***Official*** India in England

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I agree that India bowled quite well but I think England contibuted to their downfall just as much. A day or so of good bowling shouldn't mean you're all out for under 200 in the first innings. Not to take much away from Indian bowlers of course who did everything theywere asked to.

I think it was more bad luck than bad management though. You can't measure a batting performance purely by what the conditions were like, what the opposition bowled like and the total they end up with IMO. What they actually did wrong should be the prime consideration, and that wasn't a lot. India have batted better and bowled better in this test so far, obviously, but I actually don't think England were poor.

 

[nightprowler10]

Can't remember.....

Was thinking of this one tbh.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1280229&postcount=2977

 

[Richard]

Yeah I agree that India bowled quite well but I think England contibuted to their downfall just as much. A day or so of good bowling shouldn't mean you're all out for under 200 in the first innings. Not to take much away from Indian bowlers of course who did everything theywere asked to.

I think it was more bad luck than bad management though. You can't measure a batting performance purely by what the conditions were like, what the opposition bowled like and the total they end up with IMO. What they actually did wrong should be the prime consideration, and that wasn't a lot. India have batted better and bowled better in this test so far, obviously, but I actually don't think England were poor.

I mean, let's look at the dismissals...

Strauss - good ball, but bad shot, should never be trying to drive those at that stage when you know the ball is definately swinging.
Cook - played well but then got out in a familiar way, poor batting
Vaughan - excellent ball, didn't do a lot wrong
Pietersen - excellent ball, poor decision
Collingwood - haven't yet seen the dismissal
Bell - ditto
Prior - pretty much read Strauss

 

[pasag]

Shot! Love watching Dravid bat.

 

[Richard]

Was thinking of this one tbh.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1280229&postcount=2977

TBF, he was one of at least 3 who said something variant on that - if that gets Greigied, they all should.

BTW - do Greigys ever come from anything other than in-match threads?

 

[pasag]

I mean, let's look at the dismissals...

Strauss - good ball, but bad shot, should never be trying to drive those at that stage when you know the ball is definately swinging.
Cook - played well but then got out in a familiar way, poor batting
Vaughan - excellent ball, didn't do a lot wrong
Pietersen - excellent ball, poor decision
Collingwood - haven't yet seen the dismissal
Bell - ditto
Prior - pretty much read Strauss

Collingwood's was pretty dire, was a good delivery by Sreesanth but not great. They showed it on slow mo again today and he was all over the place. The point I'm making though, is a some top notch deliveries and a good day from a bowling side shouldn't mean a batting line of this quality should be all over the place. IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Could quite easily see India getting 600 if things go their way - which they have so far.

I have to disagree. They'll declare before that. If they get a lead of about 250-275, they'll start thinking about the amount of time needed to bowl them out a second time.

In any case, I dont see us making 600 if England can keep it tight. The ball is still swinging. I predict a lead of about 100-125.

 

[Pratters]

Was thinking of this one tbh.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1280229&postcount=2977

The first part of that post was debatable. The post I quoted was dire but I guess he was picking on India in both posts and from that aspect, the post you quoted is worse.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood's was pretty dire, was a good delivery by Sreesanth but not great. They showed it on slow mo again today and he was all over the place. The point I'm making though, is a some top notch deliveries and a good day from a bowling side shouldn't mean a batting line of this quality should be all over the place. IMO.

The question is, how quality are they really?

The only person I'd really, with confidence, back to knuckle-down and give himself a chance in the sorts of conditions we saw yesterday is Cook, and sure enough...

Mind, you'd never, ever rule Pietersen out, and maybe if that'd been given not-out he might have changed everything.

Bell has the game to do it but just never has in his career to date, and that's immensely frustrating.

As I say, I'm fast losing patience with Strauss. It really is becoming a case of all you need to do to get him out is pitch the ****ing ball up, and that's just not on.

 

[Richard]

I have to disagree. They'll declare before that. If they get a lead of about 250-275, they'll start thinking about the amount of time needed to bowl them out a second time.

In any case, I dont see us making 600 if England can keep it tight. The ball is still swinging. I predict a lead of about 100-125.

You're an Indian pessimist, though, I'm and English pessimist (well, even leaving aside that I'm actually more Welsh than English and you're a Yank ) so we're bound to think differently.

The ball might still be swinging but so far it's just never really looked like getting any wickets, and something big has to change for wickets to start tumbling.

 

[pasag]

The question is, how quality are they really?

The only person I'd really, with confidence, back to knuckle-down and give himself a chance in the sorts of conditions we saw yesterday is Cook, and sure enough...

Mind, you'd never, ever rule Pietersen out, and maybe if that'd been given not-out he might have changed everything.

