Which series/tournament got you most pumped up?

[GIMH]

I know where you're coming from SS. I'm playing Devil's Advocate itbt, it's best for Fuller to actually answer you himself. I must say, though, that I'm not one to look into previous results too much unless the nucleus of the side is the same

 

[Richard]

Mmm. Isn't there current test form something like, won 9 of their last 10 series and drawn the other one due to the joke-pitch in India earlier this year?

Motera being the joke, I presume?

Incidentally, SA's series record is:
England (a) - won
India (a) - drawn
West Indies (h) - won
New Zealand (h) - won
Pakistan (a) - won
Pakistan (h) - won
India (h) - won
Sri Lanka (a) - lost
New Zealand (h) - won
Then for the previous 3 years the only team they'd beaten was West Indies. Their form has been remarkably up-and-down the past decade.

 

[Uppercut]

Motera being the joke, I presume?

Incidentally, SA's series record is:
England (a) - won
India (a) - drawn
West Indies (h) - won
New Zealand (h) - won
Pakistan (a) - won
Pakistan (h) - won
India (h) - won
Sri Lanka (a) - lost
New Zealand (h) - won
Then for the previous 3 years the only team they'd beaten was West Indies. Their form has been remarkably up-and-down the past decade.

Motera? I'm missing you there.

Okay, got it a little out. Still an excellent recent record. I don't expect them to beat Australia, anyway. Just thought they have as good a chance as India.

 

[Rickripper]

Pretty hard to narrow it down to just three series. I won't go for the 2005 Ashes, it's too obvious.

Soooo

- England in South Africa 2004/05
- Australia in India 2001
- The Twenty20 World Cup, the final alone was enough to clinch that one

 

[honestbharani]

Mmm. Isn't there current test form something like, won 9 of their last 10 series and drawn the other one due to the joke-pitch in India earlier this year?

the Test they won against us was pretty much a joke pitch too........

 

[Richard]

Motera? I'm missing you there.

Motera, Ahmedabad - where India played a "home" Test and got a pitch that couldn't have been more Headingley or Wanderers esque if you'd tried. That truly was farcical, though I suppose you could argue the ridiculous pitch at the Chepauk, Chennai was even more so.

Okay, got it a little out. Still an excellent recent record. I don't expect them to beat Australia, anyway. Just thought they have as good a chance as India.

Based purely on the quality of player, certainly. But based on recent encounters (which can be both useful guides and completely irrelevant) I'd say India were more likely every time, though SA should be capable of being the better all-round team.

 

[Uppercut]

the Test they won against us was pretty much a joke pitch too........

Hum, well i'm not going to dismiss that completely, but there's a few things to qualify that:

1. The ground staff stated beforehand that it was a sporting pitch, one that would have a bit for the seamers on the first couple of days but break up later on for the spinners on days four and five. The test didn't get to day four, so we'll never know.

2. Kumble actually won the toss, and made a huge balls-up by choosing to bat.

3. It wasn't a 70~ all-out first innings pitch. India played absolutely horribly and got stuffed, if they had played like that on any pitch they'd have lost.

4. India prepared both pitches, so have less of a legitimate grievance than SA (although to be fair to SA, they were completely sporting about the whole thing and refused to blame it for their loss).

So while on the whole a draw was a fair result in the series, having watched pretty much the whole thing i definitely thought SA were the better team throughout the series, if not by a huge margin. And considering it's the only series they've failed to win in a pretty long time, i'd also say they have a better chance in Australia than India- even accounting for their rotten record there.

 

[honestbharani]

Hum, well i'm not going to dismiss that completely, but there's a few things to qualify that:

1. The ground staff stated beforehand that it was a sporting pitch, one that would have a bit for the seamers on the first couple of days but break up later on for the spinners on days four and five. The test didn't get to day four, so we'll never know.

2. Kumble actually won the toss, and made a huge balls-up by choosing to bat.

3. It wasn't a 70~ all-out first innings pitch. India played absolutely horribly and got stuffed, if they had played like that on any pitch they'd have lost.

4. India prepared both pitches, so have less of a legitimate grievance than SA (although to be fair to SA, they were completely sporting about the whole thing and refused to blame it for their loss).

So while on the whole a draw was a fair result in the series, having watched pretty much the whole thing i definitely thought SA were the better team throughout the series, if not by a huge margin. And considering it's the only series they've failed to win in a pretty long time, i'd also say they have a better chance in Australia than India- even accounting for their rotten record there.

I am not denying that RSA LOOKED the better side in that series, neither am I suggesting they are not more likely than India to win in Australia.. But to dismiss India's win in that series and the result of the series therefore, is a huge huge overstatement. India won on the sort of pitches you do get in the subcontinent. That wicket at Nagpur was not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination. It was a typical subcontinental turner.. It was as much of a bad pitch as a gloomy and overcast Headingley is.... On flat decks or in conditions that are same for both sides, my gut feeling is that RSA in that form were a better side than India in that form... But that should, in no way,shape or form, take away from the series result. Plenty of series have been drawn when one team has looked significantly better than the other, India's tour of Australia in 2003 being the example......

 

[Richard]

That wicket at Nagpur was not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination. It was a typical subcontinental turner..

Green Park Kanpur, wasn't it?

 

[honestbharani]

Green Park Kanpur, wasn't it?

yeah.. got confused a bit..

 

[Uppercut]

I am not denying that RSA LOOKED the better side in that series, neither am I suggesting they are not more likely than India to win in Australia.. But to dismiss India's win in that series and the result of the series therefore, is a huge huge overstatement. India won on the sort of pitches you do get in the subcontinent. That wicket at Nagpur was not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination. It was a typical subcontinental turner.. It was as much of a bad pitch as a gloomy and overcast Headingley is.... On flat decks or in conditions that are same for both sides, my gut feeling is that RSA in that form were a better side than India in that form... But that should, in no way,shape or form, take away from the series result. Plenty of series have been drawn when one team has looked significantly better than the other, India's tour of Australia in 2003 being the example......

