England can beat India "every day of week": Gough

[GIMH]

Gough is an idiot. England are largely untried and their batting is weak in difficult conditions.

India 3-1.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, I was going to add information that should have been very obvious to every single cricket fan. Sorry - should have know who I was addressing. I will keep that in mind.

I wasn't "moaning" about that; I was "moaning" about how you were whining about one incorrect decision that India benefited from, but conveniently choosing to ignore the two that went against them.

Well if it was so obvious why did you post something that was entirely different and categorically wrong?

I wasn't ignoring those decisions, I said that two wrongs don't make a right and was talking from a comparative viewpoint of SA vs Eng and Aus vs India once both sides were 9 down.
South Africa couldn't get us out, Australia did but were denied the wicket.
Whether either side deserved to be in that situation wasn't the thing being discussed.

 

[Furball]

Gough is an idiot. England are largely untried and their batting is weak in difficult conditions.

India 3-1.

Hope your dementia isn't too bad and you can enjoy your golden years.

 

[Blaze 18]

Look, you're entitled to whatever opinions you like and I'm entitled to call them bull****.
One match proves nothing, and although 3 years is a nice period from a statistical point of view for the point you're trying to make, there's no way on this Earth that Broad in 2008 is the same Broad now. As I said, his coming of age series was the WI Away in 2009 and since this period he's improved his performances, for doing so he deserves some credit and attention should be drawn to it. If you can say that Ishant now is a massively improved bowler from his debut.. then go about showing so.

Zaheer and Anderson is so close is basically negligible. I agree with our seamers being better than yours and I think the Swann vs Indian batsmen battle is overstated. You didn't exactly tear him apart on his debut series when he was a much inferior bowler to the one he is nowadays. I don't see how it's at all logical to assume he'd do worse now than he did then. I'd say the opposite for Harbhajan, our batting now is better than it was then and Bhaji certainly hasn't improved in that time period.

And yeah, whatever the case Australia's bowlers are probably better than yours. So if flat tracks turn up look forward to 517/1 and the likes of it.

Yeah, you can totally ridicule my opinions; I can do the same of course

See, this is going around in circles and not really getting anywhere. To sum up my points in this thread :

The India-England series will be close, extremely close. England may start favourites by virtue of the series being played in England, but India will certainly be competitive. England's bowling is certainly better than India's, but I believe India's inferior bowling attack will become more potent on what are expected to be lively pitches. That is not an unreasonable point I am putting forward, when you consider the performance of the Indian bowlers in Durban. I rate India's batting better than England's, seaming conditions or otherwise (not by all that much, though). So, however you choose to look at it, the series is likely to be close. I think you agree with that, so I have no clue as to what we are still arguing about

 

[Burgey]

Hope your dementia isn't too bad and you can enjoy your golden years.

Let us all know who the donor is when they transplant a sense of humour into you

 

[Dissector]

Did they?

Won in WI
Beat WI & NZ at home
Won in SA
Beat Ban & Aus at home

V

Beat WI & Aus at home
Drew in SA
Won in Ban
Beat Ban & Pak at home
Won/drew in Aus

Fairly similar records but more success away from home from this side. Also the 05 side didn't win a Test series for a year after the Ashes win whereas this side saw the Ashes win as a catapult.

I imagine this side is better statistically as well. It certainly is from a batting POV.

There is a massive difference between beating Australia in 2005 and today. That series alone was far bigger than anything England has achieved in the last two years.And it's not so long ago that England lost to the West Indies.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, you can totally ridicule my opinions; I can do the same of course

See, this is going around in circles and not really getting anywhere. To sum up my points in this thread :

The India-England series will be close, extremely close. England may start favourites by virtue of the series being played in England, but India will certainly be competitive. England's bowling is certainly better than India's, but I believe India's inferior bowling attack will become more potent on what are expected to be lively pitches. That is not an unreasonable point I am putting forward, when you consider the performance of the Indian bowlers in Durban. I rate India's batting better than England's, seaming conditions or otherwise (not by all that much, though). So, however you choose to look at it, the series is likely to be close. I think you agree with that, so I have no clue as to what we are still arguing about

Yeah, I think the main disagreement was that you rate India's chances far greater than I do if the series was to be played in India.

 

[asty80]

On a player to player comparison, India fare better or are equal than England on all counts except one (spin). The twist is the amount of weightage riding on Zaheer. If he is injured, India might plummet unless the pitch is extremely green which gives their bowlers a chance. Otoh, Anderson missing might not be a big blow to Eng since they have adequate backup. So if Zaheer is fit, I dont see the Eng team beating Ind in the series. If he's out, then the balance tilts in favour of an Eng win.
Now if the series ws in India - then I dont think Eng stand a chance. Sehwag, Gambhir,Sachin and Dhoni will blow them out (and Laxman as backup in case the situation gets tight ). Zaheer or not, doesnt matter.The weight of runs will get the wckets.

Strauss < Sehwag
Cook = Gambhir
Trott = Dravid
Pietersen = Sachin (expecting 1 century and remaining single digit scores from both)
Collingwood < Laxman
Bell = Pujara
Prior < Dhoni
Swann > Bhajji
Anderson = Zaheer
Broad and Finn = Ishant and Sreesanth

 

[Burgey]

On the Swann-Harbhajan thing. If Swann finishes his career with stats like say Harbhajan has now (allowing for age and all) will England fans be happy or disappointed?

Personally think Swann is a good bowler, very decent indeed. But if he's the best spinner in the world, then SS has got his way, and the art is dying.

