A statistical anomaly

[Uppercut]

If India had pushed for the win and enforced the follow on at the oval that could have been a fairly emphatic win, they got lucky(ish) at Lords

I'd have thought having half a day's play rained off when you have one wicket left and a couple of hundred runs to get was the very definition of luck.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well firstly SA were clearly the better side last year, any view to the contrary IMO is simply lacking in objectivity, SA were by miles the better side on paper and they almost lived upto it.

OK I'll admit India were lucky at Lords, but I don't buy the bowling attack stuff, India didn't bring Sehwag ffs (dropped after one bad series, ridiculous for an opener averaging 50+), and anyone in the Indian set up could have told you Gambhir should have been playing ahead of Karthik after the Ranji season he'd had. Tendulkar got some absolute shockers in that series (and in the ODI series that followed), I remember when India were last in Australia Michael Slater was overheard in the comm background asking Ian Chappell 'how the hell didn't he score runs in england?', Chappell replied 'he got some shockers'. No Flintoff, ok, but he hasn't produced results since 05 and back then he would have batted at 6 which frankly weakens the side, also the Zaheer was swinging the ball all over the place so not too sure how useful his batting would have been apart from the final test. Hoggard was in decline by that stage too. Thought tremlett was quite impressive in patches in that series.

I agree that England have a much better chance this year than usual but that it's mostly because of the relative weakness of the current aussie side. I don't really think this England side is much improved from previous years, when all's said and done, only Pietersen and Strauss have walked the talk against top sides, Collingwood won't cut it against this attack unless it's on a featherbed. Still not convinced with Broad the test bowler, though his move towards his old action has improved his wicket taking ability, still don't think it's enough to make him average sub 30 in tests or even close. Also I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time before his current action get's him injured, same goes for Anderson. I think Sidebottom will struggle against the Aussies, especially if the suns out. Swann is the man for England IMO, he could prove to be their trump card. Think Prior will be shown up for the bully he is, I'm convinced that he'll average sub 35 this series, probably sub 30. Strauss vs Johnson should be a really good battle I think, people are talking up Johnson vs Pietersen but I think it might be Siddle who troubles him the most.

 

[Uppercut]

Well firstly SA were clearly the better side last year, any view to the contrary IMO is simply lacking in objectivity, SA were by miles the better side on paper and they almost lived upto it.

It might somewhat surprise you that I signed up to this forum almost specifically to rant about how England hadn't a chance in the run up to that series. I won about £150-200 on South Africa's victory (they were ****ing 6/4!). Seriously, check out my earliest posts.

So I'll tell you why I think of that as a fairly well contested series- because I had my heart in my mouth for so much of it. I didn't think Saffa had a hope in hell of batting out seven sessions to save the first test at Lord's, and it took a little luck and hell of a lot of balls to get them out of that hole. Headingley was a walkover (England batted Tim Ambrose at six) and Edgebaston was a proper thriller- England looked almost certain to win it at one stage on the final day.

I don't think I'm lacking in objectivity. I may be wrong, but if I am then that's not the reason for it.

OK I'll admit India were lucky at Lords, but I don't buy the bowling attack stuff, India didn't bring Sehwag ffs (dropped after one bad series, ridiculous for an opener averaging 50+), and anyone in the Indian set up could have told you Gambhir should have been playing ahead of Karthik after the Ranji season he'd had. Tendulkar got some absolute shockers in that series (and in the ODI series that followed), I remember when India were last in Australia Michael Slater was overheard in the comm background asking Ian Chappell 'how the hell didn't he score runs in england?', Chappell replied 'he got some shockers'. No Flintoff, ok, but he hasn't produced results since 05 and back then he would have batted at 6 which frankly weakens the side, also the Zaheer was swinging the ball all over the place so not too sure how useful his batting would have been apart from the final test. Hoggard was in decline by that stage too. Thought tremlett was quite impressive in patches in that series.

Yeah, a lot can be said about that series. England's attack was really very makeshift looking back- Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard, considered the spearhead of the attack at that time, were both out injured and Anderson was his old horrendously inconsistent self. The only point I made was that it was a competitive series- and whatever the reasons for that, it's hard to deny that it was.

I agree that England have a much better chance this year than usual but that it's mostly because of the relative weakness of the current aussie side. I don't really think this England side is much improved from previous years, when all's said and done, only Pietersen and Strauss have walked the talk against top sides, Collingwood won't cut it against this attack unless it's on a featherbed. Still not convinced with Broad the test bowler, though his move towards his old action has improved his wicket taking ability, still don't think it's enough to make him average sub 30 in tests or even close. Also I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time before his current action get's him injured, same goes for Anderson. I think Sidebottom will struggle against the Aussies, especially if the suns out. Swann is the man for England IMO, he could prove to be their trump card. Think Prior will be shown up for the bully he is, I'm convinced that he'll average sub 35 this series, probably sub 30. Strauss vs Johnson should be a really good battle I think, people are talking up Johnson vs Pietersen but I think it might be Siddle who troubles him the most.