It was not a typical sub-continent turner... it was a pitch that was borderline dangerous. Even when the pacemen were bowling the ball was shooting off cracks in all directions, it hadn't been watered in over two weeks. On the first day the umpires appeared to discuss the safety of the players, and after the match, the BCCI were warned for preparing a sub-standard pitch for a test match. Mickey Arthur, before the match, called it "the worst pitch i have ever seen". This was no typical sub-continent turner.

Nevertheless, i agree that the series was a draw and should remain as such (obviously) but my point was that watching it gave me the impression that SA had a better chance of overtaking Australia than India.

 

[honestbharani]

It was not a typical sub-continent turner... it was a pitch that was borderline dangerous. Even when the pacemen were bowling the ball was shooting off cracks in all directions, it hadn't been watered in over two weeks. On the first day the umpires appeared to discuss the safety of the players, and after the match, the BCCI were warned for preparing a sub-standard pitch for a test match. Mickey Arthur, before the match, called it "the worst pitch i have ever seen". This was no typical sub-continent turner.

Nevertheless, i agree that the series was a draw and should remain as such (obviously) but my point was that watching it gave me the impression that SA had a better chance of overtaking Australia than India.

There were more cracks than normal, but if you think these pitches are dangerous, you must have seen some of the tracks we used to play in, in the 90s..


Sorry, watched the full game, never felt it was so mortally dangerous for the batters at any particular moment.. Difficult pitch, bit of a lottery, yes sure.. But not so dangerous as to discuss calling off the game etc.. and certainly not bad enough to ICC to ask for explanation. If anything, I want the ICC to launch an enquiry abt the ridiculous pitch at Chepauk..


Anyways, the gist of your post, I do agree with. Obviously, we have differing views abt that Kanpur pitch, but we can leave it at that.

 

[Uppercut]

There were more cracks than normal, but if you think these pitches are dangerous, you must have seen some of the tracks we used to play in, in the 90s..


Sorry, watched the full game, never felt it was so mortally dangerous for the batters at any particular moment.. Difficult pitch, bit of a lottery, yes sure.. But not so dangerous as to discuss calling off the game etc.. and certainly not bad enough to ICC to ask for explanation. If anything, I want the ICC to launch an enquiry abt the ridiculous pitch at Chepauk..


Anyways, the gist of your post, I do agree with. Obviously, we have differing views abt that Kanpur pitch, but we can leave it at that.

The pitch at Chepauk? One that offers a bit to the seamers at first, levels out, then breaks up for the spinners for days four and five? Those pitches are perfect provided neither team gets dismissed in the first session.

 

[Richard]

No, the pitch at Chepauk was the one which produced 650 plays 700 or whatever it was. Fascinating though chanceless triple-centuries are, and we were fortunate that in that game we happened to be graced with one, I can't ever get terribly excited about matches like that. There's just no point in playing them, it's just a foregone-conclusion draw. Once the opening Test of a series is one of those, you're basically playing a two-Test series, which as everyone knows I hate hate hate.

 

[Uppercut]

No, the pitch at Chepauk was the one which produced 650 plays 700 or whatever it was. Fascinating though chanceless triple-centuries are, and we were fortunate that in that game we happened to be graced with one, I can't ever get terribly excited about matches like that. There's just no point in playing them, it's just a foregone-conclusion draw. Once the opening Test of a series is one of those, you're basically playing a two-Test series, which as everyone knows I hate hate hate.

Oooo my mistake. I'm making a lot of those again today. Apologies and complete agreement to bharani

 

[Rickripper]

How on Earth do you guys remember individual pitches in India? There are way too many. I struggle to remember the pitches here in England, let alone anywhere else.

 

[Richard]

Well, you know... it's kinda hard to say how you remember stuff. It just... happens... really.

 

[Rickripper]

Hah, I guess it comes with experience really. I've only been watching/listening to cricket for like 7 years, and only recently gotten Sky, so I've had very little exposure to games on the sub-continent. The Sri Lanka vs India series is probably only the third or fourth series I've been able to watch that didn't involve England. Unfortunately, with a tasty winter schedule coming up, I'm off to uni and will be back to the ball-by-ball commentary on cricinfo.

 

[Uppercut]

Hah, I guess it comes with experience really. I've only been watching/listening to cricket for like 7 years, and only recently gotten Sky, so I've had very little exposure to games on the sub-continent. The Sri Lanka vs India series is probably only the third or fourth series I've been able to watch that didn't involve England. Unfortunately, with a tasty winter schedule coming up, I'm off to uni and will be back to the ball-by-ball commentary on cricinfo.

Ditto. Depressing, and i don't think there's any way to get the cricket on my laptop because the software they offer you only gives you a bunch of freeview channels and maybe setanta. If there was i would undoubtedly pay whatever it took; there's nothing i love more than putting my feet up at 12.30am for a long dozy night of Australian cricket.

 

[Rickripper]

Ditto. Depressing, and i don't think there's any way to get the cricket on my laptop because the software they offer you only gives you a bunch of freeview channels and maybe setanta. If there was i would undoubtedly pay whatever it took; there's nothing i love more than putting my feet up at 12.30am for a long dozy night of Australian cricket.

Oh well, I guess it's back to TMS for us. Perhaps a blessing in disguise, they were great fun during the NZ tour. Still, it'd be nice if they covered someone other than England once in a while.