 

[Burgey]

On a player to player comparison, India fare better or are equal than England on all counts except one (spin). The twist is the amount of weightage riding on Zaheer. If he is injured, India might plummet unless the pitch is extremely green which gives their bowlers a chance. Otoh, Anderson missing might not be a big blow to Eng since they have adequate backup. So if Zaheer is fit, I dont see the Eng team beating Ind in the series. If he's out, then the balance tilts in favour of an Eng win.


Strauss < Sehwag
Cook = Gambhir
Trott = Dravid
Pietersen = Sachin (expecting 1 century and remaining single digit scores from both)
Collingwood < Laxman
Bell = Pujara
Prior < Dhoni
Swann > Bhajji
Anderson = Zaheer
Broad and Finn = Ishant and Sreesanth

Cook is a better player than Gambhir IMO, but my vote may be swayed by the Gambhir-is-a-**** factor.

Pietersen wishes, as does most everybody, that he was Tendulkar's equal. Though if you're talking a out a single series sample, he may well be.

 

[Blaze 18]

Well if it was so obvious why did you post something that was entirely different and categorically wrong?

I told you - it should have been obvious to every cricket fan. Since you don't think it was obvious and keep whining about it, I will certainly be more careful in future. Some posters here need spoon feeding, clearly.

I wasn't ignoring those decisions, I said that two wrongs don't make a right and was talking from a comparative viewpoint of SA vs Eng and Aus vs India once both sides were 9 down.
South Africa couldn't get us out, Australia did but were denied the wicket.
Whether either side deserved to be in that situation wasn't the thing being discussed.

Again, a moot point. Why do we directly jump to the point where both sides are nine down ? Everything that happened before that is irrelevant, eh ? And really, how does it even matter how the two sides survived after being nine down ? What matters is that England drew the series in South Africa, and India won the series against Australia.

 

[GIMH]

LOL @ bringing the West Indies series up, just lol, honestly.

Anyway, yes, the 05 Ashes win was a big achievement. TBH it's the biggest achievement by any side in Test cricket this century, along with India beating them in 01 and Australia's record winning streaks.

Winning away to Australia would be better than anything that the 04-05 team achieved though. The South Africa side might have been better than this Australia one (read, certainly are), but the enormity of us winning an Ashes series down undershould not be underestimated.

And I made this point in my last post but it's worth restating - the biggest criticism against the 05 side should be that they never went on with it. They chose to be Shane Watson instead of Alastair Cook, if you will

This side is just getting started.

 

[Jarquis]

I told you - it should have been obvious to every cricket fan. Since you don't think it was obvious and keep whining about it, I will certainly be more careful in future. Some posters here need spoon feeding, clearly.





Again, a moot point. Why do we directly jump to the point where both sides are nine down ? Everything that happened before that is irrelevant, eh ? And really, how does it even matter how the two sides survived after being nine down ? What matters is that England drew the series in South Africa, and India won the series against Australia.

Well if it was obvious why did you say something different? I don't refer to the sky as red purely because everybody already knows it's blue. That'd be stupid. Just like your post.

Anyway, say what you want about SA and England. You can point to your incorrect umpiring decisions and I'll point to the fact we legitimately earned that draw against SA as they couldn't bowl us out in 5 days, ultimately the margin is irrelevant.

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, I think the main disagreement was that you rate India's chances far greater than I do if the series was to be played in India.

Yeah well, it doesn't even matter. India aren't hosting England anytime soon, certainly not in 2011. I would still maintain that England would fare much worse on a dustbowl than India would on a green-pitch. The pitches that England got in 2008 weren't the typical Indian pitches (although it must be said that such wickets are becoming more and more rare). If India's number one ranking (should they have it when these two sides next meet in India) is on the line, you will likely see Kanpur 2008-esque wickets, and England have no chance on them. Absolutely no chance.

 

[Dissector]

LOL @ bringing the West Indies series up, just lol, honestly.

Why? I mean it happened less than two years ago and was the series right before the ones you listed. Of course it's relevant to evaluating the current England side.

 

[Jarquis]

cbf anymore

 

[asty80]

Cook is a better player than Gambhir IMO, but my vote may be swayed by the Gambhir-is-a-**** factor.

Pietersen wishes, as does most everybody, that he was Tendulkar's equal. Though if you're talking a out a single series sample, he may well be.

Ya..this is just on a per-series basis. He doesnt come anywhere close otherwise. Even Trott is nowhere near Dravid careerwise, but on current form, they can be equated.

 

[Jarquis]

On the Swann-Harbhajan thing. If Swann finishes his career with stats like say Harbhajan has now (allowing for age and all) will England fans be happy or disappointed?

Personally think Swann is a good bowler, very decent indeed. But if he's the best spinner in the world, then SS has got his way, and the art is dying.

There's even a debate to be had there?

 

[Burgey]

Ya..this is just on a per-series basis. He doesnt come anywhere close otherwise. Even Trott is nowhere near Dravid careerwise, but on current form, they can be equated.

Yeah fair enough.

Teams have to start bowling consistently six inches wide of off stump to Trott. He's a lot like Mark Waugh in that anything even off stump he'll work to leg. Always looks like he's going to get hit on the pads but rarely does tbh. He's a good player.

 

[GIMH]

Why? I mean it happened less than two years ago and was the series right before the ones you listed. Of course it's relevant to evaluating the current England side.

Well I don't count it as 'this' England side, because Strauss was 'Interim Captain', Flower was caretaker coach and we were in transition, finding our XI.

If you want to count it fair enough, I'd say you would then have to count the series away to Sri Lanka for the 05 side. Swings and roundabouts really. I've taken the start of the 2009 season (defeat to the Netherlands in T20 ) as the start of the Flower-Strauss era. Either way though, I don't think that the Windies defeat tells you anything at all about this team.