***Official England in India***

[Richard]

I wasn't suggesting people bet on stuff they know nothing about, but merely that many of the betters will be less informed on cricket than CW.n-ers.

 

[Uppercut]

I wasn't suggesting people bet on stuff they know nothing about, but merely that many of the betters will be less informed on cricket than CW.n-ers.

Quite (19 out of 20 is very much over the top, but i see where you're coming from). Being less informed doesn't always mean being better at predicting what will happen though. I guess we'll see how everyone does in that department.

 

[Richard]

Seriously - you set teams 390 20 times, and you see how often they get it.

If they don't get it once, I'll not be at all surprised.

 

[fredfertang]

390 is not a lot really - 696 is tricky - must have been hugely frustrating to get to 650 odd for 5 and have to call it off 'cos the ship was about to sail - that would have been a record in perpetuity

 

[silentstriker]

Quite (19 out of 20 is very much over the top, but i see where you're coming from). Being less informed doesn't always mean being better at predicting what will happen though. I guess we'll see how everyone does in that department.

Any Test class bowling attack, 19 out of 20 times, will not allow the opposition to chase down 390 on a wearing/turning pitch. Not going to happen. It's not a coincidence that only three chases of 390+ have happened in 100+ years of Test cricket.

If the odds were any better than 1/20, it would have happened a lot more. As Richard said, it would not surprise me at all, that if you played that situation 20 or 30 times, that the team did not get it a single time.

 

[Uppercut]

Seriously - you set teams 390 20 times, and you see how often they get it.

If they don't get it once, I'll not be at all surprised.

Any Test class bowling attack, 19 out of 20 times, will not allow the opposition to chase down 390 on a wearing/turning pitch. Not going to happen. It's not a coincidence that only three chases of 390+ have happened in 100+ years of Test cricket.

If the odds were any better than 1/20, it would have happened a lot more. As Richard said, it would not surprise me at all, that if you played that situation 20 or 30 times, that the team did not get it a single time.

Sure, at the end of England's third innings 1/20 probably would have been a fair price.


But these odds were at the end of the fourth day, when India needed 250~ more with nine wickets left. That's a significantly more likely chase. That's not to mention that the momentum had swung wildly, the pitch was holding up better than expected, the Indian batsmen>>>>the English attack, they had a full day to get the runs and, most importantly, SS had predicted an England win. When you weigh these things up, it's a lot more likely than most chases of 250 with nine left.

 

[silentstriker]

Consider that even if the entire chase was 250 or so, only once in the history of Test cricket in India, has that been accomplished. And there have been pitches a lot better for batting and attacks a lot worse who've played on the subcontinent.

Again, I don't think that's a coincidence that no one has done it. Without being stereotypical, a lot of these sites are very Indian-driven, and many of them have, shall we say, less than perfect knowledge. Obviously, the bets are going to be toward an Indian win. If equal number of people from both England and India placed bets, or better yet, bets were only taken from people who are neutral toward the test, I bet you'd see odds that are a world apart.

Even with 250 to go and nine wickets in hand, I'd back the bowling attack 19 out of 20 times. As Strauss said at the end of the fourth day, anyone would much, much rather be in England's position than India's. As for my prediction, you have a very good point. I am waiting on my check from Dhoni though, I've singlehandedly won him the Aussie series, and now this first Test. His captaincy record is perfect because of me. I don't ask for much. Just get me some plane tickets and match tickets to some cricket live at Lord's, and I'll call it even.

 

[Uppercut]

Consider that even if the entire chase was 250 or so, only once in the history of Test cricket in India, has that been accomplished. And there have been pitches a lot better for batting and attacks a lot worse who've played on the subcontinent.

Again, I don't think that's a coincidence that no one has done it. Without being stereotypical, a lot of these sites are very Indian-driven, and many of them have, shall we say, less than perfect knowledge. Obviously, the bets are going to be toward an Indian win. If equal number of people from both England and India placed bets, or better yet, bets were only taken from people who are neutral toward the test, I bet you'd see odds that are a world apart.

Even with 250 to go and nine wickets in hand, I'd back the bowling attack 19 out of 20 times. As Strauss said at the end of the fourth day, anyone would much, much rather be in England's position than India's. As for my prediction, you have a very good point. I am waiting on my check from Dhoni though, I've singlehandedly won him the Aussie series, and now this first Test. His captaincy record is perfect because of me. I don't ask for much. Just get me some plane tickets and match tickets to some cricket live at Lord's, and I'll call it even.

Firstly, i thought exactly the same as you about the betting being geared towards India. It's a pretty common occurance, i once met a man whose gambling strategy was to go into a shop in England and bet against England on everything because you'll always get a good price.

So i checked out English bookmakers- Ladbrokes, William Hill, Coral. All had India either the same price as England or favourites. I was genuinely surprised- i'm not arguing with you at all that England were in the better position even allowing for their weaker team, i completely agree (although not to the same extent). But there was some reason to expect an Indian win. They needed 250 more when they had just scored over half that extremely quickly for the loss of just one wicket, the momentum was undoubtedly with them and their batting lineup was excellent.

