*Official* India in South Africa

[Jarquis]

I clearly stated that I don't like flat tracks either. You don't really get RESULTS in the type of tracks you are describing. Please, improve your reading comprehension.

On a side note, DRAW is part and parcel of Test cricket. A draw can be as exciting as a result. To know from day one that there will be a result is a slap on the face of test cricket and only serves to make it poorer.

Yeah, go look at some of the games between SA and England last year where we managed to cling on for a draw. Matches where the only possible result is a draw is ****. If I had to choose between pitches offering a result or pitches offering a draw, I'd undoubtedly choose the former as at leas then there's two possible outcomes.
660/5d + 260/4d vs 592 + 200/3 is just horrible.

 

[vcs]

Zaheer averages under 25 this year on these flat Indian wickets that are apparently fast bowler's graveyards.. shows you what genuine skill, accuracy, and intelligence can do even if you don't possess the raw tools and pace of someone like Steyn.

 

[b1acksun]

Yeah, go look at some of the games between SA and England last year where we managed to cling on for a draw. Matches where the only possible result is a draw is ****. If I had to choose between pitches offering a result or pitches offering a draw, I'd undoubtedly choose the former as at leas then there's two possible outcomes.
660/5d + 260/4d vs 592 + 200/3 is just horrible.

I am not necessarily against the pitches. I am not sure if it is the pitches which are like this or poor quality of batting. All I am saying is that this is not fun and I am not going to be bullied by people who lack the ability to distinguish between a balanced match and "660/5d + 260/4d vs 592 + 200/3".

You don't have to pick between matches where only possible result is a draw or matches where only possible option is a result. Something in between is what is optimum and is what should be targeted.

 

[silentstriker]

It's called Test cricket. I would stop watching if pitches were all one way or another.

 

[silentstriker]

On a side note, DRAW is part and parcel of Test cricket. A draw can be as exciting as a result.

Meh, only true in theory. In practice, most draws are not nearly as exciting as results. If it means not having to suffer through the 90% of meaningless boring draws, I'd gladly give up the 10% that are exciting.

 

[Jono]

Rightly or wrongly, people don't tend to judge teams on recent results (or results of any time-length in fact) - they judge them based on how they think they'd perform if they managed to simultaneously play every team at full strength home and way right now. Their opinions on how that would all go are largely dependant on the sums of the parts - players on paper rather than team results.

What people think would or should happen in their minds plays on their opinion a lot more than what has actually happened. It happens when people rate players to some extent but it happens a lot more when people rate teams.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that which team people think is the best is a totally separate argument to which team deserves to be ranked #1 based on actual team results, and that people blur those debates regularly.

i.e. people don't work with the facts.

This is completely analagous to the arguments you and Marcus and others are making against HB regarding Kallis vs. Ponting.

You and others would say that the idea of a batsman is to score the most runs for their team, not to look good or have more skill etc.

Just the same, the idea of a team playing cricket is to win, not to have a good team on paper and look like a dominating team.

Yeah India's bowling lineup looks like **** compared to South Africa's. Yeah they were carrying Raina who is clearly not test class right now. But **** it, they win matches and series. South Africa underachieve.

Fact is, 2009 and 2010 have been **** for South Africa.

 

[centurymaker]

Sreesanth congratulates Ishant Sharma on dismissing Morne Morkel | Cricket Photo | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Faisal1985]

Because it's absolutely refreshing to see batsman having to work for each run. It's a great change to see how fast bowling (and spin) can be encouraged and lead to excitement. It's amazing to see batsmen not being able to plonk their front foot down, close their eyes, and stroke away to centuries. It's nice to see bowlers not being reduced T20 fodder. And it's fantastic to know from day one that there will be a result, and that the game isn't over after the first innings. It's exciting to watch batsmen being asked questions they don't normally get asked, and to see who adjusts and how. And it's thrilling to see every single player being Tested, mentally and technically.

^ awta massively....

 

[Black_Warrior]

Believe it or not, there are certain Indian pitches that lie somewhere in the continuum between Ahmedabad and Durban. Personally, I don't like people imposing their idealized cricketing tastes on me, I enjoy cricket in India and the occasional bore draw just as much as series like this one. Why should batsmen give their wickets away to bowlers that aren't good enough to take them in conditions that aren't entirely helpful to them, if it results in the occasional draw, so be it.

Because it is a question of balance.. the pitch has to offer equal help to both batsmen and bowlers who are willing to work hard. Laxman worked hard, applied himself and got almost a hundred.
In the previous match, the pitch had help for bowlers but once the Indian batsmen applied themselves in the second innings, they managed 450 plus which is a great total for a third innings.

On the other hand, matches like this, this and this do not offer a contest between bat and ball. It is just too easy to score runs, without really having to work hard.