Bell has the game to do it but just never has in his career to date, and that's immensely frustrating.

As I say, I'm fast losing patience with Strauss. It really is becoming a case of all you need to do to get him out is pitch the ****ing ball up, and that's just not on.

Well I would say they were quite easily the second best batting side in the world before coming into this series, whatever that means. But yeah, with Collingwood and Strauss out of form that might not be so true anymore. The signs were certainly there during the Ashes, although playing a 4 Test series against the WI might have blurred things somewhat.

 

[Richard]

I'd argue that we weren't, TBH, our batting hasn't genuinely looked convincing (ie, not relying on let-offs, 1 player, or utterly terrible attacks) to me since 2002 and 2003.

I'll expand on why if you want.

 

[pasag]

I'd argue that we weren't, TBH, our batting hasn't genuinely looked convincing (ie, not relying on let-offs, 1 player, or utterly terrible attacks) to me since 2002 and 2003.

I'll expand on why if you want.

Go ahead

 

[Pratters]

I'd argue that we weren't, TBH, our batting hasn't genuinely looked convincing (ie, not relying on let-offs, 1 player, or utterly terrible attacks) to me since 2002 and 2003.

Which team's batting and bowling line ups have looked convincing to you since 2003?

 

[Richard]

Which team's batting and bowling line ups have looked convincing to you since 2003?

Australia more often than not, India until about 2 years ago, Pakistan sometimes, Sri Lanka sometimes, South Africa occasionally... a fair few, really.

 

[NUFAN]

Australia more often than not, India until about 2 years ago, Pakistan sometimes, Sri Lanka sometimes, South Africa occasionally... a fair few, really.

LOL but surely you think Englands have been sometimes too...

So really all your saying is Australia have been the best, no one else can match them and England's batting is similar to a fair few countries.

 

[Richard]

Go ahead

Would probably be more suitable for a separate thread, TBH, but I'd be reluctant to do that in the middle of a game as knowing odds-and-sod's law they'd bat brilliantly against some incredibly testing bowling in the second-innings and make me look a complete fool.

But anyway... here's a simplistic take on it:
Have been very average in this series so far;
West Indies' bowling earlier this summer wasn't even worth consideration really;
Were mostly poor in Australia in 2006\07;
Pakistan's bowling in 2006 was abysmal, not surprising as they were missing Shoaib, Asif and Shabbir;
Were mostly unconvincing against Lanka in 2006 when there was anything in the pitch (ie, after Lord's), bar that one knock from Pietersen at Edgbaston;
Were mostly poor in both Pakistan and India in 2005\06, a fact sometimes (though not always) covered-up by the ridiculous amount of let-offs most of our batsmen received, especially in Pakistan;
For The Ashes 2005 read Pakistan and India 2005\06;
In South Africa in 2004\05 were absurdly reliant on Strauss and 2 very big innings from Trescothick;
Neither New Zealand or West Indies' bowling in 2004 was worth a light;
So basically since the retirement and\or decline of Butcher, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe our batting has looked average, other than when the bowling's been truly terrible or when catches have been being shelled like peas.

 

[Richard]

LOL but surely you think Englands have been sometimes too...

Not really, never for more than 1 Test at a time or so (or when the bowling and\or catching has been fourth-rate).

 

[pasag]

Would probably be more suitable for a separate thread, TBH, but I'd be reluctant to do that in the middle of a game as knowing odds-and-sod's law they'd bat brilliantly against some incredibly testing bowling in the second-innings and make me look a complete fool.

But anyway... here's a simplistic take on it:
Have been very average in this series so far;
West Indies' bowling earlier this summer wasn't even worth consideration really;
Were mostly poor in Australia in 2006\07;
Pakistan's bowling in 2006 was abysmal, not surprising as they were missing Shoaib, Asif and Shabbir;
Were mostly unconvincing against Lanka in 2006 when there was anything in the pitch (ie, after Lord's), bar that one knock from Pietersen at Edgbaston;
Were mostly poor in both Pakistan and India in 2005\06, a fact sometimes (though not always) covered-up by the ridiculous amount of let-offs most of our batsmen received, especially in Pakistan;
For The Ashes 2005 read Pakistan and India 2005\06;
In South Africa in 2004\05 were absurdly reliant on Strauss and 2 very big innings from Trescothick;
Neither New Zealand or West Indies' bowling in 2004 was worth a light;
So basically since the retirement and\or decline of Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe our batting has looked average, other than when the bowling's been truly terrible or when catches have been being shelled like peas.

Lol fair enough, so it's probably me overrating them abit, more than anything.

 

[Richard]

Well, you and practically this entire country.