Are India the second best team in the world?

[Precambrian]

And that post shows your attitude.

The pitch for the 3rd Test was clearly "dodgy".

India had to do it, all the talk leading into the Test was that India had to do it and they did do it.

A track was produced that would make batting very, very difficult to make sure a result occured.

It didnt matter to India if the lost 0-2 but it gave them a 50/50 chance of drawing the series 1-1.

It was a strategic result pitch on which the game didnt last 3 days.

It was a strategic gamble by India.

I have no issue with the tactic but given we all know what was happening in the lead up to the Test and during the Test it is silly to deny it 6 months later.

Why a track like that is called "Dodgy"? And the one previous to that (in which SA won) not?

Batting was difficult (relatively) on both pitches right? India found it difficult to bat on the "greentop", while SA found it difficult on the "turner"/

Why this stepmotherly treatment to pitches that aid spin? Why the pitch has to take blame for SA not having quality spinners to utilise the pitch?

Isn't it double standards?

 

[biased indian]

And that post shows your attitude.

The pitch for the 3rd Test was clearly "dodgy".

India had to do it, all the talk leading into the Test was that India had to do it and they did do it.

A track was produced that would make batting very, very difficult to make sure a result occured.

It didnt matter to India if the lost 0-2 but it gave them a 50/50 chance of drawing the series 1-1.

It was a strategic result pitch on which the game didnt last 3 days.

It was a strategic gamble by India.

I have no issue with the tactic but given we all know what was happening in the lead up to the Test and during the Test it is silly to deny it 6 months later.

so according to your theory a pitch is dodgy base on the situation

in the same ind vs sa series the first test was played on a road ...but if india had prepared a road at kanpur aganist Australia since it was leading the series whould that have been called dodgy

and was the pitch used in the last ind vs nz series in nz dodgy ???

 

[Salamuddin]

I do think the Indian side that just played Australia was decidedly stronger than the one that RSA beat at Ahmedabad.

Gambhir, Mishra, Tendulkar, Ishant and Zaheer all did not play in that match.

I'd back the current Indian side to beat South Africa fairly comfortably if they played in a four test series in India right now.

 

[Uppercut]

That's a bit of a selective measure though isn't it? India have played Australia in Australia and at home during that time. They both won in England, they both won in WI. They both beat SL at home. India lost to SA away, which is fair enough, and SL away. And I'd back SL to beat SA in SL with Mendis and Murali definitely.

So I think we're not comparing apples to apples when you throw that stat out.

Yeah, that's definitely relevant, which makes it very close. However comparing South Africa's last two series against Australia with India's last two isn't comparing apples to apples either; when SA played them last their team still had Kasprowicz, Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn and most importantly Warne. Not only that, but SA have had a pretty major overhaul since then, when they last played Australia Boje, Pollock, Rudolph, Hall and Dippenar all played. Using that series as a comparison isn't quite right, which is what makes the upcoming series so crucial.

 

[RhyZa]

I do think the Indian side that just played Australia was decidedly stronger than the one that RSA beat at Ahmedabad.

Gambhir, Mishra, Tendulkar, Ishant and Zaheer all did not play in that match.

I'd back the current Indian side to beat South Africa fairly comfortably if they played in a four test series in India right now.

Good point. I agree.

From the looks of things Aussie are on the way down (still #1 for now, but not by much, they earned that leeway), India are on the way up and SA are sort of levelled off but I don't think they're a powerhouse that some make them out to be.

 

[popepouri]

Why a track like that is called "Dodgy"? And the one previous to that (in which SA won) not?

Because it was a good batting pitch as evident was the 494/7 decl. that SA made. That's why India won the toss and batted.

Batting was difficult (relatively) on both pitches right? India found it difficult to bat on the "greentop", while SA found it difficult on the "turner"/

No. India batting poorly.

It doesn't really matter anyways since India won the toss.

 

[Precambrian]

Because it was a good batting pitch as evident was the 494/7 decl. that SA made. That's why India won the toss and batted.



No. India batting poorly.

It doesn't really matter anyways since India won the toss.

Same argument holds for SA in the third test. SA batted poorly. The pitch should not be an excuse for that.

 

[tooextracool]

Beating Australia in your own backyard is no longer the barometer for ranking a side as 2nd best in the world, it may have been in the past, but this result was widely predicted by almost anyone who has been keeping up with the game off late. I think we can only really see how much progress India have made when we see them brood the replacements for Kumble, Ganguly and possibly Dravid and when they play against teams like South Africa, Australia and England abroad.