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

[GIMH]

I'll let you off this once then

 

[Protozoan]

2010:

Steyn: 11 Tests, 60 wickets @ 21.41, SR 39, 4 5w, 1 10w
Anderson: 12 Tests, 57 wickets @ 22.96, SR 48.7, 3 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 14 Tests, 64 wickets @ 25.96, SR 54, 6 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 10 Tests, 23 wickets @ 50.65, SR 120.3, 0 5w

Last 3 calendar years:

Steyn: 29 Tests, 156 wickets @ 22.36, SR 39.8, 9 5w, 2 10w
Anderson: 36 Tests, 143 wickets @ 28.23, SR 55, 7 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 28 Tests, 126 wickets @ 27.66, SR 56.8, 10 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 27 Tests, 73 wickets @ 42.57, SR 91.3, 2 5w

Steyn's ahead of Anderson, no doubt about that. But Swann is so much better than Harris the difference is laughable - this year he's literally been twice the bowler Harris has been. Anderson-Swann is a better pairing than Steyn-Harris, easily.

Was randomly wandering the internet till I saw this post, and your subsequent arguments.

I felt compelled to comment.

2010 Bowling Stats :
Steyn - 11 Matches , 60 Wickets, Average = 21.41 , SR = 39.0
Z Khan - 9 Matches, 47 Wickets, Average = 21.97, SR = 39.8
Amir - 7 Matches, 33 Wickets, Average = 22.33, SR = 45.7
Anderson - 12 Matches, 57 Wickets, Average = 22.96, SR = 48.7
Morkel - 11 Matches, 49 Wickets, Average = 24.06, SR = 47.4
Swann - 14 Matches, 64 Wickets, Average = 25.96, SR = 54.0

These are the bowling stats for this calendar year. Steyn had a shocker of a series in the UAE, the track was extremely unresponsive; his stats an average 46.3 and strike rate 83.0.

Without that series his numbers are incredible.
9 matches, 54 wickets, average 18.6, strike rate 34.1

Honestly, I'd take that and carry Harris over Swann and Anderson any day. IMHO, Anderson's lethality, creates synergy with the rest of the English attack. Steyn can win matches completely on his own, and with the lethality of Morkel is unstoppable. If RSA didn't have the quota system and could play 1 fast bowler instead of Tsotsobe, their pace attack would be completely unrivaled.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Hmm yeah but as I said before, I'm not saying they've had no weaknesses in the past - even the recent past - so I'm not too concerned about the results (Perth excepted I suppose - but even then I'd regard Steve Finn as a weakness; not that the rest would've been different). They've proven very little as they've barely played as a unit, so I'm not trying to claim them as a rightful #1 or anything like that, which is why I've been frustrated by people quoting results at me.

I was posting in a predictive sense, looking at their lineup and concluding that, overall, I think they'll do better than every other team in the near future. This isn't to say I'm tipping them for world domination because I'd still expect them to lose away to India for example and drop the odd Test overall, but I think the side, taking into account the recent personnel changes and improvements in the established players, is the best one going forward. Yes, they are going to lose Tests because they aren't perfect, but I think the way they've eliminated all the weak spots in the team, player-wise anyway, is going to put them in better stead than the rest.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that India don't deserve to be ranked #1; the only fair ranking system is one based on results over time. However, when I'm trying to predict what'll happen in the near future, I'm much more likely to look at the personnel than the rankings, particularly when I think teams have changed in such a way that their rankings are somewhat meaningless.

It's something people have failed to grasp throughout this entire thread - the difference between ranking teams on their results, where I'd put India first and daylight second, and ranking teams based on how you think they'll perform in the near future.

 

[superkingdave]

Haha Gough, what a ****ing idiot. I hope the French feel the same amount of embarrassment as I do over Ronnie Irani

 

[Protozoan]

Yeah you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that India don't deserve to be ranked #1; the only fair ranking system is one based on results over time. However, when I'm trying to predict what'll happen in the near future, I'm much more likely to look at the personnel than the rankings, particularly when I think teams have changed in such a way that their rankings are somewhat meaningless.

