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

[Furball]

No, it isn't.

India would be nowhere near #1 if it were so.

The beauty of playing as a team is that the majority can try and make up for the weaknesses of the few.

India have had less glaring weak links than other countries in their time frame as number 1. Australia have had a brittle batting line up. As have England on rare occasions - England's lack of a truly outstanding run scorer in the mould of Tendulkar, Amla or de Villiers in the last 18 months has left them vulnerable to situations where they've all failed. South Africa have suffered from the same problem as India - their bowling attack minus their main bowler is garbage, and they've had issues with the 2nd opener, number 6 and number 7 batsman that India haven't.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Marcuss, DO YOU NOT SEE THE CARD I HOLD IN MY HAND??
You know you're being pedantic.

 

[Jarquis]

Marcuss, DO YOU NOT SEE THE CARD I HOLD IN MY HAND??
You know you're being pedantic.

Pedantic != Wrong though

 

[G.I.Joe]

India have had less glaring weak links than other countries in their time frame as number 1. Australia have had a brittle batting line up. As have England on rare occasions - England's lack of a truly outstanding run scorer in the mould of Tendulkar, Amla or de Villiers in the last 18 months has left them vulnerable to situations where they've all failed. South Africa have suffered from the same problem as India - their bowling attack minus their main bowler is garbage, and they've had issues with the 2nd opener, number 6 and number 7 batsman that India haven't.

So what you're saying is that a team is as good as its players?

 

[Furball]

So what you're saying is that a team is as good as its players?

In a way. I still stand by my "only as good as your weakest" though. But India in the last 18 months have had less weak links than their competitors.

 

[Furball]

Do you really think so? The West Indies team of the 80s wasn't defined by the fact that Gus Logie averaged mid-30s in Tests and FC cricket. Albeit that he was maybe the best short-leg fielder that ever drew breath.

True - but at the same time that side would have been even stronger if someone like Lara had been born 10 years earlier.

The best example I can think of is Australia's side at the last World Cup.

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
Watson
Hogg
Bracken
McGrath
Tait

That's a seriously strong unit. I'm sure people will be able to come up with all time ODI XIs without a single one of those players in it, but as far as ODI units go, I doubt I'll see a side that strong again. Absolutely no weak links in the side whatsoever, and it wasn't much of a suprise when they utterly steamrollered the opposition.

Would they have won the World Cup had Mick Lewis played instead of McGrath? Yes. Would they have been as strong a side? No.

 

[zaremba]

Would they have won the World Cup had Mick Lewis played instead of McGrath? Yes. Would they have been as strong a side? No.

But this is my point. That team, poor old Mick Lewis included, remains a really strong team. So it can't be true to say that the team is only as strong as its weakest player.

 

[MW1304]

The reason Eng will never win a series in India is this:

If Eng go 1-0 up in a series, dustbowls will follow and they will crumble in the next game. No way to win unless they lrn2playspin.

Hmmm interesting that...

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

...lrn2playspin indeed.

 

[GIMH]

Hmmm interesting that...

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

...lrn2playspin indeed.

Shri to reply with some form of abbreviated text

 

[MW1304]

England can't play spin.

Or there's that way of doing it, of course, which is better and more relevent.

 

[Jono]

Jeez, lots of pages in such a short time.

One thing England are lacking is a:

 

[MW1304]

(Not the same scale but I still luv 'im )

 

[marc71178]

also the guy has barely played for two years. when ajit agarkar came on to the scene he had a better performances as an allrounder than even the great shaun pollock. let him show he has class against all opposition over a long period of time.

So so wrong it's unbelievable - you do realise that to be an all rounder you have to show some level of batting ability don't you?

 

[Jono]

Wow, just fully read through this thread.

The cheerleading has been absolutely piss poor IMO.

 

[George.Hinton]

Which says everything about the weaknesses in India's attack. Zaheer doesn't play and your bowling goes to ****.

.

And yet they won a test in Sri Lanka in August despite losing the toss
and not having Zaheer, Sreesanth or Harbhajan in the side.
Won a test in Australia two years ago without Zaheer, Sreesanth or Munaf.
Won in the Caribbean in 2006 without Zaheer.

There is enough evidence that India remain a dangerous team without Zaheer.

 

[Jono]

Jesus. Full moon, eh? All you ladies' cycles seem to have aligned in any event.

Can we just agree Gough's a bit of a divot and look forward to the series in the summer?

That's assuming England don't decide to just sit on Zaheer and pumell whatever rubbish is masquerading as India's attack.

Haha that's worked for every team so far isn't it?

Very much easier said than done.

 

[morgieb]

And yet they won a test in Sri Lanka in August despite losing the toss
and not having Zaheer, Sreesanth or Harbhajan in the side.
Won a test in Australia two years ago without Zaheer, Sreesanth or Munaf.
Won in the Caribbean in 2006 without Zaheer.

There is enough evidence that India remain a dangerous team without Zaheer.

Zaheer wasn't the same bowler a couple of years back. Without him, India's attack will be useless in England.

Reality, it depends on whether Laxman, Tendulkar, Zaheer, Sehwag and Dravid are still there in a couple of years time. Expect all of them (except for possibly Dravid) to go to England, but whether they'll be there when England tours India next is more interesting. Without them, India will probably be also-rans. Right now, I'd expect India to win in India and a draw to happen in England.

 

[Jono]

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.

You said this before the Ashes. You continue to say it after he's performed well.

I don't understand, why do you not rate him? He's continuously bowling well, and has done so South Africa and Australia now.

 

[George.Hinton]

I think England will become world no. 1 but they won't dominate world cricket like AUstralia or the West Indies did.

The reasons for their rise I think can be summed up in 3 points:
1) Good mix of players (batting, seam bowling , spin, wicketkeeping - all bases are more or less covered)
2) Very well organised and professional management/administration (
something I think that will hold back India despite their huge talent base ).
3) A number of players at or entering the peaks of their careers
(Strauss, Bell, Trott, KP, Prior, Swann, JImmeh, Tremlett). Makes for a solid core.
Could probably throw Onions and Monty there as well.

But to setup a dynasty, to be a truly great team you need something extra.
Truly special bowlers IMO definitely - you need guys who can take wickets in any conditions.
I don't see that kind of talent amongst England's bowlers. Someone could prove me wrong but I see them as being good rather than genuinely great.
TBF, the only special bowler in the world atm is Dale Steyn IMO.
Great batsmen would also help - possible that Cook could make the grade. Time will tell.
KP and Trott I feel will fall short.

Having said that, they may not match the feats of Australia 1999-2006 or be unbeaten for 15 years like the WIndies but I think England will enjoy a period of success over the next 4-5 years.

 

[Burgey]

You said this before the Ashes. You continue to say it after he's performed well.

I don't understand, why do you not rate him? He's continuously bowling well, and has done so South Africa and Australia now.

Well because he isn't that good. If bowling tightly = being the best in the world while averaging closer to 40 than 30 in a series, then I'll dust off the creams.

He's a decent bowler but he isn't that good IMO. Sorry Jono, I realise I have to see things precisely as everyone else does. He's decent. I don't believe he's a world beater. That being so, if he's the best spinner in the world right now then it reflects poorly on where spinning is at.

It's an opinion, that's all.