***Official England in India***

[Uppercut]

That's a part of his maturing as a batsman. He's just 26. I believe he is still the classiest of the lot. And this Indian tour could just do what 2001 did to Hayden. I can't believe such class can go unrewarded at Test Level. And his records are certainly not Ramprakish or Hickish to him being chucked out.

Well, a poor mentality is more difficult to solve than a poor technique. He averages 39 without Bangladesh. Not only that, he has a terrible record in India. I wouldn't drop him, there's noone pushing hard for his place, but I certainly don't expect him to play a starring role in this series. Because, well, he never does.

 

[pup11]

I'm fairly certain India will win this one, although with a two-test series it's difficult to know. I just don't feel Panesar has what it takes.

What the hell is going on, two of the top notch test teams in the world are going to play a two test series, why do even care to put a charade and tell the world how much the administrators care about test cricket, why not play ten T20's instead wasting ten days on playing two test matches.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, a poor mentality is more difficult to solve than a poor technique. He averages 39 without Bangladesh. Not only that, he has a terrible record in India. I wouldn't drop him, there's noone pushing hard for his place, but I certainly don't expect him to play a starring role in this series. Because, well, he never does.

As they say, there is always a first time.

And Panesar has hit some kind of a plateau right? His career average has been stagnant at 30, never dipping below. Even against easy opposition like NZ. And his record in India is hardly inspiring (averages 62 for 5 wkts). I think he will be easy fodder.

 

[pup11]

That's a part of his maturing as a batsman. He's just 26. I believe he is still the classiest of the lot. And this Indian tour could just do what 2001 did to Hayden. I can't believe such class can go unrewarded at Test Level. And his records are certainly not Ramprakish or Hickish to him being chucked out.

2001 series just didn't happen for Hayden, he worked his arse off preparing for that Indian tour, Bell seriously lacks application and the temperament to do well consistently over the period of time in any form of international cricket, the number of good starts he throws away is almost criminal and time has come for the England management to tell him to pull up his sockses .

 

[GIMH]

Averaging 50 would be great, but it's a lot to ask of an opener. If he did though, I'd rather that was 50 in every innings rather than alternating hundreds and ducks, just because he's an opener and it gives a platform for the rest of the lineup to succeed. The England batting lineup's failure to capitalise on it shouldn't in any way be laid at the feet of Cook.

I'd rather take the guy who scores 100 and 0. 100s win you games more often than 0s cost them, IMO.

I'm sure there has been a stats based argument on CW debating this in the past, but I don't get involved with those shenanigans!

 

[Uppercut]

I'd rather take the guy who scores 100 and 0. 100s win you games more often than 0s cost them, IMO.

I'm sure there has been a stats based argument on CW debating this in the past, but I don't get involved with those shenanigans!

The middle order are far more likely to get hundreds if the openers have scored 50 and seen off the new ball in the process, is my thinking.

 

[Richard]

Well, a poor mentality is more difficult to solve than a poor technique. He averages 39 without Bangladesh. Not only that, he has a terrible record in India.

That's not an entirely fair criticism. Bell's played 2 Tests in India as a middle-order batsman (plus 1 as an opener, which means nothing) and had 1 poor game and 1 good one.

That he's been extremely disappointing in his Test career so far despite rarely if ever looking out-of-nick isn't in doubt, but I wouldn't be basing any form of prediction on that.

As has been said by several people in several quarters, though, this latest promotion to three (thereby yet again showing that England are incapable of keeping him in one place) might just be the making or breaking of him. I've never been remotely keen on him at three, much prefer him at five or six, so I'd go for the latter if I had to go for something.

 

[Precambrian]

I'd rather take the guy who scores 100 and 0. 100s win you games more often than 0s cost them, IMO.

I'm sure there has been a stats based argument on CW debating this in the past, but I don't get involved with those shenanigans!

The middle order are far more likely to get hundreds if the openers have scored 50 and seen off the new ball in the process, is my thinking.

Why don't we take best of both worlds? One guy who does the seeing around... scores around his average every time and ensure the shine is taken off while the other guy just lambasts, sometimes scoring 100s and sometimes 0s.

India have Sehwag and Gambhir (though Gambhir is again moderately aggressive)

 

[pup11]

As they say, there is always a first time.

