

But bowling Vaughan makes the whole of England wince in anxiety over kis knee every delivery.

 

[shankar]

Regarding whether England deserved to win the match or not: This match was inextricably linked with the weather. The pitch was slow and flat and the only reason the ball moved around was the overhead conditions. The match panned out the way it did because of the weather. So we cannot just remove one aspect of the weather i.e. the rain on the fifth day. This is different from a case where a team is on the verge of winning at the end of the 4th day but is denied due to rain on the fifth day - Here the rain did not influence the way the match developed.

 

[open365]

Regarding whether England deserved to win the match or not: This match was inextricably linked with the weather. The pitch was slow and flat and the only reason the ball moved around was the overhead conditions. The match panned out the way it did because of the weather. So we cannot just remove one aspect of the weather i.e. the rain on the fifth day. This is different from a case where a team is on the verge of winning at the end of the 4th day but is denied due to rain on the fifth day - Here the rain did not influence the way the match developed.

 

[shankar]

The 'here' refers to a different hypothetical situation I mentioned in the last sentence.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Completely agree. By the way, England did not outplay us by such a large margin - the match went down to the final 35 overs IIRC, even with India's best batsman being given out incorrectly. England were certainly better but it was far from a landslide and they should've wrapped it up before the rain came around. Anyways, on to Trent Bridge.

It's not like England didn't suffer decisions against them in that 4th innings, one rather adjacent lbw turned down during the 10th wicket stand in particular - although Panesar got as many if not more wickets than he deserved anyway.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd make the trade for Sreesanth and Dravid's wicket every time .

 

[silentstriker]

Regardless, it's not an excuse. India were outplayed, in all departments.

 

[Gloucefan]

You win tests matches. If you cannot, they are draws. A lot of the times Sri Lanka had their matches end in draws because they did not have bowlers capable enough to win matches for them. I am not saying that England = Sri Lanka of the old in ability here mind. Would you say that those teams which had draws with Sri Lanka did not deserve the draws? It requires a lot of charecteristics - proactiveness, cricketing acumen, ability among others to be able to win. The question usually is whether a team deserved to win and if it did not, the match rightfully ends in a draw. Whether the opposition deserved a draw or not is not significant for me. The win is for the taking and if you cannot do it, it ends in a draw.



For me it is inexcusable if you are slow in over rates in such a scenario. If possible, you should be faster than normal. What great things were there to think? They had to just get the men in catching positions and attack really. Fact is, they weren't urgent at various points in the match. The English playing a bit defensively and wasting overs while aiming to give India 400 to chase was another approach I could not understand.

Regarding the question of whether the teams against Sri Lanka played deserved draws or not, I couldn't possibly make a brash judgement like that as I would have to look at matches individually. Slow over rates or not, the rain fell when England needed 1 wicket to win while about 100 runs in the lead and with 40ish overs remaining. All this in a match in which, for mine at least, England outplayed India. Saying England 'deserved' to win doesn't equate to saying they had a 'right' to win. For me England deserved to win, they have a right to feel unlucky. If the rain hadn't appeared at that point I think we can safely say the series would currently be 1-0 in England's favour.

I do take heart and satisfaction from seeing any team England are playing cheering the rain and celebrating a draw.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It's not like England didn't suffer decisions against them in that 4th innings, one rather adjacent lbw turned down during the 10th wicket stand in particular - although Panesar got as many if not more wickets than he deserved anyway.

Guessed he might have.

 

[Raghav]

Regarding whether England deserved to win the match or not: This match was inextricably linked with the weather. The pitch was slow and flat and the only reason the ball moved around was the overhead conditions. The match panned out the way it did because of the weather. So we cannot just remove one aspect of the weather i.e. the rain on the fifth day. This is different from a case where a team is on the verge of winning at the end of the 4th day but is denied due to rain on the fifth day - Here the rain did not influence the way the match developed.

Good looking avatar

 

[Scaly piscine]

Guessed he might have.

Lets look at his wickets... padding up to a ball that didn't happen to spin and a tailender playing a horrible shot when he's supposed to be playing for a draw.

Other than the odd edge he didn't create anything in 34 overs on a pitch with a bit in it for everyone.