***Official England in India***

[Richard]

Well i certainly wasnt expecting this when i woke up today. I just get the feeling with England we will need at least 100 lead. I just dont trust our batsmen not to collapse :P

I wont feel comfertable to bowl India out unless we have a 400 run lead. Although 300 is probably enough given how the pitch will play on day 4/5.

I honestly believe that a set target of 250 would require England to bowl abysmally (abysmally by England standards, that is, not general ones) to lose this game. That's the way the pitch has suggested to be playing later so far makes it seem to me.

I'd feel fairly certain with a set target of 300, but I'll be very surprised if we manage to set them that many. Very surprised. And if we do, we're going to have a harder time bowling them out than the pitch has so far suggested.

 

[Uppercut]

Seriously, is it that much better? I think not. Plus the massive ownage they got from Aus, makes it an easy decision for mine.

We'll see though, it's starting soon so we'll find out.

It was a totally different Australia team to the one that India beat in the series just past, and a totally different SA team to the one that won in England. They're difficult to use for comparative purposes, but i suppose that's what makes this series so crucial.

What if SA, as India did, lose away to Australia and win at home? Who's number two then?

 

[Richard]

Hardly any old quick, spinner and wicket-keeper though. Three legends of the sport.

Nonetheless, in Clark and Haddin there are two high-quality players to replace them. McGrath > Clark and first-half-of-career Gilchrist > Haddin, undoubtedly, but it's not like they went from riches to rags.

The one real difference is Warne, and bizarre as it may seem I think there's roughly zero chance of Warne being as effective a wicket-taker in a single game against India as Krejza was in that infamous game. Albeit if Krejza had played a full series alongside Warne (as he bowled in 2004/05 rather than as he had in previous series) against any Indian team I'd back Warne to come out with the better series figures without hesitation.

 

[Richard]

It was a totally different Australia team to the one that India beat in the series just past, and a totally different SA team to the one that won in England.

Yeah, it was - and I honestly think the SA team of 2005/06 was better.

Clearly, though, Aus of 2005/06 >>>>>>>>>> Aus of 2008/09.

 

[Richard]

And much easier tto not having to face own crowd during 0-5 whitewashes.

England have still only lost 0-5 at home once. Albeit they would've lost 0-6 in 1989 had it been possible to make-up lost play, and ironically bad weather actually allowed them a victory (which would otherwise have been almost certain defeat) in 2001.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, it was - and I honestly think the SA team of 2005/06 was better.

Clearly, though, Aus of 2005/06 >>>>>>>>>> Aus of 2008/09.

The players do look it, but this SA team gets results...

 

[silentstriker]

What if SA, as India did, lose away to Australia and win at home? Who's number two then?

If they at least win a Test in Australia, and then come home and beat them in a series, they'd be the #2. But that's ifs and buts.

It's about what actually they've done, and they're not sufficiently more accomplished than India to warrant a mulligan on the Australian series. Not even close.

 

[Richard]

The players do look it, but this SA team gets results...

Other teams don't stay the same either.

England of 2004/05 were far better than they have been any time since 6 months down the line from that; I've already mentioned Australia's differences between 2005/06 and now; SA beat West Indies in 2003/04 and 2005 as 2007/08 (actually did it more convincingly); and you seem to agree with me that Sri Lanka, now as in 2004 and 2006, would be likely to win a series in the Lankan isle.

I reckon the SA team of 2005/06 would be the best or damn close to the best in The World right now. Smith, de Villiers, Gibbs, Kallis, Rudolph, Prince, Boucher, Pollock, Boje, Ntini, Nel. Only one genuine weak-link there, in Rudolph. Ideally the only change between now and then would be him out and McKenzie into the middle-order. Instead, Pollock is retired (I wish he'd just retired from ODIs and given it one more season in Tests; but he like Donald might've regretted that badly, so maybe in hindsight we'll be grateful he didn't); Nel is a shadow of his former self; Ntini is nowhere near so good; Gibbs is gone as he's no longer any use; de Villiers and McKenzie are both out of position; and Boje is replaced by a possibly slightly superior spinner and infinitely worse batsman. Oh, and Kallis is currently hopelessly out-of-nick too. What's more, with de Villiers batting down the order Boucher is essentially wasting a place that could go to a high-class batsman like Jean-Paul Duminy.

About the only improvement is that Prince is better now than he was then. Hashim Amla does look a better bet than Gibbs would have been should he still be being picked but I'm still yet to be completely convinced by him (Amla) either.

 

[Richard]

If they at least win a Test in Australia, and then come home and beat them in a series, they'd be the #2. But that's ifs and buts.

More "wait and see" than "ifs and buts" TBH.

 

[Jigga988]

Nonetheless, in Clark and Haddin there are two high-quality players to replace them. McGrath > Clark and first-half-of-career Gilchrist > Haddin, undoubtedly, but it's not like they went from riches to rags.

The one real difference is Warne, and bizarre as it may seem I think there's roughly zero chance of Warne being as effective a wicket-taker in a single game against India as Krejza was in that infamous game. Albeit if Krejza had played a full series alongside Warne (as he bowled in 2004/05 rather than as he had in previous series) against any Indian team I'd back Warne to come out with the better series figures without hesitation.

really went out on the limb with that Warne Krejza prediction

 

[Uppercut]

Other teams don't stay the same either.

England of 2004/05 were far better than they have been any time since 6 months down the line from that; I've already mentioned Australia's differences between 2005/06 and now; SA beat West Indies in 2003/04 and 2005 as 2007/08 (actually did it more convincingly); and you seem to agree with me that Sri Lanka, now as in 2004 and 2006, would be likely to win a series in the Lankan isle.