And Panesar has hit some kind of a plateau right? His career average has been stagnant at 30, never dipping below. Even against easy opposition like NZ. And his record in India is hardly inspiring (averages 62 for 5 wkts). I think he will be easy fodder.

In my book the problem lies in Panesar' attitude nowadays, the enthusiasm and passion with which he use to play his game earlier seems to be missing now, i don't know whether its due to the pressure of expectations or lack of focus in general, one would think after playing substantial amount of international cricket his bowling would have improved a bit, but that doesn't seem to be happening atm, and tbt i can only see him getting whooped in India.

 

[Richard]

That's a part of his maturing as a batsman. He's just 26. I believe he is still the classiest of the lot. And this Indian tour could just do what 2001 did to Hayden. I can't believe such class can go unrewarded at Test Level. And his records are certainly not Ramprakish or Hickish to him being chucked out.

2001 series just didn't happen for Hayden, he worked his arse off preparing for that Indian tour, Bell seriously lacks application and the temperament to do well consistently over the period of time in any form of international cricket, the number of good starts he throws away is almost criminal and time has come for the England management to tell him to pull up his sockses .

It's not like the 2000/01 series was any sort of watershed in Hayden's career - that came in 2001/02. Hayden had been an excellent batsman against spin and a poor one against quality seam for a fair while by that time, and had that India tour come slightly earlier it's still highly likely the results would've been similar.

I don't see this being any similar for Bell incidentally. Hayden as I said was always a superb player of spin and poor against seam; Bell is perfectly capable against both but just hasn't produced.

 

[Richard]

In my book the problem lies in Panesar' attitude nowadays, the enthusiasm and passion with which he use to play his game earlier seems to be missing now, i don't know whether its due to the pressure of expectations or lack of focus in general, one would think after playing substantial amount of international cricket his bowling would have improved a bit, but that doesn't seem to be happening atm, and tbt i can only see him getting whooped in India.

Nah, no way, the enthusiasm is and always has been there. Simple truth is he's a fingerspinner and many people got the idea back in 2006 that he was better than he actually is or could ever be. Now those unrealistic expectations haven't been fulfilled people think MSP is doing something wrong, but he's not - if anything he'd simply been too good too early.

That said, he and Kumble, and Harbhajan, are all more than capable of taking good bags if the pitches suit, as I naturally hope they do as India is supposed to be a place of turning pitches.

 

[Uppercut]

That's not an entirely fair criticism. Bell's played 2 Tests in India as a middle-order batsman (plus 1 as an opener, which means nothing) and had 1 poor game and 1 good one.

That he's been extremely disappointing in his Test career so far despite rarely if ever looking out-of-nick isn't in doubt, but I wouldn't be basing any form of prediction on that.

As has been said by several people in several quarters, though, this latest promotion to three (thereby yet again showing that England are incapable of keeping him in one place) might just be the making or breaking of him. I've never been remotely keen on him at three, much prefer him at five or six, so I'd go for the latter if I had to go for something.

I just don't think he's very good, frankly. I'm not into textbook techniques or kodak-moment offdrives. 43 tests is long enough to make a judgement, and when it comes down to it, he doesn't score many runs (averaging 39 minus Bangladesh is pretty poor) and more importantly, he doesn't score runs when the team most needs them.

 

[Uppercut]

Nah, no way, the enthusiasm is and always has been there. Simple truth is he's a fingerspinner and many people got the idea back in 2006 that he was better than he actually is or could ever be. Now those unrealistic expectations haven't been fulfilled people think MSP is doing something wrong, but he's not - if anything he'd simply been too good too early.

Nevertheless, an arm ball would be nice. If he could get decent variation of pace and flight like Daniel Vettori, while maintaining his big spin of the ball, he really could be a very effective bowler.

 

[Precambrian]

That's not an entirely fair criticism. Bell's played 2 Tests in India as a middle-order batsman (plus 1 as an opener, which means nothing) and had 1 poor game and 1 good one.

That he's been extremely disappointing in his Test career so far despite rarely if ever looking out-of-nick isn't in doubt, but I wouldn't be basing any form of prediction on that.

As has been said by several people in several quarters, though, this latest promotion to three (thereby yet again showing that England are incapable of keeping him in one place) might just be the making or breaking of him. I've never been remotely keen on him at three, much prefer him at five or six, so I'd go for the latter if I had to go for something.

