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

[Jono]

When you say 'if', does that indicate that you have doubts that he is the best spinner in the world?

 

[vic_orthdox]

How long can you afford it? If you require a 2 to 3 month preparatory period before every tour to perform at that level, you are finished even before you started.

When you are the number 1 side in the world, every team wants to play you. ICC wants you to play, your board would want you to play and make some money while everything going well....you can't really afford that kind of preparation before every important tour.

It is very easy to criticize BCCI, but given the stature of the game in India and how much people want to see Cricket, i think they have done as well as any current board could have done.

True, they won't be having such a long period of time to prepare, but you can be sure that it will have been noted by all in their set-up that it was a very important part. And really, they came over here and dominated the state teams from the start, not something that is normally something associated with touring sides. They may not have needed that much preparation, but they undertook it to make sure that they were as well prepared as they can be.

Also, with their season being different to most other nations, they have the facility to prepare and train before the southern hemisphere summer.

Being number 1 for India changed things, because suddenly there was pressure to be playing more Test cricket. And credit to the BCCI for facilitating that (e.g the tours by South Africa and Australia to India having (more) Tests) but England have a regimented season with plenty of Tests being played already.

EDIT: and I'm not sure that England will come under the same pressure to play in general in comparison to India. Everyone's mustard to play India all the time, because of the financial benefits.

 

[pasag]

Yeah but I'm not bagging him. I'm saying he's a decent bowler, but if he's the best spinner in the world then the world has issues. Brilliant slipper too it should be said, and he adds bucketloads to that side with his attitude and lower order batting (not so much here but he hasn't been needed really). I just think as a bowler he's a bit over-hyped.

Not Johnson-level overhyped mind.

Yeah, it does have issues relative to the fact we had three all-time great spinners retire within a couple of years of each-other. Bit like being the best all-rounder post Botham/Dev/Hadlee/Khan. Doesn't detract from him being a fantastic cricketer who wins matches for his side though, as you say. Also Swann could have played in quite a few other eras and still been considered best in the world or close to it.

 

[kingjulian]

True, they won't be having such a long period of time to prepare, but you can be sure that it will have been noted by all in their set-up that it was a very important part. And really, they came over here and dominated the state teams from the start, not something that is normally something associated with touring sides. They may not have needed that much preparation, but they undertook it to make sure that they were as well prepared as they can be.

Agree with you, that you can't fault England for showing intent. But i just keep reminding myself that the series was played under special circumstances and this level of intensity is something that is normally not kept up.

- The status of Ashes is as close as it gets to World Test Championship in England and Australia.
- First time for England in nearly 25 years to have a realistic chance of beating Aus in Aus, because of all the good players England had.
- Further strengthened by the woeful shape Australia were in. I will not expound on this...but to merely point, the tour sides England played had mostly bowlers with a first class average in the 40s. If that is the reserve for Australia, they are really in big big trouble.

The problem is, they are going to be playing Sri Lanka, India, South Africa, New Zealand, a resurgent West Indies etc, and those tours don't normally invoke the same level of intensity from the players and also from the board. While the board may be prepared to give adequate (they won't go out of the way, i'll bet money on that) preparation time for each series, it is also up to the players to show that intensity and make good use of it.....it's a question of how badly do English players want to be number 1....i don't think England has shown any of that so far. They lost to west indies, they lost to SA at home, they drew at South Africa but rain and conditions had a big role to play in that. I don't think they have it in them to overcome Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. So we have a home and away victory against Australia and we are already getting over excited about that and have started trashing (i'm not blaming you of course) other teams.

Edit: My main beef is with the fact that the new found bravado and optimism for England is based on very little factual evidence. You can't be dissing a team that is currently world number 1 and has won more tests than any other country in the last two years, and at the same time hyping up another that has proven next to nothing....yes, they have successfully flogged a dead horse, but we are not all that impressed.

 

[Anil]

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?

that's sacrilegious coming from the president of the aaas...

 

[smash84]

I don't think you've said anything controversial really. The only issue I have is that despite the lack of weakness in this English team, they have had horror tests in Perth vs Aust, in Centurion vs. SA and wherever Pakistan beat them. There clearly is a weakness there, because they are just as prone to a collapse or the opposition batting dominating as India are.

So whether they look better on paper, or appear to have less weaknesses, both teams are pretty damn even. That gives England the edge in home conditions, but India the edge in the fact they have the better results on the board so far.

well said.....

 

[biased indian]

have to wonder what the argument would be like come jan 6th...if india win 2-1 and England end up 2-2 or it goes the other way 1-2 and 1-3

any way i think if we where to play a 4 test series in india also simillar to the england tour coming
i will give it 2-1 to England in England and 2-0 to India in India

 

[vcs]

The rankings show how a team has performed. When team makeups change, the performances of a team in the past - even the recent past - lose value. There are other things you can factor in.