I reckon the SA team of 2005/06 would be the best or damn close to the best in The World right now. Smith, de Villiers, Gibbs, Kallis, Rudolph, Prince, Boucher, Pollock, Boje, Ntini, Nel. Only one genuine weak-link there, in Rudolph. Ideally the only change between now and then would be him out and McKenzie into the middle-order. Instead, Pollock is retired (I wish he'd just retired from ODIs and given it one more season in Tests; but he like Donald might've regretted that badly, so maybe in hindsight we'll be grateful he didn't); Nel is a shadow of his former self; Ntini is nowhere near so good; Gibbs is gone as he's no longer any use; de Villiers and McKenzie are both out of position; and Boje is replaced by a possibly slightly superior spinner and infinitely worse batsman. Oh, and Kallis is currently hopelessly out-of-nick too. What's more, with de Villiers batting down the order Boucher is essentially wasting a place that could go to a high-class batsman like Jean-Paul Duminy.

About the only improvement is that Prince is better now than he was then. Hashim Amla does look a better bet than Gibbs would have been should he still be being picked but I'm still yet to be completely convinced by him (Amla) either.

Yeah, but you've only summed up how much better they are on paper (parts of which i disagree with- Steyn would certainly make it into that team- but that's besides the point) . Look at SS's summary of SA's record. Even allowing for the decline in quality, did the SA of 2004/05 ever go on a run like that? Absolutely not. The 2005 team underachieved horribly in tests. I expect SA to be outclassed against Australia away and draw at home, but that doesn't change my opinion that this team is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[silentstriker]

If they only draw at home and get kicked away, they have no right whatsoever to be anywhere near the #2 ranking.

 

[Uppercut]

If they only draw at home and get kicked away, they have no right whatsoever to be anywhere near the #2 ranking.

Putting aside their recent achievements and looking at their players, India have a better current team, and if their batting can have a smooth transition they'll probably be the best team in the world before long. I wonder whether they'll translate it into complete domination in the way that Australia did, though..

 

[silentstriker]

India won't be the best team. SA probably have the better shot on potential. My point is that they haven't earned anything yet, and their performances don't merit #2, let alone #1.

Ifs and buts, if they beat Australia, if they do x, then they will earn it.

 

[andruid]

Point to be raised

India have not lived up to their billing as the greatest players of spin lately. Specialist spinners ie Mendis, Murali, Krezja have been able to get wickets and it looks like something along those lines with Monty and Swann getting stuck in already. Thought?

 

[Richard]

really went out on the limb with that Warne Krejza prediction

As I say, I don't think it's that far-fetched to suggest Warne would've been exceptionally unlikely to have taken a 12-for in a Test against India. You basically need to be treated with virtually zero respect (as Krejza was) for it to even have a remote chance of happening. I'll be astonished if Krejza gets anywhere near that number of wickets in one game ever again, never mind in a Test. And Warne was never going to be treated with disdain by the Indians - the big reason they played him well was that the likes of Tendulkar devoted hours to ensuring his preparation was good.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but you've only summed up how much better they are on paper (parts of which i disagree with- Steyn would certainly make it into that team- but that's besides the point) . Look at SS's summary of SA's record. Even allowing for the decline in quality, did the SA of 2004/05 ever go on a run like that? Absolutely not. The 2005 team underachieved horribly in tests. I expect SA to be outclassed against Australia away and draw at home, but that doesn't change my opinion that this team is more than the sum of its parts.

As I say - I think if you put the 2003/04-2005/06 team up against the sort of oppo the 2006/07-2008 team have been playing, they'd return similar if not better results. I did sum-up why I believe such a thing - the SAfricans are not the only side whose team has altered, and their schedules were different. Sri Lanka away is always difficult; England of 2004/05 and Australia of 2005/06 were both terrific sides. Only once have they faced a team comparable in quality to that, and they drew the series, and drew it only thanks to the opposition handing them a home-made perfect surface in their victory.

However, yeah, not sure how I missed Steyn. Clearly, his bowling in the exact period in question has been better than any of Pollock, Ntini and Nel's in the former one - and it's not like these bowlers were poor, let's not forget.

 

[Richard]

India have not lived up to their billing as the greatest players of spin lately. Specialist spinners ie Mendis, Murali, Krezja have been able to get wickets and it looks like something along those lines with Monty and Swann getting stuck in already. Thought?

Mendis is a new "mystery" spinner; Murali is one of the best spinners in history (and in any case took out mostly tailenders after Mendis had wiped-out the top-order in the series in question); Krejza mostly cleaned-out lower-order batting in his one Test; Swann and MSP have thus far been entirely unconvincing and Flintoff and Anderson have both looked far more of a threat.

 

[Woodster]

As I say, I don't think it's that far-fetched to suggest Warne would've been exceptionally unlikely to have taken a 12-for in a Test against India. You basically need to be treated with virtually zero respect (as Krejza was) for it to even have a remote chance of happening. I'll be astonished if Krejza gets anywhere near that number of wickets in one game ever again, never mind in a Test. And Warne was never going to be treated with disdain by the Indians - the big reason they played him well was that the likes of Tendulkar devoted hours to ensuring his preparation was good.

Yes I agree, with Warne they obviously recognised such quality, with new spinners on the circuit like Krejza and Swann, they will look to attack straight from the off, espeically in home conditions. They will not let them settle. Their strategy against Warne should he have played in the recent Test series, would have been much different.

 

[Woodster]

Just while I'm thinking about it, it was a decent ball from Harmison that removed Yuvraj at the end. He seemed to be getting some reverse away from the left-hander, and knowing Yuvraj was pretty pumped he's thrown one up there for him to have a go at. Whether it was by luck or design it got the required result. I prefer to put it down to a good piece of quick bowling though.