It's the replacement of players I've always thought to be overrated (Vaughan, Panesar, Bell) with players I've thought to be underrated (Swann, Prior as a batsman), along with the visible improvement in players like Broad and Anderson that really convinces me this side is definitely better than last year's, if not a challenge to the Aussies. We'll see I guess.

 

[shankar]

I'd have thought having half a day's play rained off when you have one wicket left and a couple of hundred runs to get was the very definition of luck.

That pitch was a pretty flat one and the only reason the match got close to a result was because of the rain and overcast conditions from the end of the first day onwards. So if there was no rain it would probably have been a draw.

 

[Uppercut]

That pitch was a pretty flat one and the only reason the match got close to a result was because of the rain and overcast conditions from the end of the first day onwards. So if there was no rain it would probably have been a draw.

lol

 

[shankar]

lol

Huh? Did you watch the match? This is different from a case where say the last session alone gets washed out with a couple of wickets left where clearly the bowling team is unlucky to not win the match. Here, the rains brought a chance to get a result but also a reduction of the time to bring about that result. So one cannot say without rains India would have lost since the match would have taken a different course altogether without the rains.

 

[Uppercut]

Huh? Did you watch the match? This is different from a case where say the last session alone gets washed out with a couple of wickets left where clearly the bowling team is unlucky to not win the match. Here, the rains brought a chance to get a result but also a reduction of the time to bring about that result. So one cannot say without rains India would have lost since the match would have taken a different course altogether without the rains.

I can't make you see how ridiculous you're being, you have to see it for yourself. Try finding me someone who isn't an India fan and thinks they weren't ridiculously lucky not to lose that match.

 

[shankar]

I can't make you see how ridiculous you're being, you have to see it for yourself. Try finding me someone who isn't an India fan and thinks they weren't ridiculously lucky not to lose that match.

It has nothing to do with being an 'India fan'. I have no interest in debating whether india deserved/were lucky/whatever in that series. It's a question of proper analysis of that match. I'm sure most indian fans would agree with you as well. I just think that it's an obvious but simplistic view to take based on the reasons I've outlined.

 

[Uppercut]

It has nothing to do with being an 'India fan'. I have no interest in debating whether india deserved/were lucky/whatever in that series. It's a question of proper analysis of that match. I'm sure most indian fans would agree with you as well. I just think that it's an obvious but simplistic view to take based on the reasons I've outlined.

It's not like I've jumped at the conclusion from the scoreboard, I watched every ball of that match. The ball swung around corners that summer, and it did so for both teams throughout the match. England outbowled and outbatted India comfortably throughout, and when they needed one more wicket to win with a session and a half left, the heavens opened. It was the biggest let-off I've ever seen. And in the context of what I was debating, it demonstrates how competitive the series really was.

 

[tooextracool]

Well firstly SA were clearly the better side last year, any view to the contrary IMO is simply lacking in objectivity, SA were by miles the better side on paper and they almost lived upto it.

SA were by far the better side on paper, but they quite certainly didnt live up to it. They came in with a bowling attack that was hailed as the best in the world, but they were arguably outbowled by Flintoff and Anderson the whole summer. Morkel was ordinary, as he's been all his career, Steyn was injured and looked undercooked when he did play, Ntini is well past it and Nel looked a shadow of himself. The result was that for large parts of the series, Kallis of all people, was carrying the bowling attack and was easily the best bowler.

The SA batting however, is another story. They were extremely disciplined, I thought Prince was absolutely superb and ABD, Mckenzie, and even Smith looked excellent all the way through the series. Their batters were MILES ahead of England's and even though England's bowlers tried hard, they simply could not make up for the shocking selections, and the shoddy batting efforts of our top 7 that gave away wickets to bowling that didnt deserve them.

I agree that England have a much better chance this year than usual but that it's mostly because of the relative weakness of the current aussie side. I don't really think this England side is much improved from previous years, when all's said and done, only Pietersen and Strauss have walked the talk against top sides, Collingwood won't cut it against this attack unless it's on a featherbed. Still not convinced with Broad the test bowler, though his move towards his old action has improved his wicket taking ability, still don't think it's enough to make him average sub 30 in tests or even close. Also I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time before his current action get's him injured, same goes for Anderson. I think Sidebottom will struggle against the Aussies, especially if the suns out. Swann is the man for England IMO, he could prove to be their trump card. Think Prior will be shown up for the bully he is, I'm convinced that he'll average sub 35 this series, probably sub 30. Strauss vs Johnson should be a really good battle I think, people are talking up Johnson vs Pietersen but I think it might be Siddle who troubles him the most.

Theres certainly nothing to argue against most of that. However, my opinion of this England side, particularly the bowling unit is that, they potentially could be very good in the next few years and perhaps this Ashes is a little too soon for a lot of the England players.