No, the rankings include games as far as 4(?) years ago.. which is really quite irrelevant when discussion the teams as of now.

As for your very last question.. I still think you'd struggle hugely. Besides Zaheer and Bhaji your bowlers are genuinely poo.

The rankings lose value because England from 2007 are not the same as they are now... but it is still a long way better than disregarding them in favour of analyzing their strength/weaknesses on paper. I reiterate a point I made on another thread - if hypothetically India and England had achieved identical results versus everyone else in the last couple of years (England haven't matched India just yet), you'd still have to use the 2007 and 2008 series to split the two teams in a ranking system. Rather than analyze on-paper strengths or weaknesses.

 

[Dissector]

I think what this thread proves is that the days of the India-Australia rivalry are over.

India-England is what gets the fans hot under the collar. Bring it on.

 

[Burgey]

I think what this thread proves is that the days of the India-Australia rivalry are over.

India-England is what gets the fans hot under the collar. Bring it on.

Well then, eight weeks is a long time....

 

[G.I.Joe]

What rivalry?

 

[Edged&Taken]

who does the sprinkler better

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tendulkar clearly has prostate issues. I reckon Pietersen can sprinkle better.

 

[vcs]

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.

Haha, apart from Trott, I believe England's batting lineup when they last toured India was identical to what they have now. And Ishant bowled very well in Chennai. A bit of a leap of faith if you ask me.

 

[jeevan]

The England home team that India played in 2007 was not that much worse than the one playing now - no weak links there either. From memory: Cook & Strauss did decent service, Vaughan, Pietersen were in form, Collingwood much better than right now, Bell was OK. Panesar was still getting SRT out, and him with Sidebottom, Anderson & Tremlett were a settled bowling unit.

And the Indian team playing now is better than the 2007 one except in the Bhajji for Kumble swap. Any one would take Sehwag, Gambhir over Jaffer, Karthik (thought they were quite servicable), Dravid, SRT, Laxman are all in much better form to make up for the #6. Zaheer and 2 bowlers in 2010 is about as good as Zaheer + 2 bowlers in 2007.

It may be that people are getting carried away by the improvement in England since 2009. But there was a tangible decline in England from 2007 to 2009 too.

 

[vcs]

Jaffer and Karthik did remarkably well for us in that series. Was a great team batting effort.

 

[vcs]

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

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

England have played 3 different attacks in 4 Tests and have bowled Australia out for 481, 245, 304, 268, 309, 98 and 258. That's a pretty huge argument for the respective strength of England's attack.

India recently won a series-tying Test in SL with a bowling "attack" of Ishant, Mithun, Ojha and Mishra, with Sehwag as our strike bowler. I'd like to see England win a Test in SL without Anderson and Swann. India have become fairly adept at this business of winning Test matches consistently even without things going in our favour, as our long run of tosses proves. Also tonked NZ by an innings and 200 runs recently in a deciding Test without Zaheer.

 

[M0rphin3]

The England home team that India played in 2007 was not that much worse than the one playing now - no weak links there either. From memory: Cook & Strauss did decent service, Vaughan, Pietersen were in form, Collingwood much better than right now, Bell was OK. Panesar was still getting SRT out, and him with Sidebottom, Anderson & Tremlett were a settled bowling unit.

And the Indian team playing now is better than the 2007 one except in the Bhajji for Kumble swap. Any one would take Sehwag, Gambhir over Jaffer, Karthik (thought they were quite servicable), Dravid, SRT, Laxman are all in much better form to make up for the #6. Zaheer and 2 bowlers in 2010 is about as good as Zaheer + 2 bowlers in 2007.

It may be that people are getting carried away by the improvement in England since 2009. But there was a tangible decline in England from 2007 to 2009 too.

Anderson has improved a lot after that series. And Swann>>Monty. Bell and Prior are in form. Though I see what you're getting at.

 

[GIMH]

W. Indies in 2009, with their new setup, Flower, Strauss as captain etc., Headingley 2009 against Australia, can be added to the list.

Fact is, as things currently stand, England have negative head-to-heads against India, SL, and SA (and have lost in WI) and they should first look to put things right when they play SL next year. This is clearly an improved team, but they haven't put up enough results just yet. Winning/drawing in Sydney to take the series would clearly be a big feather in their cap though.

C'mon Australia!

I don't think it's fair to include the Windies away series as the 'new setup'. Strauss and Flower were both in caretaker roles and everything was in disarray. When they got home they were both appointed permanently and it was then you could start to see a difference.

We've not lost a series since FTR

 

[vcs]

I don't think it's fair to include the Windies away series as the 'new setup'. Strauss and Flower were both in caretaker roles and everything was in disarray. When they got home they were both appointed permanently and it was then you could start to see a difference.

We've not lost a series since FTR

OK, I wasn't aware of that.