*Official* - Road to India in South Africa - 2010-11

[Shri]

I'd pick

Sehwag
Gambhir
Dravid
Tendy
Laxman
Raina
Dhoni
Harby
Zak
Sree
Ish

Pragyan
Dinesh Karthik
Tyagi
Munaf
Vijay

Very strong team that and should test SA on the high veldt.

Tyagi? Would personally opt for Praveen Kumar. And Chawla instead of Ojha. Legspinners are great to watch when they bowl in bouncy wickets, really brings the close in fielders into play. Would have another batter in the squad in place of Munaf i.e Pujara.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah in a squad of 16, 7 + 7 + 2 seems the wrong break up.. Would prefer it to be 8,6,2


Take out Tyagi and Ojha and put Mishra and Pujara in.. But actually it will be Ojha and Pujara I reckon.. and that would be fair enough.

 

[silentstriker]

I wouldn't be against Zaheer/Sreesanth/Ishant/Bhajji playing. Yea, it's not a great attack, but I think it wouldn't be a smart idea to play a bowler whose main job is to keep the runs down. India should be looking to win, and you need your fast bowlers to attack and do well if there is any chance of winning. Bhajji can do the job of defense, the pitches won't help him much.

 

[vcs]

Yeah Zaheer-Ishant-Sreesanth seems like the only way to go right now. The problem is, bar Zaheer, these guys are ridiculously inconsistent. One bad day from both and it could be all over for India.

 

[Cevno]

I would have Mishra rather than both Ojha and Bhajji against south africa.

South Africans have a weakness against leg spin and Mishra is more likely to bowl wicket taking balls than Ojha and Bhajji who are more dependant on the pitch.

Wouldn't mind taking Irfan Pathan ,Praveen Kumar or RP singh too.
Swing bowlers who are likely to be effective in South Africa.

 

[popepouri]

South Africans have a weakness against leg spin...

Oh FFS.

 

[Cevno]

Oh FFS.

They Don't?

I have always though they have struggled more against leg spinners compared to other types.

 

[popepouri]

They Don't?

I have always though they have struggled more against leg spinners compared to other types.

In the 90's, sure. The evidence is minimal with the current batting lineup. Maybe Prince and Duminy (who is not in the current squad) but the rest of them have proven otherwise. I don't have to remind what you what they did to McGain.

 

[Furball]

They Don't?

I have always though they have struggled more against leg spinners compared to other types.

Being owned by Shane Warne doesn't equate to a weakness against leg spin.

 

[aussie]

In the 90's, sure. The evidence is minimal with the current batting lineup. Maybe Prince and Duminy (who is not in the current squad) but the rest of them have proven otherwise. I don't have to remind what you what they did to McGain.

They have certainly improved since the 90s againts spin. But they aren't that great or esle they would have won in India in both 2008 or 2010.

Not having a top 6 who where all very solid vs spin was the difference in those two series for SA, since their pace bowlers came to party often enough. That was why AUS won in India 2004, they had the top 6 well equipped to handle spin & the pefect attack.

 

[Shri]

In the 90's, sure. The evidence is minimal with the current batting lineup. Maybe Prince and Duminy (who is not in the current squad) but the rest of them have proven otherwise. I don't have to remind what you what they did to McGain.

Lol McGain.

Not having a go or disagreeing with what you are trying to say. Just found the mention of McGain funny.

 

[Shri]

Darryl Cullinan being owned by Shane Warne doesn't equate to a weakness against leg spin.

Fix'd.

 

[popepouri]

They have certainly improved since the 90s againts spin. But they aren't that great or esle they would have won in India in both 2008 or 2010.

Sure. But winning in India isn't that easy.

If there was a major weakness, it would have been consistent in those series. Mishra and Kumble would have picked up a lot more wickets. Most of the wickets came from Harby though and the one match that they lost was on a minefield. It's also that they did not have a quality spinner of their own that could ****ing turn the ball.

The evidence isn't that clear cut.

 

[vcs]

Sure. But winning in India isn't that easy.

If there was a major weakness, it would have been consistent in those series. Mishra and Kumble would have picked up a lot more wickets. Most of the wickets came from Harby though and the one match that they lost was on a minefield. The evidence isn't that clear cut.

I agree, SA have dealt with spin as well as any non-subcontinental side to visit India in recent years.