It's something people have failed to grasp throughout this entire thread - the difference between ranking teams on their results, where I'd put India first and daylight second, and ranking teams based on how you think they'll perform in the near future.

then all you're posting on, tbh, is weak subjective guesses based on little or no direct comparative evidence. The ranking system, albeit a completely flawed system, is possibly the only good arbiter of judging how well a team might do against another. If anything it provides some sort of numerical basis to make a judgment.

That said. India aren't a dominant No. 1. I agree with Ian C. on that. They need 1 more powerful and incisive strike bowler. IMHO RSA were the only real contenders. England are coming at this from rose colored glasses. People expected them to massively fail against Oz,and they did well. Taking nothing away, but the Australian attack, and even batting, isn't what it used to be.

 

[Prince EWS]

then all you're posting on, tbh, is weak subjective guesses based on little or no direct comparative evidence.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for finally getting my point.

It's obvious that India are the best team in the world based on recent results, and they fully deserve the title. That's a boring debate with a clear answer. Recent results aren't always a great indicator of near future results though for several reasons; I find actually putting forward my opinions of a team's overall makeup and making predictions on its near future based on that to be a much more interesting and stimulating cricketing debate than looking at the fixtures list and pointing out facts that someone who doesn't even watch cricket could look up.

 

[Protozoan]

Yes, exactly. Thank you for finally getting my point.

Considering that's my second post, I believe 'finally' is a little premature, tbh.

It's obvious that India are the best team in the world based on recent results, and they fully deserve the title. That's a boring debate with a clear answer. Recent results aren't always a great indicator of near future results though for several reasons; I find actually putting forward my opinions of a team's overall makeup and making predictions on its near future based on that to be a much more interesting and stimulating cricketing debate than looking at the fixtures list and pointing out facts that someone who doesn't even watch cricket could look up.

Well most of that is nonsense, tbh. Again with little or no comparative data, and basing 1 series as evidence, any extrapolation is bound to be fallacious. What's more 'interesting and stimulating' is reasoned conjecture--based on some sort of 'numerical' evidence. I guess that's too much to ask for. So we're left with the statement that 'the English attack has the fewest holes and is not mediocre' as the argument.

Brilliant.

 

[Teja.]

Morkel is a slightly better bowler than Anderson atm, IMHO. All credit to Anderson for having 2 murderous series' against Pak and B'desh but in the end against 2 real test-class batting line-ups, He averages 31 and 29. I honestly think he bowled his best in Oz in pitches which were not entirely shirtfronts and yet averages 29 which is above average but not extremely good or anything. Morkel on the other hand not only has had his brilliant series' against B'desh but also had awesome series' against WI, England and India(<25). So, IMHO, SA's opening bowlers are better than any England have. We're not doing terrible against SA atm. Swann will not be a very big factor against India, IMHO. He's quality and probs won't get hammered but there's only so much you can expect a spinner to do against India.

If we replace Ishant with Praveen Kumar, We'll start as slight favourites in England and substantial favourites in India considering how good Zaheer is in swinging conditions and his recently developed ability to attain reverse consistently. Harbhajan seems to be retaining his form against SA and I hope he'll be the Harby of old against England.

Gough's comments are OTT though, would have been so even if they were in India's favour.

 

[marc71178]

Over-hyping the team's ability, the moment a little bit of success comes their way, is a typically British thing to do. As always, i don't expect England to keep this form up.

As in 2005 this isn't just one little bit of success, it's come off the back of a good run of results in the past 18 months. The difference now is that whereas by 2005 the team had peaked and was arguably beginning to drop off again, this side is continually improving.

To beat the Aussies when they are arguably at an all time low (losing a test to pakistan and getting wiped clean in India etc..) England had to go through a preparation that would not have been out of place in Rocky. They landed in Australia nearly a month ahead.

That's called professionalism, instilled by having the right men at the top deciding such things.

Unfortunately, you don't get to do that in international Cricket all the time. India had to go in and defend number 1 position in South Africa with no practice tour match and 1 week of acclimatisation.

No, they did not HAVE to do that, the BCCI are the one's who decided they would do that with scheduling ODIs in the time period immediately prior to the series. Added in is the fact that a large number of them had more than a week in SA.

