***Official England in India***

[G.I.Joe]

Why the hell have the BCCI and ECB arranged a two test series? Surely common sense should have over ruled the lure of the $$ and made them realise the prestige of an India-England test series?

 

[Woodster]

Cash is King! They can cqueeze more ODI's in this way, as the BCCI were unwilling to sacrifice any of those for another Test, think I'm right in saying.

 

[fredfertang]

From what I've read in the English cricket press Hoggy's perceived to have lost a bit of nip & he's of an age where such things are generally attributed to the ravages of time rather than blips in form. What is undeniable is that he's lost his central contract, so is clearly has a few seamers ahead of him in our selectors' minds.

Mike Selvey wrote a rather good valedictory article in The Guardian for anyone who's interested.

Every hog has his day and this one had many of them - he will be fondly remembered - ironically probably more than anything else for that cover drive

 

[G.I.Joe]

Cash is King! They can cqueeze more ODI's in this way, as the BCCI were unwilling to sacrifice any of those for another Test, think I'm right in saying.

Sad, really sad.

The ICC should cap the number of ODI's permitted per team annually like they did for the Twenty20s.

Edit: Would make the ODIs played more meaningful too.

 

[Richard]

Why the hell have the BCCI and ECB arranged a two test series? Surely common sense should have over ruled the lure of the $$ and made them realise the prestige of an India-England test series?

Cash is King! They can cqueeze more ODI's in this way, as the BCCI were unwilling to sacrifice any of those for another Test, think I'm right in saying.

England weren't completely blameless in the saga, there could've been a third Test if they'd not been more concerned on being home for the Xmas\NY period. Fair enough in a way, like going for the ICL is, but disappointing in others.

There was a thread about 3-4 months ago about the matter, which TBH I think would do well to be merged with this, it's highly relevant.

 

[Richard]

Sorry but I disagree here. Craig White was a far more talented bowler than Flintoff. AFAIC, White could do things that Flintoff couldnt even dream off. That is no slight on Flintoff, for he is a fine bowler, but Flintoff is the sort of bowler that simply makes bowling look harder than it is with his rather ungainly action and has very little variety in his bowling.

White made bowling look far easier, certainly - I think it was Kev who noted a little while ago, on his sterling comeback performance at Edgbaston, that bowling every delivery seemed to require every ounce of effort he possessed. White on the other hand simply jogged to the crease and still bowled even quicker than Flintoff can.

White also had a generally better grasp of the orthodox seam-bowling techniques (ie, seam and conventional-swing). But in the departments that generally set bowlers of excellence apart from bowlers of mere high-calibre (eg, reverse-swing), there isn't much between them IMO.

The one area Flintoff has over White is that bowling good lines seems to come rather more naturally to him. He also has the one advantage of being taller and longer of limb.

 

[Woodster]

England weren't completely blameless in the saga, there could've been a third Test if they'd not been more concerned on being home for the Xmas\NY period. Fair enough in a way, like going for the ICL is, but disappointing in others.

There was a thread about 3-4 months ago about the matter, which TBH I think would do well to be merged with this, it's highly relevant.

Yes England did want to be home for the Xmas period, there is that to account into it.
However, 2 Test matches and 7 ODI's is ridiculous. There is absolutely no need for this amount of ODI's, but that's what draws the crowds in and where money is made in India. I don't agree at all with it, when Test cricket is and should be the ultimate contest, however, the people in power seem keen to push everything towards limited overs cricket for the financial aspects.

 

[Richard]

I'm not an enormous fan of 7-ODI series, no (though I also hate 3-match contests - 5 is the ideal number IMO). But if things had worked-out well, we could've had 7 ODIs and 3 Tests. If India had been free a couple of weeks earlier, the tour could've started that much earlier.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not an enormous fan of 7-ODI series, no (though I also hate 3-match contests - 5 is the ideal number IMO). But if things had worked-out well, we could've had 7 ODIs and 3 Tests. If India had been free a couple of weeks earlier, the tour could've started that much earlier.

0 is the ideal number for an ODI series IMO. Play tests instead.

 

[Richard]

TV companies don't pay enough for broadcast rights to a Test series alone to keep the game afloat. That's today's reality. ODIs are neccessary. If we had no ODIs, we'd have no Tests either because no-one would be able to afford to stage them.

And I for one would find a game composed exclusively of Tests less interesting than one composed of Tests and ODIs.

