Sehwag - Best Batsman In World Cricket Right Now

[tooextracool]

Then I'm sure you'll agree that 2-2 would have been a fair reflection of the Ashes last year and Australia should be holding the Ashes.

few would argue that both teams were fairly even that series, with England really only winning the big moments.

 

[aussie]

No, did you ever consider that India might have batted well?

After the first Test, India's batting in bowler-friendly conditions was the best by any visiting team in England for a long time (bar SA in 2008). It was a proper team effort as well, plenty of half-centuries and only the one hundred by Kumble of all people.

Although IND did indeed stutter in the 1st test @ Lord's. The fact that ENG lost their entire 1st choice attack due to injury before the series always gave IND an advantage.

That inexperienced ENG attack was NEVER going to be good enough to stay on top of that super experienced IND for an entire series & so it proved to be - only a quality ENG attack was going to test them. Once Flintoff, Harmo, Hoggard where their ENG would have definately won, especially when you consider in IND 05/06 a full-stenght ENG attack drew in IND (winning the Mumbai test which had very English like bowling conditions).

IND winning in ENG 07 againts an reserve inexperienced ENG attack, is like a team winning in IND without Kumble/Harbhajan playing & having to face Raju/Kapoor/Joshi.

 

[aussie]

Hoggard was dropped after the WI series earlier that summer. I remember the attack was composed of Anderson, Sidebottom, Tremlett and Panesar.

Hoggard was not dropped. He got injured.

'You can't just rest on your laurels' - Hoggard | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v England 2007-08 | Cricinfo.com

Get it right.

 

[Jono]

Haha India didn't win the 3rd test in 2007 because they wanted to ensure they did not lose. Sure criticise India for not 100% going for the win (I don't, series win was more important) but that is not a credit to England

 

[Pratters]

They only won because English entire 1st choice pace attack was out injured.

 

[aussie]

The facts never laugh. It stares at you seriously.

 

[Pratters]

 

[shankar]

The first test on the other hand was a draw entirely due to the elements and not down to one team being incapable of bowling the other out in the allocated amount of time.

The first test at Lord's was very similiar to the one just played out i.e. the pitch itself was flat but the conditions aided swing. Now England batted on the first day when the ball hardly swung until the end of the day when the players came back after a break due to rain. After this point the conditions were conducive for most of the remaining days. So England had the better of the conditions in this match.

Secondly, if there was no rain there wouldn't have been a result at all in the match. So you can't say that England would have won if there were no rain since the whole course of the match would have been different.

In terms of the overall series result, India wouldn't have been so defensive when they were in a strong position on the 4th day of the final test had the series been tied at that point (some might argue they shouldnt have been so defensive regardless). So this needs to be kept in mind as well.

 

[tooextracool]

The first test at Lord's was very similiar to the one just played out i.e. the pitch itself was flat but the conditions aided swing. Now England batted on the first day when the ball hardly swung until the end of the day when the players came back after a break due to rain. After this point the conditions were conducive for most of the remaining days. So England had the better of the conditions in this match.

Secondly, if there was no rain there wouldn't have been a result at all in the match. So you can't say that England would have won if there were no rain since the whole course of the match would have been different.

In terms of the overall series result, India wouldn't have been so defensive when they were in a strong position on the 4th day of the final test had the series been tied at that point (some might argue they shouldnt have been so defensive regardless). So this needs to be kept in mind as well.

I watched the first test and the ball swung around corners. There was some pretty poor bowling on show and I remember being on here and roundly criticizing the Indian bowling attack for it.

 

[vcs]

Although IND did indeed stutter in the 1st test @ Lord's. The fact that ENG lost their entire 1st choice attack due to injury before the series always gave IND an advantage.

That inexperienced ENG attack was NEVER going to be good enough to stay on top of that super experienced IND for an entire series & so it proved to be - only a quality ENG attack was going to test them. Once Flintoff, Harmo, Hoggard where their ENG would have definately won, especially when you consider in IND 05/06 a full-stenght ENG attack drew in IND (winning the Mumbai test which had very English like bowling conditions).

IND winning in ENG 07 againts an reserve inexperienced ENG attack, is like a team winning in IND without Kumble/Harbhajan playing & having to face Raju/Kapoor/Joshi.

What rubbish. Remember the 2002 series? When did England last beat India in a Test series BTW?

And remember losing 3-0 in '92 with Gooch, Gatting, Hick et al? Rajesh Chauhan, Raju strike a bell? They have their career best performances against England. Probably the worst performance by a visiting Test team I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[shankar]

I watched the first test and the ball swung around corners. There was some pretty poor bowling on show and I remember being on here and roundly criticizing the Indian bowling attack for it.

It did swing a lot but after the first day. Zaheer started swinging it both ways immediately after the rain break whereas before he had struggled.

Apart from the question of whether England got the better of the conditions, is the question of if India would have won if there was no rain. Here you have to recognise that the same rain/overcast conditions that curtailed the match is the one that made a result possible in the first place because the pitch was flat.

 

[vcs]

Hoggard was not dropped. He got injured.

'You can't just rest on your laurels' - Hoggard | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v England 2007-08 | Cricinfo.com

Get it right.

Oh, OK.

 

[aussie]

What rubbish. Remember the 2002 series? When did England last beat India in a Test series BTW?

What about the 2002 series?. I hope you are not suggesting that the 2002 ENG bowling attack was a good attack?.

The last time ENG beat IND in a test series was 1996 in ENG,

And remember losing 3-0 in '92 with Gooch, Gatting, Hick et al? Rajesh Chauhan, Raju strike a bell? They have their career best performances against England. Probably the worst performance by a visiting Test team I've seen in my lifetime.

How is this relevant to what i just said?

 

[vcs]

What about the 2002 series?. I hope you are not suggesting that the 2002 ENG bowling attack was a good attack?.

The last time ENG beat IND in a test series was 1996 in ENG,

Heh, I know that. Was just rubbing it in. How many crap bowling attacks has it been in that timeframe?

How is this relevant to what i just said?

Just to point out that certain teams are capable of winning even with **** bowling lineups.

 

[aussie]

Heh, I know that. Was just rubbing it in. How many crap bowling attacks has it been in that timeframe?

Everyone except Australia.

Just to point out that certain teams are capable of winning even with **** bowling lineups.

I wouldn't call that a crap bowling attack in Indian conditons. Chauhan & Raju where backing up Kumble, just as well (Kapoor & Joshi, Hirwani also) when IND beat MUCH stronger AUS 98 & 2001 - SA 96/97 in India.

But yes on odd occassions in test history teams with crap bowling attacks have managed to win test series. But its such a rare event, its not worth making much note of.

 

[Cricket_God]

Currently sachin is the best and shewag second best in my opinion.