Statistically he is much much better at being No.5 or No.6. He averages close to 50 in 24 tests he has batted down there. (excl Ban). He's poor at No.3, averaging 34. Perhaps has problems against swing. Perhaps the average at 5 and 6 is swelled by notouts.

 

[Richard]

Would like to see Badri and Kaif in the Indian team

Kaif? Goooood, I hope not. Not good enough for Tests for mine and never has been.

 

[Richard]

I just don't think he's very good, frankly. I'm not into textbook techniques or kodak-moment offdrives. 43 tests is long enough to make a judgement, and when it comes down to it, he doesn't score many runs (averaging 39 minus Bangladesh is pretty poor) and more importantly, he doesn't score runs when the team most needs them.

As I said, there's no arguing with the fact he's not been terribly good thus far, but like it or not technical excellence always shows a player has some amount of potential. The question is how long you wait until you decide it's unlikely to happen for them. That time may well be soon for Bell.

 

[Precambrian]

Kaif? Goooood, I hope not. Not good enough for Tests for mine and never has been.

He's a much improved batsman now. Consistently topping the domestic charts.

 

[Richard]

Nevertheless, an arm ball would be nice. If he could get decent variation of pace and flight like Daniel Vettori, while maintaining his big spin of the ball, he really could be a very effective bowler.

An arm-ball would indeed be useful, but it wouldn't make any difference on non-turning surfaces - an arm-ball and a non-turning off-break are pretty much the same thing.

As for good variation of flight and pace - that could turn him into an exceptionally effective bowler on turning pitches, but again it wouldn't help on non-turners as as Vettori's case shows, you can't flight batsmen out by the crateload.

 

[Precambrian]

That said, he and Kumble, and Harbhajan, are all more than capable of taking good bags if the pitches suit, as I naturally hope they do as India is supposed to be a place of turning pitches.

Well, last time her toured was 2 years back, and he came out a cropper. Piss poor returns of 5 wickets at 62 even on wickets like Mumbai (a ripper)

 

[Richard]

Don't think we'll get rolled over. It's easy to underestimate us but a fit, on-form Flintoff (which is what we have at the minute, and Flintoff is a player who generally being in form in one form of the game translates to all forms) makes a huge difference. If Harmison bowls well (who know if he will, but good signs are there) then he can do really good things. The effect of Anderson and Sidebottom will be interesting, though I doubt they will both play (can't believe I'm saying that, Anderson CAN'T be drdopped after this summer, but Sidebottom carried our attack for a year) as will our choice of spinner. Monty is yet to do much on the subcontinent, if he goes well then we will go well.

As for our batting line-up. Colly to be a gun, Bell & Cook to average between 40 and 60 without passing 100 and KP maybe to have his first decent series on the subcontinent?

If Michael Vaughan is selected I think he might well do great things. Some people might not think his batting form was affected by captaincy, I certainly do. If he comes out here and scores a lot of runs, it might go some way towards aiding my argument.

Anyway, nothing groundbreaking here. The fact is, we need more than we've had from the following players (or them to be replaced):

Cook
Strauss
Bell
Panesar

We need Anderson/Sidebottom to get some conditions that will do something for them.

We need Flintoff to continue his recent revival (more than we need anything else IMO). We need Harmison & Colly to build on the signs they have shown of returning to former glories.

And of course, can KP continue to be the golden boy, that's the question/

Big ask from me now that i think about it. here's the XI I expect to be on the park for the first Test:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen*
Collingwood
Flintoff
Patel
Prior+
Harmison
Anderson
Panesar

Will probably get it completely wrong, but just got a feeling about this.

Sidebottom, Bell, Broad may well all feature, Ambrose I expect to be in the squad as well. Would be surprised if we saw anyone else play in either of the Tests (well, except for the Indian players).

Long time to go yet, I think Simon Jones' latest setback rules him out though (think he is only out for a few weeks, but really, West Indies (the proper tour not the Stanford one)is the absolutely earliest I expect to see him now)

edit - forgot about Shah actually, wouldn't be surprised to see him picked either, especially if Vaughan doesn't get selected

I'm very surprised you think Vaughan will get in the squad, never mind the team for the opening Test.

If Harmison bowls as he did at The Oval (what people viewed as well) he won't have any effect if India bat well.

If I had to guess at the bowling-attack for the Test I'd probably take a punt on Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison, MSP. I hope there won't be a second spinner because there's just no need. And if there is one I hope it's Swann.