 

[FBU]

Sorry but I disagree here. Craig White was a far more talented bowler than Flintoff. AFAIC, White could do things that Flintoff couldnt even dream off. That is no slight on Flintoff, for he is a fine bowler, but Flintoff is the sort of bowler that simply makes bowling look harder than it is with his rather ungainly action and has very little variety in his bowling.

.

I agree that White was the better bowler at the time. It funny to think he was a spin bowler who was just trying a bit of seam bowling in the nets and ended up being a fast bowler.

 

[aussie]

Sorry but I disagree here. Craig White was a far more talented bowler than Flintoff. AFAIC, White could do things that Flintoff couldnt even dream off.

Ha, really?. Don't think White could have done what Freddie did in the Ashes, but i do think Flintoff of 2004 to now could definately have matches White's feats in the sub-continent in 2000/2001

That is no slight on Flintoff, for he is a fine bowler, but Flintoff is the sort of bowler that simply makes bowling look harder than it is with his rather ungainly action and has very little variety in his bowling.

Yea he does look a bit laborious in his bowling stride at times. But to say he has no variety in his bowling, well i'll just have to wonder what you consider variety in bowlers armory?, because Flintoff certainly is by no means gun barrel straight...

 

[Jakester1288]

I think the ideal series is 3 tests and 5 ODI's.

0 is the ideal number for an ODI series IMO. Play tests instead.

I agree, but seeing that we virtually have no choice, I think 5 is the way to go.

 

[Richard]

Ha, really?. Don't think White could have done what Freddie did in the Ashes, but i do think Flintoff of 2004 to now could definately have matches White's feats in the sub-continent in 2000/2001

I think both could quite possibly have achieved the other's feat. White in 2000 bowled about as well as Flintoff in 2005 for mine, just the series wasn't quite as momentous (though it was far from low-profile) so he didn't get so much credit.

And of course he didn't bat anywhere near as well in it.

 

[aussie]

I think both could quite possibly have achieved the other's feat. White in 2000 bowled about as well as Flintoff in 2005 for mine, just the series wasn't quite as momentous (though it was far from low-profile) so he didn't get so much credit.

And of course he didn't bat anywhere near as well in it.

If White could have done what Freddie did in 05, he would have made some sort of impact vs AUS in 01 after the sub-continent tours since he had declined as a bowler as yet.

 

[Uppercut]

If White could have done what Freddie did in 05, he would have made some sort of impact vs AUS in 01 after the sub-continent tours since he had declined as a bowler as yet.

You can't say that, nine times out of ten Freddie wouldn't have managed what he did in '05.

 

[Richard]

If White could have done what Freddie did in 05, he would have made some sort of impact vs AUS in 01 after the sub-continent tours since he had declined as a bowler as yet.

No, not neccessarily. White was woefully below his best in the summer of 2001, having got injured. After that injury, he was never really the same bowler again, though he continued to give glimpses of it for another couple of years until he was well-and-truly finished as a bowler by another injury in 2002/03.

 

[Furball]

I think the ideal series is 3 tests and 5 ODI's.



I agree, but seeing that we virtually have no choice, I think 5 is the way to go.

4 Tests should be the absolute minimum between sides in the top 4.

When this tour was announced there was a possibility of it being Number 2 vs Number 3 in the world - for 2 of the highest ranking sides in the world to be contesting a 2 Test series is a joke.

 

[Richard]

I'm not really all that much of a four-Test-series fan either TBH. Sure, it's far better than two, but normally I'd go for three under most circumstances, and five - sometimes six if circumstances allow - under exceptional ones (ie the series with most potential - England vs SA, England vs Australia, India vs Pakistan, Australia vs SA).

However a six-Test series has been an extreme rarity in recent times. Since The Ashes 1997, the only ones have been the home-and-away-leg Aus-vs-SA series'.

 

[Goughy]

I'm not really all that much of a four-Test-series fan either TBH. Sure, it's far better than two, but normally I'd go for three under most circumstances, and five - sometimes six if circumstances allow - under exceptional ones (ie the series with most potential - England vs SA, England vs Australia, India vs Pakistan, Australia vs SA).

However a six-Test series has been an extreme rarity in recent times. Since The Ashes 1997, the only ones have been the home-and-away-leg Aus-vs-SA series'.

I swear at times you get bored and just try and cause controversy