Either way, the reason why I think this is a better side than the England sides from the last 3-4 years before is that I think some of the players now have a lot of potential that hasnt materialized yet given that a lot of them are young/inexperienced. By picking players like Sidebottom, Onions, Broad etc we're a far cry from the selections of Mahmood, Plunkett, Amjad Khan, Geraint Jones and the lot that were frequently part of our sides over the last few years, we're definetly already doing better than before. Last time we played the Ashes, I couldnt keep count of the number of players who I could have told you 'what the heck are they doing near the side, they are hopeless' and I dont feel that way about this side at the moment, although I might about some of the players if they dont perform to expectations in the future.

That doesnt mean that we have a great chance of winning or anything of that sort. But its just good to know that we could very well be going in with 11 of the best players in the country for the first time in ages and that in itself gives me greater hope of competing than the past.

 

[shankar]

It's not like I've jumped at the conclusion from the scoreboard, I watched every ball of that match. The ball swung around corners that summer, and it did so for both teams throughout the match. England outbowled and outbatted India comfortably throughout, and when they needed one more wicket to win with a session and a half left, the heavens opened. It was the biggest let-off I've ever seen. And in the context of what I was debating, it demonstrates how competitive the series really was.

Nope, it started swinging around after the interruption due to bad light at the end of the first day and swung consistently since then due to the overcast conditions. The wicket itself was pretty flat. Of course my claim is not that India was unlucky due to this. My point is that the same conditions which caused the ball to swing around caused the curtailed match. One can't separate the two effects.

And in the context of what I was debating, it demonstrates how competitive the series really was.

I hadn't disagreed with that.

 

[Richard]

As you know I agree with you that you can't say that match was a rank let-off, because there's no doubt in my mind that the rain and prevailing conditions around at the time spiced things up for the seamers. However, the ball swung throughout that summer, it was far from limited to certain points in that game. And it was far from just the last session-and-a-bit that was lost - half the game was washed-out. It's quite true to say "had lost time been able to be made-up, England would have won", but equally, if there'd been dry conditions around the match would undoubtedly have taken a completely different course.

However, it should have been an England win, because despite all that, Sreesanth was out lbw and Steve Bucknor did not give it. India then dominated the last two Tests and would almost certainly have won the Third had they been required to. I have no truck saying India deserved to win that series. But it should've been two-one not one-nil.

 

[Uppercut]

As you know I agree with you that you can't say that match was a rank let-off, because there's no doubt in my mind that the rain and prevailing conditions around at the time spiced things up for the seamers. However, the ball swung throughout that summer, it was far from limited to certain points in that game. And it was far from just the last session-and-a-bit that was lost - half the game was washed-out. It's quite true to say "had lost time been able to be made-up, England would have won", but equally, if there'd been dry conditions around the match would undoubtedly have taken a completely different course.

However, it should have been an England win, because despite all that, Sreesanth was out lbw and Steve Bucknor did not give it. India then dominated the last two Tests and would almost certainly have won the Third had they been required to. I have no truck saying India deserved to win that series. But it should've been two-one not one-nil.

I think that's fair. But it should be pointed out that the elements (and Bucknor) robbed England of victory in the first test, whereas India robbed themselves of victory in the third.

 

[Richard]

Well, they robbed themselves because they didn't need it. If England had not been robbed in the First Test, India would not have robbed themselves in the Third.

It's about as simple as that for me.

India comprehensively dominated most of the last two Tests of that 2007 series.

 

[oitoitoi]

But it should've been two-one not one-nil.

I agree, would have made for a much more entertaining series too, was so pissed off when they didn't enforce the follow on at the Oval, the conditions had become perfect for Zaheer. Typical Indian captaincy unfortunately.....

 

[Richard]

If enforcing the follow-on would've increased the risk of defeat, I'd have said fair enough... but India were in an invincible position regardless of whether they took the third-innings or gave it to England.

Was indeed a bit odd not to enforce the follow-on.

 

[shankar]

As you know I agree with you that you can't say that match was a rank let-off, because there's no doubt in my mind that the rain and prevailing conditions around at the time spiced things up for the seamers. However, the ball swung throughout that summer, it was far from limited to certain points in that game. And it was far from just the last session-and-a-bit that was lost - half the game was washed-out. It's quite true to say "had lost time been able to be made-up, England would have won", but equally, if there'd been dry conditions around the match would undoubtedly have taken a completely different course.

I agree with most of that. My only point is that the rain was inextricably linked with the route the match took.

However, it should have been an England win, because despite all that, Sreesanth was out lbw and Steve Bucknor did not give it. India then dominated the last two Tests and would almost certainly have won the Third had they been required to. I have no truck saying India deserved to win that series. But it should've been two-one not one-nil.

I don't remember that but sure, if that's what happened then obviously it's fair to say England was cheated of the victory by the umpiring (assuming there were no other major umpiring errors).