It wasn't, as Dicko says, an idiot's bet that was won by pure luck. Someone with an instinct for such things might well have had money on it, it was something that logic tells you won't happen but you sometimes have a feeling it will. If you can really get 13/8 on something that will happen 19 times out of 20, you'll be rich before too long.

 

[Richard]

390 is not a lot really - 696 is tricky - must have been hugely frustrating to get to 650 odd for 5 and have to call it off 'cos the ship was about to sail - that would have been a record in perpetuity

Always annoyed the hell out of me, that game. If there'd been enough time left, a record would've been set that, barring a return to timeless Tests, would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have been broken.

 

[fredfertang]

Always annoyed the hell out of me, that game. If there'd been enough time left, a record would've been set that, barring a return to timeless Tests, would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have been broken.

Would love to have seen what the wicket looked like on it's 11th day!

 

[Richard]

Sure, at the end of England's third innings 1/20 probably would have been a fair price.


But these odds were at the end of the fourth day, when India needed 250~ more with nine wickets left. That's a significantly more likely chase. That's not to mention that the momentum had swung wildly, the pitch was holding up better than expected, the Indian batsmen>>>>the English attack, they had a full day to get the runs and, most importantly, SS had predicted an England win. When you weigh these things up, it's a lot more likely than most chases of 250 with nine left.

Much as it was obvious that the Indian batsmen > the England attack after the fourth-innings, it's easy to forget that same moderate attack knocked India's top-order over in the second-innings and had them 100-odd for 6. Only Dhoni and the tail pulled them to respectibility.

And while the pitch on the last two days played inestimably better than pretty well anyone thought throughout the first two days, it still turned plenty and there was the odd bit of uneven bounce. All it'd have taken was a bit of good fortune for one of England's bowlers, and the game'd have been turned, probably terminally.

Think - when Laxman was dismissed, England had no batsmen of proven Test calibre left to get out (Tendulkar's wicket wasn't a neccessity). How often do you think someone is going to play an innings of the type Yuvraj did? He was being trashed from all corners, most of the trashing with complete justification, and he plays the sort of innings many, many batsmen will go a career without playing, never mind batsmen who'd only ever previously shown glimpses of being Test-standard players.

 

[Richard]

Would love to have seen what the wicket looked like on it's 11th day!

It was the 1930s - I'd bet it looked like a piece of polished bronze.

 

[Uppercut]

Much as it was obvious that the Indian batsmen > the England attack after the fourth-innings, it's easy to forget that same moderate attack knocked India's top-order over in the second-innings and had them 100-odd for 6. Only Dhoni and the tail pulled them to respectibility.

And while the pitch on the last two days played inestimably better than pretty well anyone thought throughout the first two days, it still turned plenty and there was the odd bit of uneven bounce. All it'd have taken was a bit of good fortune for one of England's bowlers, and the game'd have been turned, probably terminally.

Think - when Laxman was dismissed, England had no batsmen of proven Test calibre left to get out (Tendulkar's wicket wasn't a neccessity). How often do you think someone is going to play an innings of the type Yuvraj did? He was being trashed from all corners, most of the trashing with complete justification, and he plays the sort of innings many, many batsmen will go a career without playing, never mind batsmen who'd only ever previously shown glimpses of being Test-standard players.

Meh. I'd have bet on England every time. But when India win comfortably with six wickets and plenty of overs still left it's not unreasonable to say they had a better than 5% chance the evening before.

 

[Richard]

I think it is. I think that fully justifies the magnitude of what they achieved. What Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh achieved, not just Sehwag. Sehwag, in fact, had the least to lose.

They upset all odds. All realistic odds, that is.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it is. I think that fully justifies the magnitude of what they achieved. What Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh achieved, not just Sehwag. Sehwag, in fact, had the least to lose.

They upset all odds. All realistic odds, that is.

Whose knock were you most impressed with? Sehwag's turned the game, swinging the momentum in India's favour while also taking care of the run rate. He contributed just 20 runs less than Tendulkar- they happened so quickly it's easy to forget that it was actually a very considerably contribution.

Tendulkar's was the big one, winning India the match and scoring his first ever century in an India win. It hit back at critics of his fourth innings record and held the whole lineup together.

Yuvraj's was the least free-flowing, and he was a bit scratchy at times, but there's no doubt that he played infinitely better than almost anyone thought he was capable of. To quote yourself, "for India to win they'll need Yuvraj walking to the crease with victory almost assured." 85 runs later, it's much harder to say he'll never make a quality test player. His reaction to the fielder's chirping was impressive too.

What would you choose?

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar for me. They were each impressive in their own ways, and I suppose each was short on something the other offered.

Sehwag's, as I say, came at a time when he basically had nothing to lose. The only way India were going to have any chance was for him to play like that and for it to come-off. I don't believe, myself, that Cook was ever catching that one that flicked his fingers, because I don't think he could've reacted any quicker than he did. However, had it been a fraction closer to him and had he taken it, there's little doubt India wouldn't have gotten close. He constructed a launching-pad when virtually all other batsmen would've been powerless, deprived of the tools to build.