English cricketers are prima donnas with very little tolerance for the hardwork that is required to be number 1 in world cricket for long. SA, Sri Lanka, India and Aus have better chance of becoming a dominant team like Waugh's Australia team was....but there is still a long way to go for these teams to get there.

Who exactly are these prima donnas with very little tolerance for hard work? Are they the same ones who went away to Germany on the "boot camp" and then put in a lot of effort prior to the Ashes (ie the very definition of hard work)

As for the other 4 sides you mention:

SA - currently on the downturn (1 series win in the last 5)
SL - without Murali will take a while to regroup (and still need to show better away form IMO). In addition a lot of their side are ageing (although the relatively light schedule they have had may help prolong some of their careers.
India - still lacking 2 thirds of a pace trio IMO (which becomes worse when Zaheer misses games through injury). In addition the batting stronghold is getting to the veteran stage and there is no guarantee that that replacements will be as good (in fact I would say that is incredibly unlikely to be the case)
Australia - has a lot of potentially good players, and indeed have been hit by a lot of their players being out of form at the same time, but until they get a truly great side again I think they may well suffer from being compared to the McWarne era side, and those comparisons will always be negative (and additionally will only heap further pressure on the side to perform)

I don't think any team foor a long time will become so dominant as we've seen recently (surely the fact that in well over 100 years of Test cricket there's only been 2 such sides suggests it's very unlikely) - but I see nothing from the current England side to suggest they can't be the best side over the next few years.

I don't think any country has the right to claim undisputed number 1 at this point, but to call the current number 1 as easy opponents is pushing it. Let's face it England beat a team that is below them in the ranking.....there is nothing to crow about.

So I trust that if India win in SA there will no crowing from you then? Let's face it, they're ranked below you.

Anyway the gauntlet has been thrown down and lets see what India can do about this....

Indeed, set nicely for 2011 IMO - promises to be a top series if everyone is fit and on form, that will be the key for me.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I wouldnt be suprised if England do beat India at home next year but 'everday of the week' is a bit of an exaggeration

 

[marc71178]

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

As per my signature: we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

 

[Jarquis]

It's laughable the number of people who predicted that Swann or Broad would be our leading wicket taker.

Think you're being slightly unfair bagging him for his series average thus far though. Australia is a ****ing tough place to go and bowl spin.

He could still go close with Sydney left to play.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I wouldnt be suprised if England do beat India at home next year but 'everday of the week' is a bit of an exaggeration

I think most sane people would agree with that, just too many people on here getting excited over a stupid comment.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

I disagree. If you compare 2 teams you compare 2 teams as best you can. For me, if thet can't be split then they can't be split. Don't go dragging up a series played by a completely different set of players playing under the same name.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

So yeah, Bell at 3? And Flintoff at 6?
Effectively Trott in for Flintoff is a huge improvement. bell is a much better batsman nowadays, as is Cook and arguable Strauss.
They had good series last time anyway. It's not like we can't play in India.

 

[Cevno]

WOW!!!

26 Pages in one day.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that India don't deserve to be ranked #1; the only fair ranking system is one based on results over time. However, when I'm trying to predict what'll happen in the near future, I'm much more likely to look at the personnel than the rankings, particularly when I think teams have changed in such a way that their rankings are somewhat meaningless.

It's something people have failed to grasp throughout this entire thread - the difference between ranking teams on their results, where I'd put India first and daylight second, and ranking teams based on how you think they'll perform in the near future.

wot. I think India is a clear #1 currently, but daylight second doesn't read right.

 

[Black_Warrior]

WOW!!!

26 Pages in one day.

Too many of you lot on this forum..

 

[Prince EWS]

wot. I think India is a clear #1 currently, but daylight second doesn't read right.

Nah I think it's pretty clear. South Africa's immediate results have been dire.

I don't think India have the best team at the moment as such but their results in the short to medium term past make them conclusively deserving of the #1 title. That is completely undeniable, IMO; it's not even close. They haven't been a dominant #1 but their results have been clearly better than the others.