 

[aussie]

Sure. But winning in India isn't that easy.

If there was a major weakness, it would have been consistent in those series. Mishra and Kumble would have picked up a lot more wickets. Most of the wickets came from Harby though and the one match that they lost was on a minefield. The evidence isn't that clear cut.

Its not major. But unlike the 2004 AUS winning team, their top 6 didn't have every batsman perfect/fairly solid vs spin (McKenzie & Prince in 08, Prince, Dumminy where the vulnerable blokes). Compared to AUS in 04 who all of Langer, Hayden, Katich, Martyn, Lehmann/Clarke, Gilchrist porved their solidity againts spin after past series failures.

In both series when SA encountered real turners in Kanpur (which wasn't a minefield, this was perfectly normal turner) & Kolkatta they collapses to spin i& India came back into the test, when going into both those test SA had the series in the bag.

They didn't need a spinner since they had the pace attack who controlled the IND batsmen for the majority of those two series like AUS pace attack in 04. Since historically its generally always pace that has won in IND - the role of spinner is to be containing. Its the batsmen failing @ crucial points againts the spin test, which prevented them from winning both series.

 

[akilana]

in 04, australia failed to chase 100 something runs. didn't they? in the same match india lost 6 wickets to clarke for 9 runs. in a minefield, most teams would struggle if they were to face a decent spinner.

 

[popepouri]

Its not major. But unlike the 2004 AUS winning team, their top 6 didn't have every batsman perfect/fairly solid vs spin (McKenzie & Prince in 08, Prince, Dumminy where the vulnerable blokes). Compared to AUS in 04 who all of Langer, Hayden, Katich, Martyn, Lehmann/Clarke, Gilchrist porved their solidity againts spin after past series failures.

In both series when SA encountered real turners in Kanpur (which wasn't a minefield, this was perfectly normal turner) & Kolkatta they collapses to spin i& India came back into the test, when going into both those test SA had the series in the bag.

They didn't need a spinner since they had the pace attack who controlled the IND batsmen for the majority of those two series like AUS pace attack in 04. Since historically its generally always pace that has won in IND - the role of spinner is to be containing. Its the batsmen failing @ crucial points againts the spin test, which prevented them from winning both series.

I don't think it's a fair comparison given how good Kumble and Harby were in that series. I think their impact was negated partially by great Australian bowling especially by Gillespie, McGrath and Warne. All of them were consistent.

And McKenzie was awesome in that series.

 

[tooextracool]

They have certainly improved since the 90s againts spin. But they aren't that great or esle they would have won in India in both 2008 or 2010.

They have? Personally, Id take the side that toured India in 1999/2000 over the one that toured the subcontinent recently.

 

[aussie]

in 04, australia failed to chase 100 something runs. didn't they? in the same match india lost 6 wickets to clarke for 9 runs. in a minefield, most teams would struggle if they were to face a decent spinner.

That match was on sub-standard pitch.

The proper real turner in that series was the 2nd test in Chennai when AUS after they collapses in the 1st innings. They recovered in the 2nd innings, which is what you have to do & guard againts in India as a batting side.

 

[aussie]

I don't think it's a fair comparison given how good Kumble and Harby were in that series. I think their impact was negated partially by great Australian bowling especially by Gillespie, McGrath and Warne. All of them were consistent.

And McKenzie was awesome in that series.

Kumble & Harbhajan where certainly consistent threat in 2004. As i mentioned just now they managed to cause AUS to collapse in the 1st innings in the Chennai test. But AUS recovered immediately in the 2nd innings. You compared to what happened to SA batsmen in Kanpur 08 & Kolkatta 10, the where stuck when the IND spinner had them on turners in both innings.

If AUS batsmen had not conquered those spinners, just like the SA failures in 08 & 10. The excellent work of the bowling attack would have still failed.

McKenzie was awesome up until that Kanpur test, but he wasn't as competent when the spinners got perfect conditions. Compared especially that utter road in the 1st test @ Chennai, which gave no help to pace or spin bowling.

They have? Personally, Id take the side that toured India in 1999/2000 over the one that toured the subcontinent recently.

Well when i said since the 90s, i should have said since the 96/97 tour to India. The improvement started from the 99/00 tour for sure. But the SA batting in that 99/00 was indeed a bit more solid againts spin that the 08 & 2010 batting sides overall.