***Official England in India***

[Richard]

TBF, I'd not this time be expecting another surface like that at The Wankhede in 2005/06 (or indeed the preceding Test which was similar, though which Anderson did not play).

 

[Furball]

Seeing Sidebottoms figures like that shows how appaling it is that he was dropped tbh, I didn't realise how good his figures had been over the summer, really awful choice by the selectors to get rid of him.

To be fair, those figures include Sidebottom's brilliant tour of New Zealand.

Taking figures purely from the home summer season, Anderson was head and shoulders above any other English seamer.

 

[sledger]

Mmmm yes, fair point, but even so...should perhaps been given more than so many matches grace imo..

 

[Uppercut]

I have high hopes for Flintoff, as I always do (even if he just gets 4-90). Likewise, people go OTT about how good Indian batsmen are against spin - if the ball turns and a bowler is capable of tossing it up and firing it through flat (ie, using variation of flight) any batsman, however good, will struggle and the bowler will pick-up wickets.

I don't expect MSP to do that, of course, as he's yet to really demonstrate a particular excellence at doing it all career. He should turn it, but yes, without good variations of flight I'd expect the Dravids, Tendulkars and Laxmans to have little problem with him.

I don't know, I hate to keep coming back to the Shane Warne example so here's some other spinner averages in India:

Warne- 43.12
Daniel Vettori- 51.53
Paul Harris- 51.00
Mushtaq Ahmed- 37.50
Muttiah Muralitharan- 39.58

The one success i found was Saqlain Mushtaq, with just over 20. While i wouldn't advocate dropping Panesar, the idea that Graeme Swann as a second spinner is remotely viable doesn't get off the ground.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, AWTA, not sure on Swann in the Test side anyhow. If he's picked over Anderson then I'll do a lap of my estate naked, whilst singing "Jimmy jimmy jimmy jimmy anderson"

 

[Richard]

I don't know, I hate to keep coming back to the Shane Warne example so here's some other spinner averages in India:

Warne- 43.12
Daniel Vettori- 51.53
Paul Harris- 51.00
Mushtaq Ahmed- 37.50
Muttiah Muralitharan- 39.58

The one success i found was Saqlain Mushtaq, with just over 20. While i wouldn't advocate dropping Panesar, the idea that Graeme Swann as a second spinner is remotely viable doesn't get off the ground.

Oh absolutely, I don't particularly like the idea of Swann either. I'm happy for him to be in the squad as I don't see anything to suggest he's not the second-best long-form spinner in the country, but I only want him to play if MSP goes down and can't play in a Test.

However there are reasons for all the above, and it doesn't fit into the nice neat little "Indian batsmen are too good for all spinners" because a quality bowler controls the game regardless of how good the batsmen are - he has the ball in his hand. Vettori has played on a sum-total of 1 turning pitch in India (all the other 4 Tests were ridiculously high-scoring draws) and did decently on it IIRR; Mushtaq I don't think ever played in India at a time he was bowling well against anyone (which was between 1995/96 and 1997/98); Murali suffers from something similar to both, in that his first two series' he wasn't that good at all and the second he had to contend with some obscenely flat pitches. IIRR, at other times he's done pretty decently against them. And while Warne is sometimes over-excused, the fact remains that he was often short of fitness against India and I can't conceive anyone would honestly suggest he bowled exactly as he normally bowls in either 1997/98 or 2000/01 - there was certainly a fair amount of degredation for mine, and around that same time he also did poorly against a number of other teams.

Harris I can't really explain - and I'm sure there are others - apart from maybe he just didn't bowl too well. Though only 1 of the 3 pitches could be called a turner.

I guess the upshot is that not all Indian pitches are turners and if you're bowling non-turning balls at 50mph against most Indian batsmen (even relatively poor players like Gautam Gambhir, Mohammad Kaif and Anil Kumble) you're not going to get much change. And equally you need to be at the top of your game as a spinner even if the pitch is turning, which not a few spinners have managed not to be at just the wrong time.

I seem to remember - not sure if this is right - that Robert Croft had a measure of success, admittedly only for England A rather than in a Test, in India. And he is precisely the sort of skilled flight bowler who can extract turn from a helpful surface that you need.

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, they were just five random examples- i didn't think you'd be able to dissect them all one by one. While i'd agree with you on two main points- that a quality bowler can always control the game, and that the Indian batsmen's skill against spin is sometimes overstated, there's something your explanation fails to explain. In the same era, Harbajahan averages 26 in India while Kumble averages 24. Often on the same pitches where Warne, Murali, Vettori all failed. The only variable here seems to be the batsmen and their familiarity with their home conditions. If it's not for their prowess against spin, what's causing the vast difference between home-spinner form and away-spinner form? You could say away-batsmen vulnerability to spin, but that's exactly the same thing surely?

 

[tooextracool]

I don't know, I hate to keep coming back to the Shane Warne example so here's some other spinner averages in India:

Warne- 43.12
Daniel Vettori- 51.53
Paul Harris- 51.00
Mushtaq Ahmed- 37.50
Muttiah Muralitharan- 39.58

The one success i found was Saqlain Mushtaq, with just over 20. While i wouldn't advocate dropping Panesar, the idea that Graeme Swann as a second spinner is remotely viable doesn't get off the ground.

