Might well do, though so I hope will Strauss. Obviously Gambhir's likely to have more years ahead of him as of 2009, but both of them can have some good years ahead of them as of now.
Yeah, I wasn't watching the game but from what I read, they played incredibly slow in the post-lunch session of Day 4. Especially for a team that was in such a situation as they were in and trying to set a target.
But still, Vettori on non-turning pitches isn't that good a bowler. If he couldn't bat, there's no way NZ would be best utilised picking him for every game.
However Pietersen has NEVER looked anywhere near consistent in the subcontinent, and that team is purely on current form.
If I could feel confident that this was due to being the subcontinent, then I'd leave Pietersen out. But as I said in the relevant thread, I think it's more coincidence than any specific weakness.
I'm actually not convinced they would've been actually, but England's poor batting yesterday after Strauss was out didn't help matters at all.
You don't gain the respect of Australia without having something about you, and they don't always compete against each other on big spinners. Anyway, that is clearly an individual opinion.
Didn't see it myself, however, I can't imagine he would go at Sachin like he did Yuvraj in the first innings. Nothing wrong with a few words here and there to anyone. It's one thing sledging yet another just having a bit of banter.
Sorry. DWTA. Kevin is becoming a Ponting, except that he's poor throughout the subcontinent. There may be arguments about how he's ben successful against Warne and Murali, but those were in Australia and England. Am not a technical expert, but I think it's more to do with traditional back and across approach.
Grouping Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50
v India 2006-2008 4 8 0 221 87 27.62 58.15 0 2
v Pakistan 2005-2005 3 6 0 201 100 33.50 66.11 1 0
v Sri Lanka 2007-2007 3 6 1 126 45* 25.20 50.40 0 0
As large a sample size as Burgey has based his opinion on him during this tour.
The idea of having words is to try and make a batsman play worse. We've seen plenty of evidence down the years that to say stuff to Tendulkar is only likely to make him play better.
Flintoff was a rookie when he had a go at Tendulkar. Nothing wrong in giving the batsman a word, and Tendulkar is no exception. But it is completely useless. I think it was Steve Waugh who said sledging Tendulkar made him all the more determined and fired up.
As I say, however big the average difference, unless you can actually pinpoint a reason then it has to be nothing more than coincidence.
Your best bet to get Tendulkar out is to be really nice to him and get him to make a mistake off Panesar or the other kid Swann. But if you sledge him then it really gets his concentration going and once he has his shell up its nearly impossible to get him out cheaply.
It is impossible to make a judgement on anything that occurred without knowing what was said!! I don't believe if words were said by Freddie, it would have been of a nature to disrupt Temdulkar, like you say, his concentration and determination is then intensified. I see nothing wrong with a few words, and I don't believe a brief exchange would then spur a player on to such great lengths. There is a world of difference between a funny quip or similar and really going at a player questioning his technique and all sorts.
In the mood he was in today, it wouldn't have made a jot of difference if England had not spoken to him all day. He was different class, simple as that.
Oh, for sure. However, I don't think there's that much likelihood of anything, funny quip or questioning of technique, having any useful effect for the fielding side.