*Official* South Africa in India

[Pratters]

I am pumped up. I'll go regardless of whether India bat or field. I just saw the ticket and no cameras or video cameras among loads of other things are allowed in the stands. That sucks but I guess you have to take it in given the history of how the Eden crowd has behaved over the years. I do have my cell camera, so no worries.

I am very confident India will win this test IF they bat first.

 

[silentstriker]

More conservatism. For all you know India could have a Steyn of their own, waiting to burst on the scene given the oppurtunity.

Yea, and England should play four spinners every Test just in case they have a Shane Warne, just waiting for the opportunity...or eleven batsman just in case they have a Don Bradman waiting for the opportunity...

 

[NasserFan207]

Yea, and England should play four spinners every Test just in case they have a Shane Warne, just waiting for the opportunity...or eleven batsman just in case they have a Don Bradman waiting for the opportunity...

Point taken. Though if its a spinning track I wouldn't be against England playing two spinners once in a while. I'm definitely in the conditions pick the team camp personally. Its not like Harbajhan and Mishra have been particularly impressive.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yea, and England should play four spinners every Test just in case they have a Shane Warne, just waiting for the opportunity...or eleven batsman just in case they have a Don Bradman waiting for the opportunity...

In fairness he did note his suggestion was pertaining to the type of pitch.

 

[silentstriker]

You pick the team that gives you the best chance of winning the match. Specifically, you pick the attack that gives you the best chance of picking twenty wickets. There is no combination of four pace bowlers in India, on any pitch that I can reasonably conceive, that would give result in them having a better chance of picking twenty wickets than spinners.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Does that mean that, say, Mishra in seaming conditions is more effective than the next best (after Zaheer and Ishant) seamer in the same conditions? Because if that's the case, India hardly deserves the number one ranking. But that's another can of worms...

 

[silentstriker]

Does that mean that, say, Mishra in seaming conditions is more effective than the next best (after Zaheer and Ishant) seamer in the same conditions?

In India? I can't imagine the fourth seamer being better than a second spinner. I could see, perhaps, three seam bowlers and a spinner in India. That's what we're talking about here - 4+1 vs. 3+2, or 3+1. I'd have 3+2 going into this Test and have Ishant, Zaheer, and Sreesanth plus Mishra and Harbhajan since India need to win it and no point in losing 1-0. Either 1-1 or 2-0 is fine.

Because if that's the case, India hardly deserves the number one ranking. But that's another can of worms...

On evidence of last Test, they don't anyway.

 

[silentstriker]

Let me rephrase that - I don't even know what 'deserve #1 means', it just means you have won more than the other teams. I don't know what that has to do with 'deserve'. Did India 'deserve' to win the World Cup over the clearly better West Indies in 1983? I don't know if that word has any meaning. They are certainly not a dominating side, but A) no one claimed they were, and B) that's not a requisite for simply being better than the rest,

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In India? I can't imagine the fourth seamer being better than a second spinner. I could see, perhaps, three seam bowlers and a spinner in India. That's what we're talking about here - 4+1 vs. 3+2, or 3+1. I'd have 3+2 going into this Test and have Ishant, Zaheer, and Sreesanth plus Mishra and Harbhajan since India need to win it and no point in losing 1-0. Either 1-1 or 2-0 is fine.

Unless you go with the Mathematics of the 3rd and 4th best seamers in India = 0.5 of a good seamer. Therefore what may technically be 4+1 is, in reality, 3+1. And 3+2 is technically 2.5+1, which leaves you at least half a bowler short.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Let me rephrase that - I don't even know what 'deserve #1 means', it just means you have won more than the other teams. I don't know what that has to do with 'deserve'. Did India 'deserve' to win the World Cup over the clearly better West Indies in 1983? I don't know if that word has any meaning. They are certainly not a dominating side, but A) no one claimed they were, and B) that's not a requisite for simply being better than the rest,

Was more getting at "deserve to be considered the best team in the world". Because if you've got two average performing spinners and (at best) two decent fast bowlers, and you're the best team in the world, the general quality of world cricket must be poor. That's a severe lack of depth.

 

[NasserFan207]

In India? I can't imagine the fourth seamer being better than a second spinner. I could see, perhaps, three seam bowlers and a spinner in India. That's what we're talking about here - 4+1 vs. 3+2, or 3+1. I'd have 3+2 going into this Test and have Ishant, Zaheer, and Sreesanth plus Mishra and Harbhajan since India need to win it and no point in losing 1-0. Either 1-1 or 2-0 is fine.



On evidence of last Test, they don't anyway.

No offense, but this is what I mean when I say a conservative mindset. I'm not actually sure who the fourth Indian seamer could be, but the fact that this idea has never even crossed peoples mind (have they ever used four seamers in India once since becoming a test nation?) is why its unlikely India will ever develop a dangerous fast bowling attack. Which may not bother you, but I think it bothers some Indian fans.

 

[R_D]

I am pumped up. I'll go regardless of whether India bat or field. I just saw the ticket and no cameras or video cameras among loads of other things are allowed in the stands. That sucks but I guess you have to take it in given the history of how the Eden crowd has behaved over the years. I do have my cell camera, so no worries.

I am very confident India will win this test IF they bat first.

Is it the same rule all over India.. no cameras allowed or just at Eden garden?
I only found out about it after i turned up with my camera at Eden gardens.

 

[Goughy]

To be honest, I find the idea of playing 2 seamers only and no medium pacer in the batting terrifying (as last Test). More so than playing 4 quicks and Sehwag as spinner.

 

[silentstriker]

why its unlikely India will ever develop a dangerous fast bowling attack.

How is playing 4 mediocre bowlers instead of 3 mediocre bowlers do anything to develop a dangerous fast bowling attack?

Which may not bother you, but I think it bothers some Indian fans.

Hello, my name is SS. Ask around about that .

 

[silentstriker]

Was more getting at "deserve to be considered the best team in the world".

Again, I don't know what deserve means. If you win more than the rest, you're #1 - so obviously others are worse. The second question would be if India would have been the #1 team at any other time in the past thirty-thirty five years, and the answer is no, so overall standards is a valid point.

 

[Prince EWS]

No offense, but this is what I mean when I say a conservative mindset. I'm not actually sure who the fourth Indian seamer could be, but the fact that this idea has never even crossed peoples mind (have they ever used four seamers in India once since becoming a test nation?) is why its unlikely India will ever develop a dangerous fast bowling attack. Which may not bother you, but I think it bothers some Indian fans.

@ you saying this to SS of all people.

 

[ret]

More conservatism. For all you know India could have a Steyn of their own, waiting to burst on the scene given the oppurtunity.

^ Are we talking abt him?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Again, I don't know what deserve means. If you win more than the rest, you're #1 - so obviously others are worse. The second question would be if India would have been the #1 team at any other time in the past thirty-thirty five years, and the answer is no, so overall standards is a valid point.

Deserve? It means "to merit". Learning is fun.

If you win more than the rest in a limited period of time, you may "deserve" to be ranked the best in the world. But that doesn't mean you "deserve" to be considered the best team in the world. ie just because mathematically, for a period of time, a team performs better than the rest, doesn't make it the best team in the world, necessarily

That is, unless that period of time has all teams playing each other an equal amount of times home and away. And that's not the case presently, I believe.

 

[silentstriker]

^ Are we talking abt him?

No, about these guys:

All Dale Steyns - sitting there, completely unused by India.

 

[ret]

what a shame as they could bowl SA out of 99 .... and we have Bhajji playing!