Now I am not saying every pitch in the subcontinent is like that..there are good pitches on offer and when matches are played on those, we have exciting test matches and exciting contests between bat and ball. This and this come to mind.. Bowlers and batsmen both got rewarded for working hard and applying themselves.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It's pretty random how on the whole the cricketing world underrates South Africa (and South Africans), but on this forum they are so significantly overrated. It's weird.

It's like some on CW don't think winning test series are relevant to being the best. You just have to win in Australia and that's it.

Its not that..the thing is, many on CW are not familiar with history or have short term memory. They see South Africa crush India in the first test match and think oh they are the best team in the world..They see South Africa winning in Australia but forget they lost at home just a few weeks later against the same side that is not being questioned by all and sundry after the Ashes defeat.

There is a reason why India is ranked higher than South Africa and its very simple - they have won more test series over the last 2-3 years. Now to be aware of that, you have to be aware of whats going on in world cricket outside of your own cocoon..Many I am afraid are not aware of whats going on outside of their own country.

For example I am sure many who question India's ranking do not know that they beat England both home and away, a team that is tipped to be the future number 1.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I didn't realize that SA only won 1/5 of their last series. If so, why aren't people questioning their #2 rating?

You answered it yourself..just like you didnt realize it, many didnt realize it either..

I remember a conversation I had with a friend recently..he was telling me after the first test match how South Africa are so awesome..and how they beat Australia in Australia..I had to remind him that they lost at home against Australia and only managed a 1-1 against England. People have bad memory

 

[Black_Warrior]

Do you honestly feel Sehwag is ever going to be successful when opening in conditions supporting swing bowling a lot? He would be of more use to the side if there is less swing when he comes out to bat say after 20-30 overs.

But what if it doesnt swing...What if Dhoni miraculously manages to win the toss and sent the Saffers in..what if Sehwag bats after lunch on Day 2 and there is no moisture and its sunny out there? I can bet he will get an 80 of 90 balls by the end of the day.

 

[Shri]

Well, captain should look at the conditions and take a call.

 

[biased indian]

MSD has equaled Azhar on test wins as captin and that to in half the matches...now only dada ahead of him

MSD -- > 23 matches 14 wins 3 loss 6 Draws
Azhar --> 47 matches 14 wins 14 loss 19 Draws

 

[biased indian]

But what if it doesnt swing...What if Dhoni miraculously manages to win the toss and sent the Saffers in..what if Sehwag bats after lunch on Day 2 and there is no moisture and its sunny out there? I can bet he will get an 80 of 90 balls by the end of the day.

if we get 45 overs he will be on 140 from 120

 

[miscer]

MSD has equaled Azhar on test wins as captin and that to in half the matches...now only dada ahead of him

MSD -- > 23 matches 14 wins 3 loss 6 Draws
Azhar --> 47 matches 14 wins 14 loss 19 Draws

im gonna go ahead and say that's because this indian team has the best batting lineup india has ever had and one of the best ever. Dhoni's leadership probably has little to do with it.

 

[vcs]

i.e. people don't work with the facts.

This is completely analagous to the arguments you and Marcus and others are making against HB regarding Kallis vs. Ponting.

You and others would say that the idea of a batsman is to score the most runs for their team, not to look good or have more skill etc.

Just the same, the idea of a team playing cricket is to win, not to have a good team on paper and look like a dominating team.

Yeah India's bowling lineup looks like **** compared to South Africa's. Yeah they were carrying Raina who is clearly not test class right now. But **** it, they win matches and series. South Africa underachieve.

Fact is, 2009 and 2010 have been **** for South Africa.

Yeah, it's been strange considering how good they were in 2008. It's also weird that they don't seem to have played too much cricket in the last two years (Test and ODI).. you'd think they'd play more to take advantage of having a good, settled side..

 

[M0rphin3]

MSD has equaled Azhar on test wins as captin and that to in half the matches...now only dada ahead of him

MSD -- > 23 matches 14 wins 3 loss 6 Draws
Azhar --> 47 matches 14 wins 14 loss 19 Draws

By the end of his career will sure end up as the most successful captain in both formats by quite a margin. Would be interesting to see how he'll do when the seniors retire though.

 

[M0rphin3]

Also AWTA with whatever Joni said.

 

[Prince EWS]

i.e. people don't work with the facts.

This is completely analagous to the arguments you and Marcus and others are making against HB regarding Kallis vs. Ponting.

You and others would say that the idea of a batsman is to score the most runs for their team, not to look good or have more skill etc.

Just the same, the idea of a team playing cricket is to win, not to have a good team on paper and look like a dominating team.

Yeah India's bowling lineup looks like **** compared to South Africa's. Yeah they were carrying Raina who is clearly not test class right now. But **** it, they win matches and series. South Africa underachieve.

Fact is, 2009 and 2010 have been **** for South Africa.

Yeah, I agree.

The analogy falls down when a team changes its personnel and the results of it haven't been shown either way yet (for example, Sri Lanka are now playing without Murali; they're not going to be rated the same as the results their ranking is based on which includes many games with him), but aside from that I agree.