Yuvraj Singh's was easily the best from the POV of conquering demons. Had he failed there, it's probably an exaggeration to say that'd have been the end of his Test career, but a bit of rain and some good Indian top-order batting at Mohali, meaning he got a DNB, and that might just've been. Tendulkar obviously couldn't do it on his own; Dhoni was injured and was no guarantee to be able to bat as he does at his best (which has happened not very often so far in his Test career even when fully fit); and the tail would've needed, I reckon, 60 at best. Any more than that and I can't see them having done it. So Yuvraj knew full well that something substantial was needed.

Tendulkar's, though, just had a bit of almost everything. He too had demons to conquer, even if they were in the imagination of his enemies rather than in reality. He's said before "I must learn to finish games off", so there's certainly something he himself perceived a lack of in himself. By the time he was in, he knew the game was certainly winnable, so unlike Sehwag he couldn't play with gay-abandon, and certainly not with the freedom he'd shown in the first-innings before inexplicably terminating his innings with a bit of carelessness. He also had to run, lots, in extreme heat, at the age of 35 (compared to Yuvraj's 26). Don't underestimate the endurance he showed in that knock. He came in when Dravid had just fallen and, as I said, had he gone quickly that'd essentially have been game-over.

There's also the simple fact that, while all three innings' were chanceless (there was a near-miss or two in each, but nothing that you could say "I expect those to be caught"), Tendulkar's was probably the least fallible. Sehwag had his strengths fed early by Harmison and Anderson and that got him off flying. Tendulkar has always preferred to hit a few boundaries early, but Pietersen's fields denied him the chance. He had to work it around. And he did. And when Pietersen changed tack, which he did once or twice, he always managed to adjust.

I honestly think that was very probably Tendulkar's best Test innings. And it sums-up his career - match awards have been precious few for him - that he didn't get the thing for it.

 

[silentstriker]

Tendulkar's was the big one, winning India the match and scoring his first ever century in an India win.

Well, except for the 14 other times.

And to me, Tendulkar was most impressive as if a wicket had fallen, on a pitch like that 2-3 more can fall very easily. Staying there for six hours was absolutely a huge deal, so while Sehwag's set us up, and I've no problem with him getting man of the match, Tendulkar's was a bigger key. Especially considering that it was very obvious how much he helped Yuvraj through his innings as well.

 

[Anil]

have wanted tendulkar to have this kind of run of form ever since he started slumping...never thought he will be able to do it, have never been happier to be proved wrong...

 

[Zinzan]

There was still no real good reason to back India though - they were distinct second-favourites as of the fourth-day close. Just because you did and happened to be right doesn't mean the prediction was a sound one.

India had a massive task on their hands pretty much right up to Tea on the final afternoon - that was the first time they became genuine favourites. They pulled-off something pretty sensational, however bad England's bowling, and to say they should have been expected to do it is rather a poor degredation of such a fabulous effort.

Again I disagree, and I did provide my rationale as to why in that previous post. Pretty much the for the same reasons I picked England as favorites to chase 294 against New Zealand at Manchester earlier this year in the 4th dig (even though they were dismissed for around 200 in the 1st innings) & picked New Zealand as favorites against Bangladesh chasing 317 to win in the last innings in Oct. I just didn't think the English bowlers were good enough to bowl India out cheaply for a 2nd time in those conditions.

Incidentally, for what its worth, the odds for most betting agencies I checked at the conclusion of day 4 also had India as slight favorites, so I certainly wasn't the lone-ranger even though I will concede that betting often comes from the heart & not the head.

 

[Zinzan]

Most people thought India were favourites, apart from ultra-pessimistic England fans (and even they probably knew deep down that England should've won but were too scared to say it), though. That's the thing. The overwhelming likelihood was that a team in England's position would win. Far, far more than 6 or 7 out of 10. I'd say 19 out of 20 at least.

Even in the last 6-7 years, fourth-innings totals as high as those are precious few, and that's not because of the pitches, it's because of the sheer crushing nature of the task at hand. In fact, you know, totals of 400 are still in the minority even now!

India were rank outsiders. Anyone who picked them to win picked lucky, simple as. And as I say, it's somewhat of an insult to a sensational performance to essentially say it's something they should be expected to pull-off. What India did last Test was something you are never, ever going to see very often, whatever direction Test cricket heads in.

Look, If all others things were considered equal, you are absolutely right in picking a team in England's position at the close of Day 4, I wouldn't argue that point for a second. However, in this instance all other things weren't even. India clearly have an amazing batting lineup at their own conditions (despite their remarkably poor 1st innings showing) & England, a very average Bowling attack, especially in those conditions. Thats the point your missing.

To give you a more extreme example of what I mean, lets take the Aust v Bang 1st test in 2006. Half way through that test, Bangladesh had a 1st innings lead of 170ish. Would you have picked Bangladesh as favorites to win at that point? I very much doubt it.

For the record, I'm not suggesting the same gulf exists between India & Eng as Aust & Bang, but still believe India are a considerably stronger team in their own conditions.