Good point, and precisely why I advocated Samit Patel over Graeme Swann.

 

[tooextracool]

And while Warne is sometimes over-excused, the fact remains that he was often short of fitness against India and I can't conceive anyone would honestly suggest he bowled exactly as he normally bowls in either 1997/98 or 2000/01 - there was certainly a fair amount of degredation for mine, and around that same time he also did poorly against a number of other teams.

Warne in 1997 was probably about as good as Warne had been in that entire decade. I watched that series, it wasnt even a case of Warne bowling poorly, in fact at times he was bowling unbelievably well. However, Tendulkar just whooped him all over the country and the likes of Sidhu and Azharuddin are seriously not too far behind when it comes to their ability to play spin. Obviously, in 2004/05 he was a far more complete bowler, and arguably bowled better than at any other time in his career.

I guess the upshot is that not all Indian pitches are turners and if you're bowling non-turning balls at 50mph against most Indian batsmen (even relatively poor players like Gautam Gambhir, Mohammad Kaif and Anil Kumble) you're not going to get much change.

Actually Kaif and Gambhir are both excellent players of spin. Its their ability against pace that sometimes comes under scrutiny although in Kaif's case I dont think hes really had a decent run in the side, which it appears Gambhir is now getting.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, they were just five random examples- i didn't think you'd be able to dissect them all one by one. While i'd agree with you on two main points- that a quality bowler can always control the game, and that the Indian batsmen's skill against spin is sometimes overstated, there's something your explanation fails to explain. In the same era, Harbajahan averages 26 in India while Kumble averages 24. Often on the same pitches where Warne, Murali, Vettori all failed. The only variable here seems to be the batsmen and their familiarity with their home conditions. If it's not for their prowess against spin, what's causing the vast difference between home-spinner form and away-spinner form? You could say away-batsmen vulnerability to spin, but that's exactly the same thing surely?

You could dig-out a fair few series' where none of them achieved much though. It's just that Kumble and Harbhajan, being their home country, get the chance to play there more often and being of the quality they are, they get it right eventually.

If Warne or whoever played every other series in India, I'm fairly convinced his record would be rather better than it is.

 

[sledger]

You could dig-out a fair few series' where none of them achieved much though. It's just that Kumble and Harbhajan, being their home country, get the chance to play there more often and being of the quality they are, they get it right eventually.

If Warne or whoever played every other series in India, I'm fairly convinced his record would be rather better than it is.

That'd probably true for most bowlers playing anywhere in the world though.

I.e. If X bowler played the majority of his matches in X location then chanches are his record in X location would be a lot better.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that's the point I was making, really.

 

[sledger]

Woosh on my part.

 

[Uppercut]

You could dig-out a fair few series' where none of them achieved much though. It's just that Kumble and Harbhajan, being their home country, get the chance to play there more often and being of the quality they are, they get it right eventually.

If Warne or whoever played every other series in India, I'm fairly convinced his record would be rather better than it is.

Yeah, definitely true. But the broader point of pacemen being more effective than spinners in India against India, often despite conditions, still stands.

 

[Richard]

Oh, good-quality seamers, sure - I've long maintained that the best seamers are better than the best spinners under any circumstances. Likewise an above-average seamer >>>>> an above-average spinner under almost all circumstances, and > under pretty much any.

But if it's a choice between a pretty average seamer and a good spinner in India, I'd go for the latter every time, even if there have been a fair few instances where the results have been indecipherable from one-another.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh, good-quality seamers, sure - I've long maintained that the best seamers are better than the best spinners under any circumstances. Likewise an above-average seamer >>>>> an above-average spinner under almost all circumstances, and > under pretty much any.

But if it's a choice between a pretty average seamer and a good spinner in India, I'd go for the latter every time, even if there have been a fair few instances where the results have been indecipherable from one-another.

Ah yeah, i'd never advocate dropping Vettori or Panesar just because you're playing India. Nevertheless, every time someone tours India people seem to suggest that because conditions are more likely to favour spin, they should bring in an extra spinner, when really there's no advantage to it- the helpful conditions negated by the quality and experience of the Indian batsmen against it in comparison with their ability against pace.

FTR, I'd go for:

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior
Anderson
Harmison
Panesar

 

[GIMH]

This isn't in direct response to anyone, but I'd bet my balls on Flintoff batting 6 in the first Test (if fit etc)

 

[zaremba]

This isn't in direct response to anyone, but I'd bet my balls on Flintoff batting 6 in the first Test (if fit etc)

You could be right but, despite the evidence (not least KP saying that he wants Fred at 6), I really hope not. Ideally 7 or even 8 for me.

 

[GIMH]

We'll never see him batting at 8, I'm confident of that. Think he's wasted at 8 anyway tbh. Too low for someone with five tons and as dangerous as him.

 

[Woodster]

Would be happy to see him at 7 and Prior at 6.